DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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? 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 (Ursus arctos) conservationzone by replacingsheep with cattle. We interviewedcattle farmersand veterinariansand investigatedlivestock and depredationstatistics from governmentalland-use and wildlife management in HedmarkCounty, south-easternNorway. This county bordersa reproducingbrown bearpopulation in Sweden and alreadycontains several residentmale brown bears. A brown bear 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 farmers than among veterinariansor managers.We found little supportfor the allegation that cattle become more difficultto control in the presenceof brown bears. Regardingbrown bear predation,we consider cattle a good alternativeto sheep in Norway. In southeasternNorway, however, the expected ex- pansion of the brown bear reproductionarea and an increasingwolf (Canis lupus) populationmakes this assertion less certain. We stress the need for researchon the predatorybehavior of large male brown bears and wolves, 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, wolf, 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- Scandinavia,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 [Lynx established5 bear conservationzones along the Swedish lynx], and wolverines [Gulo gulo]) became reduced or 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 forests 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. Moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreolus countries(Kaczensky 1996). capreolus), and red deer (Cervus elaphus), as well as In Norway, large carnivore-livestock conflicts have wild reindeer(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 sheep farming 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 grazing 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 forest. 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, agriculture 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. rangelands,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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wildlife; Threatened and Endangered Species
    2009 SNF Monitoring and Evaluation Report Wildlife; Threatened and Endangered Species Introduction The data described in this report outlines the history, actions, procedures, and direction that the Superior National Forest (aka the Forest or SNF) has implemented in support of the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan and Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS). The Forest contributes towards the conservation and recovery of the two federally listed threatened and endangered species: Canada lynx and gray wolf, through habitat and access management practices, collaboration with other federal and state agencies, as well as researchers, tribal bands and non-governmental partners. Canada lynx On 24 March 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the Canada lynx a “Threatened” species in the lower 48 states. From 2004-2009 the main sources of information about Canada lynx for the SNF included the following: • Since 2003 the Canada lynx study has been investigating key questions needed to contribute to the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx in the Western Great Lakes. Study methods are described in detail in the annual study progress report available online at the following address: http://www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/ . These methods have included collecting information on distribution, snow tracking lynx, tracking on the ground and in the air radio-collared lynx, studying habitat use, collecting and analyzing genetic samples (for example, from hair or scat) and conducting pellet counts of snowshoe hare (the primary prey). • In 2006 permanent snow tracking routes were established across the Forest. The main objective is to maintain a standardized, repeatable survey to monitor lynx population indices and trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Lynx – Your Essential Brief
    Eurasian lynx – Your essential brief Background Q: Are lynx native to Britain? A: Based on archaeological evidence, the range of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) included Britain until at least 1,300 years ago. It is difficult to be precise about when or why lynx became extinct here, but it was almost certainly related to human activity – deforestation removed their preferred habitat, and also that of their prey, thus reducing prey availability. These declines in prey species may have been exacerbated by human hunting. Q: Where do they live now? A: Across Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, northern China and Southeast Asia. The range used to include other areas of Western Europe, including Britain, where they are no longer present. Q: How many are there? A: There are thought to be around 50,000 in the world, of which 9,000 – 10,000 live in Europe. They are considered to be a species of least concern by the IUCN. Modern range of the Eurasian lynx Q: How big are they? A: Lynx are on average around 1m in length, 75cm tall and around 20kg, with the males being slightly larger than the females. They can live to 15 years old, but this is rare in the wild. Q: What do they eat? A: The preferred prey of the lynx are the smaller deer species, primarily the roe deer. Lynx may also prey upon other deer species, including chamois, sika deer, smaller red deer, muntjac and fallow deer. Q: Do they eat other things? A: Yes. Lynx prey on many other species when their preferred prey is scarce, including rabbits, hares, foxes, wildcats, squirrel, pine marten, domestic pets, sheep, goats and reared gamebirds.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Large Carnivores in Serbia
    Status of large carnivores in Serbia Duško Ćirović Faculty of Biology University of Belgrade, Belgrade Status and threats of large carnivores in Serbia LC have differend distribution, status and population trends Gray wolf Eurasian Linx Brown Bear (Canis lupus) (Lynx lynx ) (Ursus arctos) Distribution of Brown Bear in Serbia Carpathian Dinaric-Pindos East Balkan Population status of Brown Bear in Serbia Dinaric-Pindos: Distribution 10000 km2 N=100-120 Population increase Range expansion Carpathian East Balkan: Distribution 1400 km2 Dinaric-Pindos N= a few East Balkan Population trend: unknown Carpathian: Distribution 8200 km2 N=8±2 Population stable Legal status of Brown Bear in Serbia According Law on Protection of Nature and the Law on Game and Hunting brown bear in Serbia is strictly protected species. He is under the centralized jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environmental Protection Treats of Brown Bear in Serbia Intensive forestry practice and infrastructure development . Illegal killing Low acceptance due to fear for personal safety Distribution of Gray wolf in Serbia Carpathian Dinaric-Pindos East Balkan Population status of Gray wolf in Serbia Dinaric-Balkan: 2 Carpathian Distribution cca 43500 km N=800-900 Population - stabile/slight increasingly Dinaric Range - slight expansion Carpathian: Distribution 480 km2 (was) Population – a few Population status of Gray wolf in Serbia Carpathian population is still undefined Carpathian Peri-Carpathian Legal status of Gray wolf in Serbia According the Law on Game and Hunting the gray wolf in majority pars of its distribution (south from Sava and Danube rivers) is game species with closing season from April 15th to July 1st.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries
    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs
    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Bear Ecology Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems a Guide for Grade 7 Teachers
    BEAR WISE Black Bear Ecology Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems A Guide for Grade 7 Teachers Ministry of Natural Resources BEAR WISE Introduction Welcome to Black Bear Ecology, Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems, a Guide for Grade 7 Teachers. With a focus on the fascinating world of black bears, this program provides teachers with a classroom ready resource. Linked to the current Science and Technology curriculum (Life Systems strand), the Black Bear Ecology Guide for teachers includes: I background readings on habitats, ecosystems and the species within; food chains and food webs; ecosystem change; black bear habitat needs and ecology and bear-human interactions; I unit at a glance; I four lesson plans and suggested activities; I resources including a glossary; list of books and web sites and information sheets about black bears. At the back of this booklet, you will find a compact disk. It includes in Portable Document Format (PDF) the English and French versions of this Grade 7 unit; the Grades 2 and 4 units; the information sheets and the Are You Bear Wise? eBook (2005). This program aims to generate awareness about black bears – their biological needs; their behaviour and how human action influences bears. It is an initiative of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. BEAR WISE Acknowledgements The Ministry of Natural Resources would like to thank the following people for their help in developing the Black Bear Ecology Education Program. This education program would not have been possible without their contributions
    [Show full text]
  • Heraldic Terms
    HERALDIC TERMS The following terms, and their definitions, are used in heraldry. Some terms and practices were used in period real-world heraldry only. Some terms and practices are used in modern real-world heraldry only. Other terms and practices are used in SCA heraldry only. Most are used in both real-world and SCA heraldry. All are presented here as an aid to heraldic research and education. A LA CUISSE, A LA QUISE - at the thigh ABAISED, ABAISSÉ, ABASED - a charge or element depicted lower than its normal position ABATEMENTS - marks of disgrace placed on the shield of an offender of the law. There are extreme few records of such being employed, and then only noted in rolls. (As who would display their device if it had an abatement on it?) ABISME - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ABOUTÉ - end to end ABOVE - an ambiguous term which should be avoided in blazon. Generally, two charges one of which is above the other on the field can be blazoned better as "in pale an X and a Y" or "an A and in chief a B". See atop, ensigned. ABYSS - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ACCOLLÉ - (1) two shields side-by-side, sometimes united by their bottom tips overlapping or being connected to each other by their sides; (2) an animal with a crown, collar or other item around its neck; (3) keys, weapons or other implements placed saltirewise behind the shield in a heraldic display.
    [Show full text]
  • Prey Density, Environmental Productivity and Home-Range Size in the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx Lynx)
    J. Zool., Lond. (2005) 265, 63–71 C 2005 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom DOI:10.1017/S0952836904006053 Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) Ivar Herfindal1, John D. C. Linnell2*, John Odden2, Erlend Birkeland Nilsen1 and Reidar Andersen1,2 1 Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway 2 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway (Accepted 19 May 2004) Abstract Variation in size of home range is among the most important parameters required for effective conservation and management of a species. However, the fact that home ranges can vary widely within a species makes data transfer between study areas difficult. Home ranges of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx vary by a factor of 10 between different study areas in Europe. This study aims to try and explain this variation in terms of readily available indices of prey density and environmental productivity. On an individual scale we related the sizes of 52 home ranges, derived from 23 (9:14 male:female) individual resident lynx obtained from south-eastern Norway, with an index of density of roe deer Capreolus capreolus. This index was obtained from the density of harvested roe deer within the municipalities covered by the lynx home ranges. We found a significant negative relationship between harvest density and home- range size for both sexes. On a European level we related the sizes of 111 lynx (48:63 male: female) from 10 study sites to estimates derived from remote sensing of environmental productivity and seasonality.
    [Show full text]
  • Lynx, Felis Lynx, Predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes Vulpes, Caribou
    Lynx, Fe/is lynx, predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, and Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, in Alaska ROBERT 0. STEPHENSON, 1 DANIEL V. GRANGAARD,2 and JOHN BURCH3 1Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701 2Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 305, Tok, Alaska 99780 JNational Park Service, P.O. Box 9, Denali National Park, Alaska 99755 Stephenson, Robert 0., Daniel Y. Grangaard, and John Burch. 1991. Lynx, Fe/is lynx, predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, and Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, in Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105(2): 255- 262. Observations of Canada Lynx (Fe/is lynx) predation on Red Foxes ( Vulpes vulpes) and medium-sized ungulates during winter are reviewed. Characteristics of I 3 successful attacks on Red Foxes and 16 cases of predation on Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli) suggest that Lynx are capable of killing even adults of these species, with foxes being killed most easily. The occurrence of Lynx predation on these relatively large prey appears to be greatest when Snowshoe Hares (Lepus americanus) are scarce. Key Words: Canada Lynx, Fe/is lynx, Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, predation, Alaska. Although the European Lynx (Felis lynx lynx) quently reach 25° C in summer and -10 to -40° C in regularly kills large prey (Haglund 1966; Pullianen winter. Snow depths are generally below 80 cm, 1981), the Canada Lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) and snow usually remains loosely packed except at relies largely on small game, primarily Snowshoe high elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes
    For Private Circulation The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes BY A. POLSON, F.S.A., Scot. H./v . 4/^. )12f Ht 4^ J ^X^ ^ m^-t JfiUum,— The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes. This is not a paper on Heraldry, but only a small collec- tion of legends regarding the incidents which are said to account for the crests and mottoes of some of the Highland clans. It is hoped that the recital of these may induce some of the members of the clans not mentioned here to tell any story they may have heard regarding their crests, so that fellow clansmen may take a deeper interest in all that pertains to the crest which many of them so proudly wear. The innate vanity which has prompted men of all races and ages to don ornaments and decorations must, among other things, be held responsible for the armorial bearings which have been, and are, worn by individuals, families, and communities, all of whom seem peculiarly sensitive as to the right of any other to impinge on their privilege of wearing the peculiar design chosen by themselves or an ancestor. Heraldry is not itself an old science, but the desire for some distinguishing ornament accounts, among savages, for the painted designs their bodies and on their shields and on ; men bearing similar designs were, and are, regarded as brethren. There is ample evidence of the antiquity of these emblems. One wonders whether Jacob in blessing his sons had in mind the emblems of the tribes when he said: " Judah is a lion's whelp.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status of the Eurasian Lynx. Cat News. (2016)
    ISSN 1027-2992 I Special Issue I N° 10 | Autumn 2016 CatsCAT in Iran news 02 CATnews is the newsletter of the Cat Specialist Group, a component Editors: Christine & Urs Breitenmoser of the Species Survival Commission SSC of the International Union Co-chairs IUCN/SSC for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is published twice a year, and is Cat Specialist Group available to members and the Friends of the Cat Group. KORA, Thunstrasse 31, 3074 Muri, Switzerland For joining the Friends of the Cat Group please contact Tel ++41(31) 951 90 20 Christine Breitenmoser at [email protected] Fax ++41(31) 951 90 40 <[email protected]> Original contributions and short notes about wild cats are welcome Send <[email protected]> contributions and observations to [email protected]. Guidelines for authors are available at www.catsg.org/catnews Cover Photo: From top left to bottom right: Caspian tiger (K. Rudloff) This Special Issue of CATnews has been produced with support Asiatic lion (P. Meier) from the Wild Cat Club and Zoo Leipzig. Asiatic cheetah (ICS/DoE/CACP/ Panthera) Design: barbara surber, werk’sdesign gmbh caracal (M. Eslami Dehkordi) Layout: Christine Breitenmoser & Tabea Lanz Eurasian lynx (F. Heidari) Print: Stämpfli Publikationen AG, Bern, Switzerland Pallas’s cat (F. Esfandiari) Persian leopard (S. B. Mousavi) ISSN 1027-2992 © IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group Asiatic wildcat (S. B. Mousavi) sand cat (M. R. Besmeli) jungle cat (B. Farahanchi) The designation of the geographical entities in this publication, and the representation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]