DAMAGESATTRIBUTED TO THE BROWNBEAR IN SPAIN:THE CASE OF ASTURIAS
JOSE F. GARCIA-GAONA,Servicio de Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, Consejeria de Agricultura, Principado de Asturias, E- 33071-Oviedo, Spain
Abstract: An annual average of 77 claims for damages allegedly caused by brown bears (Ursus arctos) totaling 7,159,229 pesetas ($71,592 US) were reportedin the 2 year period of 1989-90 in Spain. Of these claims, 97% were from the CantabrianMountains and 3% were from the Pyrenees,reflecting the differentsizes of the 2 bear populations.Analysis of the 1,035 claims in Asturias(Cantabrian Mountains, northwest Spain) between 1973 and 1990 revealed more claims concerning cattle and horses than other livestock. Damage complaints peaked in September. Besides the local availabilityof anthropicfood resources,interannual variations in the spacial distributionof claims appearto be due to particular and local bear populationtrends. These trendsshould be closely monitoredbecause of the degree of threatto these populations. The bear recovery plans in Spain should consider compensatingfor damages caused by this species, as well as the damage problemcaused by wolves (Canis lupus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) because they indirectly affect brown bear conservation.
Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2):97-105
Key words: Asturias,brown bear, CantabrianMountains, damages, Spain, Ursus arctos.
The brown bear is present in 2 Spanish mountain issue was studied by Camarra (1986) and Chaumiel ranges: the Cantabrian Mountains and the Pyrenees. (1989) in the Western French Pyrenees and by Del In the first, with an area of about 5,000 km2, there are Campo et al. (1986) in the Cantabrian Mountains. an estimated 100 bears (Del Campo et al. 1984). The Additional information can be found in Notario (1964, second area covers Spanish and French territory and 1980), Clevenger and Purroy (1988), Del Campo includes about 10 individuals (Camarra 1990, Alonso (1989), Berducou (1990), and Purroy (1991). et al. In Press), mainly on the French side of the bor- I update and detail the extent of damages attributed der (Fig. 1). to bears in Spain, particularly in the Asturian Autono- Human activity is quite high in both ranges. Bears mous Community (Figs. 1 and 2) in the Cantabrian damage both agriculturalproducts and livestock. This Mountains, Northwest Spain. I also estimate the re-
Fig. 1. Location of bear populations in Spain. The 2 larger areas are in the Cantabrian Mountains; the 2 smaller ranges are in the Pyrenees. 98 Int. Conf Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997
Fig. 2. Brown bear range (Del Campo et al. 1989) and distribution of damage claims attributedto brown bears in Asturias, Spain, 1973-90. percussions of this damage in the context of current when evaluating claims, and the difficulty of deciding recovery plans for the species. whethera given animalwas killed or eaten by bears, seri- ously limit the value of these data. Due to these limitations, only general or extremely METHODS obvious conclusions are available,and I prefer to speak Compensationfor damages caused by bears has been of attributedrather than directly caused bear damages. standardpractice in Spain since the 1970s, and all dam- Consequently,the analyses have been made using very ages were, in theory at least, covered. Two sources of simple statisticalmethods, such as averages,proportional informationwere used for this study. To providean over- distributions,and correlationcoefficients. Using the data all view of the topic in Spain, very general information from Asturias,locations of damages were mapped on a was collected on bear damage for 1989 and 1990, using UTM grid of 5 x 5 km squares. Based on this map, the surveys within the AdministrativeServices in charge of grouping of damages was defined as the unit of claims wildlife management. Detailed informationcontained in for the same products,in the same square,caused over a the 1,035 compensationproceedings approved from 1973 period of no more than fifteen days. to 1990 was used for the specific case of Asturias. Compensationproceedings for damages attributedto bearsdo not necessarilyreflect actualdamage caused by RESULTS the species. Damage claims are inspectedin the field by Rangers,who often must make decisions based on expe- Damages Attributedto Bears in Spain rience or circumstantialevidence, such as tracksor scats. In the 2 year period of 1989-1990, an annualaverage Errorscommitted by inspection personnel, subjectivity of only 1 claim and 210,000 pesetas (pts) ($2,100 US) DAMAGESBY THEBROWN BEAR IN SPAIN * Garcia-Gaona 99
Table1. Compensationpayment claims for damagesby brownbears in Spain,1989-90.
1989 1990 Average
Area NCa AMb NC AM NC AM
Cataluiia - -
Aragon 2 420,000 - - 1 210,000
Navarra - - -
Total Pyrenees 2 420,000 - - 1 210,000
Cantabria
Castilla y Leon 27 3,129,500 17 2,451,500 22 2,790,500
Asturias 44 3,904,889 64 4,412,570 54 4,158,729
Galicia - - - - -
Total Cantabrian Mountains 71 7,034,389 81 6,864,070 76 6,949,229
Total Spain 73 7,454,389 81 6,864,070 77 7,159,229 a NC= Number of claims. b AM= Amount of money in pesetas (100 pesetas = $1 US). was paid in the Pyrenees, while 76 claims and 6,949,229 The distributionof alleged damagesvary greatly from pts ($69,429 US) were paid in the CantabrianMountains one grid square to another (Fig 2). No significant de- (Table 1). The natureof productsdamaged was different crease (r = -0.098633) in the numberof grid squaresre- between the 2 areas(Table 2). In the Pyrenees,the claims portingbrown bear damage was observed over the years always involved sheep, while in the CantabrianRange (Table3). the spectrumwas much wider and included cows, sheep, However,certain changes in spatialdistribution of dam- goats, horses andbeehives as well as grassand fruit crops. ages were noted (Fig. 3). Aggregatedamage claims from 1973 to 1975 and 1988 to 1990 show a decrease in dam- Damages AttributedTo Bears In Asturias age claims in the Somiedo-Courioarea, an increase of Of the 1,035 damage claims attributed to bears in alleged damages in the Proaza area, and a decrease in Asturiasbetween 1973 and 1990 yearly totals rangefrom both the numberof damage claims and damage-related 79 in 1975 to 37 in 1979, with an averageof 57.5 (Table quadrantsin the Lena area. Most of the damage to agri- 3). No significantregression was observedover the years culture and livestock combined occurred between the (r = -0.167727).
Table 2. Percent of claims by damage type in Spain, 1989-90 for brown bear damage.
Livestocka Agricultureb
Area S G C H B N F CR O
Pyrenees 100 ------
Cantabrian Mountains 3 11 35.6 23 6.6 10 5.4 4.7 0.7 a S= Sheep, G= Goats, C=Cattle, H= Horses. b B= Beehives, N= Nuts, F= Fruits,CR= Crops, O= Others. 100 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997
Table 3. Claimsfor damages by brownbears in Asturias ably due to the large difference between the size of the 1973-90. (NorthwesternSpain), 2 bear populations. The distributionof alleged damages in Asturias, al- Year NCa NSb NGc though highly variablefrom one grid squareto another, generallyreflect the distributionof the brownbear in the 1973 43 18 33 region as reportedby Del Campo et al. (1984; Fig. 2). 1974 66 29 53 the Cantabrian is 1975 79 31 36 Although population diminishing 1976 63 23 40 (Institutopara la Conservaci6nde la NaturalezaICONA 1977 62 23 46 1986, Naves andPalomero 1989), no significantdecrease 1978 75 32 55 in the numberof claims or in the numberof grid squares 1979 37 19 31 has been observedover the in Asturias. Theredoes 1980 56 24 48 years 1981 46 22 28 not seem to be a relationshipbetween bear population 1982 57 31 43 density and reportednumber of damage claims at the re- 1983 55 23 41 gional level (Del Campo et al. 1984). 1984 62 27 50 the above nonetheless reflect 1985 55 20 25 However, changes may 1986 55 24 42 certainlocal trends. For example,the easternlimit of the 1987 46 22 35 Lena area is markedby PajaresPass, which is also the 1988 70 26 52 distributionlimit for the western Cantabrianbrown bear 1989 44 22 31 Pass is the main communica- 1990 64 26 48 population(Fig. 3). Pajares tion link between Asturias and inland Spain, and this is a NC= Number of claims. where the split between the 2 currentbear populations b where claims were NS= Numberof UTM 25 km2 grids damage probablytook place during the first half of this century situated. c (Nores 1988). These may have become even NG= Number of grouping of damages. populations more isolated in recent years due to the improvementof months of August and October,with a small peak in Sep- the main road over the Pass and construction of a tember(Fig. 4). Alleged damageto livestock was highest motorway. in Asturiasfrom May to September. Conversely,the re-establishmentof bearsin the Proaza The types of damagesattributed to bearshave changed areais a relativelyrecent phenomenon, having taken place over the years (Fig. 5). The importanceof cattle losses since 1950 (Naves and Palomero 1989). Reproduction since has generallyincreased, while cropdamage has decreased. from this area has been recordedregularly 1988, more In the 18 yearsexamined, of the total 1,035 damageclaims indicatinga populationincrease and thus reported considered,66% affecteddomestic animals,beehives ac- damages. countedfor 11.4%and 22.6% includeddamages to crops The natureof productsallegedly damagedby bears in (Table4). the Spanish Pyrenees coincides with that collected by Horses were the animalsreported most often taken by Camarra (1986) and Berducou (1990) in the French bears and were taken over a wide geographical area. Pyrenees. Bear predationon sheep was also reportedin Poland Bul- Depredationclaims on horses were reportedin 54 grid Norway (Elgmork 1982), (Jakubiec 1990), and Czechoslovakia squares. Damages to cattle, in termsof numberof claims garia (Spiridinov Spassov 1990), the Urals filed and distribution(57 grid squares), are also impor- (Hell 1990), the ItalianAbruzzi (Zunino 1986), Idaho and tant. Othertypes of damages(to sheep and goats, various (Sharafutdinovand Korotkov1976), (Johnson andJudd The crops, etc.) were generally less important and often Griffel 1982) andWyoming(Knight 1983). Mountainsis more similarto showedvery localizedand sometimes highly concentrated situationin the Cantabrian where cows are more of- geographicaldistributions (i.e., 57% of damagesto hazel Bosnia-Herzegovina, reported bushes took place within a single grid square). ten as targetsof damage (Rapaic 1979). Even considering the different lengths of time, there appearsto be a small contradictionbetween the general DISCUSSION situationof the CantabrianMountains andAsturias, where the animalmost includedin the claims. Damage values paid by Spain are similar to those of horses are damage that some of these claims were due other European countries (Table 5). Differences be- It is possible damage is the fact that tween the Pyreneanand the Cantabrianclaims are prob- to wolves. This hypothesis supportedby DAMAGESBY THE BROWN BEAR IN SPAIN * Garc?a-Gaona 101
25.4% of these claims are concentratedin 1 grid square, Braiia et al. (1982) found that damages attributed to in the areaknown as El Courio,where damageby wolves wolves, which in this areawere subjectto compensation, was not compensated until 1991. In adjacent Somiedo, showed a clear bias towardhorses. On the contrary,all
C Somiedo-Courioarea ~ Proazaarea Lenaarea
Fig. 3. Distributionof claims for damages attributed to brown bears in Asturias, Spain, in 1973-75 and 1988-90. 102 Int. Conf Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997
N? CLAIMS
150
FRUITS NUTS 100 CROPS
;:;:::; BEEHIVES i CATTLE X - HORSES 50 GOATS SHEEP
0 I III IV V VI VIIVIII IX X XI Xll MONTH
Fig.4. Monthlydistribution of claimsfor damageby brownbears in Asturias, Spain, 1973-90. analysesof damagesattributed to wolves in the Cantabrian also come into play. Some authors (Del Campo et al. Mountains (Brafia et al. 1982, Fernandez et al. 1990, 1986, Spiridinov and Spassov 1990) have reportedthe Garcia-Gaonaet al. 1990) showed a very clear dispro- alleged existence of bears with markedlyindividual be- portionbetween the low amountof reporteddamage and havior, to the extent that people talked of honey bears, the number of cattle, which are the main livestock in butcherbears, etc. Existence of such animals cannot be this zone. establishedby data collected in this paper. Databy Osti (1991) for theTrentino area, in Italy,where Nonetheless, depredationsby particularbears were in- beehivesare selected, by Bjarvall(1990) for Sweden and dicated by a tendency towardthe formationof grouping by Nyholm (1990) for Finland,where reindeer are mainly of damages. It is suggested thatindividual bears, for dif- affected,together with differences observed from 1 area ferentreasons, may have had easier access to a particular or seasonto anotherwithin the same mountainrange, lead type of resource. Purroy(1991) foundthat a radiomarked us to believe that the main reason for these differencesis bear in the CantabrianMountains damaged a series of variationsin food availability. This appearsto be rein- beehives in a short time, even though no other incidents forced by the changes in the damage claims typology of this type of attackwere recordedin the 3 yearsof study. observedover the years inAsturias,where decreased dam- Regardingthe seasons of damage, the existence of a ages to corn and alfalfa are a resultof the neardisappear- largernumber of claims in Asturiasat the end of summer ance of these crops in the CantabrianMountains. and the beginning of fall may be due to human-related However,other causes such as culturalpractices and resources being more abundantand varied at that time. behavioraldifferences between individualbears probably The markeddecrease in claims in winter results from a DAMAGESBY THE BROWN BEAR IN SPAIN * Garcia-Gaona 103
100 % FRUITS NUTS _.__ 75 % CROPS BEEHIVES50% CATTLE HORSES I 25 % -^: GOATS I SHEEP 0% 1I - I 19 19I 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990
Fig. 5. Percent distribution by years of types of claims for damage by brown bears in Asturias, Spain, 1973-90. lack of human-suppliedresources and bear hibernation, According to Del Campo et al. (1986) the deficiency which in the CantabrianMountains takes place between in the indemnity system for damages to agricultureand December and April (Notario 1964, Clevenger 1991a). livestock was one of the most importantthreats to the Variationsin the durationand chronology of bear pres- survivalof the bear populationin the CantabrianMoun- ence in the den and variationsin the degree of hiberna- tains, which was alreadyconsidered endangered (ICONA tion of individual bears, in relation to environmental 1986). In similar environmentsit is generally believed characteristicsof the years involved, could explain why that a lack of compensation for damages, the bureau- some damages were reportedduring the winter months. cratic difficulties related to processing claims, and the In the French Pyrenees, a peak in depredationclaims insuffiency of payments to cover the real value of the was recordedinAugust and September.Chaumeil (1989) damagedproperty, contribute to a hostile attitudetoward attributedthis to increased feeding by bears prior to hi- bears by local people (Mertzaniz 1990, Huber 1990, bernation;further, at that time of year, sheep were the Schevchenko 1990). In contrast,the correct compensa- most numerousand least protected. tion of damages has a positive influence on bear conser- Similarly,in Asturias the peaks of damage claims to vation (Jakubiec 1990). livestock in May andAugust are believed to be relatedto Following legal approvalof the recoveryplans for this foaling time and the increased number of cattle in this species at the end of the 1980s, the Administrationbegan mountainarea. This distributioncoincides with the bears' to correct the main problems of the damage compensa- feeding patternin the CantabrianRange as foundby Brafia tion system. Improvementsincluded simplifying bureau- et al. (1988) and Clevenger (1991b). These authorsre- cratic procedures, reducing the length of time of porteda highercontent of animalmatter in the bear'sdiet compensation payments to 1 month instead of the 9 in springand summerthan the rest of the year. Spiridinov months reportedby Del Campo et al. (1986), evaluating and Spassov (1990) reportedthat bear attacks on cattle damage claims in accordance with market prices, and are more intense in spring than in other seasons in Bul- providingan additionalpayment of 20% as an incentive garia, and that peak losses were in June. These authors towardbear preservation. cited the absence of plant food during that period as the These measuresappear to have had an immediateben- explanation. efit. Dissatisfaction with compensationpolicies as the 104 Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(2) 1997
Table 4. Claims for brown damage by bears in Asturias, flicts. The low number of damage incidents in the Spain, 1973-90, by damage type. CantabrianMountains (hardly 1 damage/yearper bear), togetherwith the main type of damage(cows and horses) of NCa Type damage % and the extensive managementof livestock, does not al- Livestock 681 65.8 low for measuresto be adoptedto furtherdecrease dam- sheep 74 7.1 ages significantly. Therefore,emphasis should be put on goats 113 11.0 maintainingan integratedindemnity policy in the recov- cattle 195 18.8 Such a would attitude horses 299 28.9 ery plans. policy improve public towardsmaintaining bear populations. Additionally,the Beehives 118 11.4 recovery plans should consider the problem of damages caused by wolves and wild boars, which could influence Agriculture 233 22.5 the conservationof bears. nuts 100 9.7 fruits 29 2.8 crops 104 10.0 LITERATURECITED Others 3 0.3 ALONSO,M., A. PANDO,AND L.X. TOLDRA. In Press. El oso pardoen Catalufa. In J. Naves and G. Palomeroed. El oso Total 1,035 100.0 pardo(Ursus arctos) en Espaia. ColeccionTecnica.Instituto a NC= Number of claims. parala Conservaci6nde la Naturaleza. Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.) BERDUCOU,C. 1990. Les roles de l'Office Nationalde la Chasse main cause for bear in the CantabrianMoun- poaching et des organisationscynegetiques en faveurde la protection tains was subsequentlyrejected by Naves and Palomero de l'Ours brun. Bulletin Mehnsuel de l'Office National de (1989) and Purroy (1991). However, these authorsbe- la chassee. (In French.) lieve that deficient compensationfor damages caused by BJARVALL,A. 1990. The brown bear in Sweden. Aquilo Ser. other species, in particularwolves and wild boars, is one Zool. 27:17-19. of the reasons for the illegal use of poisoned baits and BRANA,F, J.C. DELCAMPO, AND G. PALOMERO.1982. Le loup au versantnord de la Cordillere Acta steel trapswhich have been documentedcausing several Cantabrique. Biologica Serie bear deaths. Montana, DocumentsdeTravail. 1:33-52. (In French.) , J. NAVES,AND G. PALOMERO.1988. Habitosalimenticios y configuracionde la dieta del oso pardo en la Cordillera Cantabrica.Acta Biologica Montana,Serie Documents de MANAGEMENTIMPLICATIONS Travail. 2:27-38. (In Spanish.) Collection of informationon damagescaused by bears CAMARRA,J.J. 1986. Changes in brown bear predation on can help identify local decreases in bear activity, which livestockin the westernFrench Pyrenees from 1968 to 1979. is essential for threatenedpopulations. In these popula- Int. Conf. Bear Res and Manage. 6:183-186. tions it is also importantto minimize bear-humancon- 1990. L'oursdans les Pyrenees:Suivi de la population de 1979 a 1988. Bulletin Mensuel de l'Office Nationalde la Chasse. 142:18-22. (In French.) D. 1989. L'ours brun arctos, dans les Table 5. Annual damages by brown bears in Europe. CHAUMEIL, (Ursus L) Pyrenes Occidentales:Evolution de la population,predation surle betail, ecoethologie. RapportIntere du ParcNational Bear des pyrenees,Tarbes, France. 190pp. (In French.) population CLEVENGER,A.P. 199la. Ecologia invernal. Pages 115-124 in Area estimate Damages Value ($US) A.P. Clevengerand F.J. Purroy,ed. Ecologia del oso pardo Finland 400 - 38,200 en Espafia.Museo Nacionalde CienciasNaturales, Monogr., Norway 200 500 150,000 nuim.4. Madrid,Spain. 155pp. (In Spanish.) Sweden 500 300 . 99 lb. Alimentaci6n. Pages 29-46 inA.P. Clevenger Poland 80 86 and F. J. Purroy,ed. Ecologia del oso pardo en Espana. 600 - Czechoslovakia 75-150,000 Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Monogr., num. 4 Trentino(Italy) 10 2 Madrid,Spain. 155pp. (In Spanish.) (France and 10 - 15,000 Pyrenees Spain) ANDF.J. PURROY.1988. El oso en Le6n. Servicio de CantabrianMts. (Spain) 100 76 70,000 , publicaciones de la Universidad de Le6n. Le6n, Spain. From Bjarvall 1990, Camarra1990, Nyholm 1990, Sorensen 1990, 127pp. (In Spanish.) and Osti, 1991. DAMAGESBY THE BROWN BEAR IN SPAIN* Garcia-Gaona 105
DELCAMPO, J.C. 1989. Legal and social aspects of the bear range. J. Wildl. Manage. 46: 786-790. conservationof the brown bear in Spain. A governmental KNIGHT,R., ANDS. JUDD.1983. Grizzlybears that kill livestock. approach. Environ.Encounters Ser. 6:63-66. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:186-190. , J. MARQUINEZ,J. NAVES,AND G. PALOMERO.1984. MERTZANIS,G. 1990. The brown bear in Greece. Aquilo Ser. Distribuci6ny aspectos poblacionalesdel oso pardo(Ursus Zool. 27:67-70. arctos)en la CordilleraCantabrica. Acta Biologica Montana, NAVES,J., ANDG. PALOMERO.1989. The brown bear in the Serie Documents de Travail.4:371-381. (In Spanish.) CantabrianMountains: a case study. Environ. Encounters , , , AND . 1986. Les degats des Series, Counc. Eur. 6:47-51. ours.Acta Biologica Montana,S6rie Documentsde Travail. NORES,C. 1988. Reducci6nareal del oso pardoen la Cordillera 6:99-103. (In French.) Cantabrica.Acta Biologica Montana,S6rie Documents de ELGMORK,K. 1982. Catching behavior of brown bear. J. Travail. 2:7-14. (In Spanish.) Mammal. 63:607-612. NOTARIO,R. 1964. El oso pardo en Espaiia. Ministerio de FERNANDEZ,A., J.M. FERNANDEZ,AND G. PALOMERO.1990. El Agricultura,Madrid, Spain. 162pp. (In Spanish.) lobo en Cantabria. Pages 33-44 in J.C. Blanco, L. Cuesta, 1980. Informe de la situaci6n actual en Espana del and S. Reig. ed. El lobo (Canis lupus)en Espania.Situaci6n, oso pardo. Caza y pesca. 445:26-39. (In Spanish.) problemdticay apuntessobre su ecologia. Colecci6nT6cnica. NYHOLM,E.S. 1990. Brown bear populationand management Instituto para la Conservaci6n de la Naturaleza, Madrid, in Finlandin the 1980s. Aquilo Ser. Zool. 27:27-31. Spain. (In Spanish.) OSTI,F. 1991. L'orsobruno nelTrentino. EditorialArca. Roma, GARCIA-GAONA,J.F, F. GONZALEZ,O. HERNANDEZ-PALACIOS,J. Italy. 209pp. (In Italian.) G. PALOMEROAND NAVES, S. SOLANO. 1990. El lobo en PURROY, F. 1991. Dafios a ganaderia y agricultura. in A. Asturias. 19-32 in J.C. Pages Blanco, L. Cuesta, and S. Clevenger. and F.J.Purroy,ed.Ecologia del oso pardo en El Reig.ed. lobo (Canis lupus) en espafia. Situaci6n, Espafia.Mus. Nac. Cienc. Nat., Monogr., num. 4. Madrid, problematicay apuntessobre su ecologia. Colecci6nTecnica. Spain. (In Spanish.) Instituto para la Conservaci6nde la Naturaleza, Madrid, RAPAIC,Z. 1979. Les relationsentre l'ours et l'hommeen Bosnie Spain. (In Spanish.) et Herzegovine. Symp. Int. L'ours brun. Brasov. Conseil P. 1990. The situation HELL, of the brown bear in Inter.de la Chasse: 79-83. Brasov, Romania. (In French.) Czechoslovakia. Ser. Zool. 27:47-50. Aquilo SCHEVCHENKO,L.S. 1990. The brownbear in the Europeanpart HUBER,D. 1990. The brown bear in Yugoslavia.Aquilo Ser. of the U.S.S.R. Aquilo Ser. Zool., 27:41-46. Zool. 27:63-65. SHARAFUTDINOV,I.V., AND A.M. KOROTKOV.1976. On the ecology INSTITUTOPARA LA CONSERVACION DELA NATURALEZA. 1986. Lista of the brown bear in the SouthernOurals. Int. Conf. Bear Rojade los vertebradosde Espafia.Ministerio deAgricultura, and Manage. 3:309-311. Pesca Alimentacion Instituto la y para Conservaci6nde la SORENSEN,O.J. 1990. The brown bear in Europe in the mid Naturaleza. Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.) 1980's. Aquilo Ser. Zool. 27:3-16. JAKUBIEC,Z. 1990. Distributionof the brown bear in Poland SPIRIDINOV,G., AND N. SPASSOV.1990. Statusof the brownbear and problems concerning its protection. Aquilo Ser. Zool. in Bulgaria. Aquilo Ser. Zool. 27:71-75. 27:51-57. ZUNINO,F. 1986. L'oursdesAbruzzes. Acta Biologica Montana, JOHNSON,S. J. AND D.E. GRIFFEL. 1982. Sheep losses on grizzly Serie Documents de Travail6:69-85. (In French.)