DOCSLIB.ORG

Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores – Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine – in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores – Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine – in Europe Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe DECEMBER 2012 - Part 2- Status of large carnivores in Europe – update 2012 This document has been prepared with the assistance of Istituto di Ecologia Applicata and with the contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (chair: Luigi Boitani) under contract N°070307/2012/629085/SER/B3. Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe Petra Kaczensky1, Guillaume Chapron2, Manuela von Arx3, Djuro Huber4, Henrik Andrén2, and John Linnell5 (Editors) 1Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology,University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstrasse 1, A - 1160 Vienna, AUSTRIA 2Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE - 73091 Riddarhyttan, SWEDEN 3Coordinated Research Projects for the Conservation& Management of Carnivores in Switzerland (KORA), Thunstrasse 31, CH-3074 Muri, SWITZERLAND 4University of Zagreb, Biology Department, Veterinary Faculty, Heinzelova 55, HR - 10000 Zagreb, CROATIA 5Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Tungasletta 2, NO-7047 Trondheim, NORWAY Contributors (in alphabetical order): Michal Adamec, Francisco Álvares, Ole Anders, Henrik Andrén, Linas Balciauskas, Vaidas Balys, Peter Bedo, Ferdinand Bego, Juan Carlos Blanco, Luigi Boitani, Urs Breitenmoser, Henrik Brøseth, Ludek Bufka, Raimonda Bunikyte, Guillaume Chapron, Paulo Ciucci, Alexander Dutsov, Thomas Engleder, Christian Fuxjäger, Claudio Groff, Miklós Heltai, Katja Holmala, Bledi Hoxha, Djuro Huber, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Ovidio Ionescu, Gjorge Ivanov, Jasna Jeremić, Klemen Jerina, Petra Kaczensky, Ilpo Kojola, Ivan Kos, Miha Krofel, Jakub Kubala, Sasa Kunovac, Josip Kusak, Miroslav Kutal, John Linnell, Peep Mannil, Ralph Manz, Eric Marboutin, Francesca Marucco, Dimce Melovski, Kujtim Mersini, Yorgos Mertzanis, Robert W. Mysłajek, Sabina Nowak, John Odden, Janis Ozolins, Guillermo Palomero, Milan Paunovic, Jens Persson, Hubert Potočnik, Pierre-Yves Quenette, Georg Rauer, Ilka Reinhardt, Robin Rigg, Andreas Ryser, Valeria Salvatori, TomažSkrbinšek, Aleksandra Skrbinšek-Majić, Aleksandar Stojanov, Jon Swenson, Aleksandër Trajçe, Elena Tzingarska-Sedefcheva, Martin Váňa, Rauno Veeroja, Manuela von Arx, Manfred Wölfl, Sybille Wölfl, Fridolin Zimmermann, Diana Zlatanova This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Cover: Photo composition by Alessandro Montemaggiori 2 Status of large carnivores in Europe – update 2012 Table of contents Part 2: V. Species Country Reports: 1. Bear 2. Lynx 3. Wolf 3 Status of large carnivores in Europe – update 2012 V. Country Species Summaries 4 Bear - Albania Aleksandër Trajçe Bear distribution in Albania 2006- 2010. Dark cells: permanent presence Grey cells: sporadic occurrence [Please note: neighboring countries can have different criteria and time periods for the definition of cells with permanent and sporadic presences] 1. Distribution The brown bears in Albania are distributed in the mountainous regions of North, East and South- East Albania, usually in high-forest habitats of altitudes 600 m a.s.l. They are found in the Albanian Alps (Bjeshkët e Nëmuna - Prokletije Dinaric- mountains), central-north Pindos mountanious region (Pukë, Mirditë, Lurë, Balgjaj), Korab-Koritnik range in the east, central mountanious region (Qafështamë, Martanesh, Shebenik), central-south region (Shpat, Polis, Valamarë) and southeastern mountanious areas (Prespë, Moravë, Tomorr, Ostrovicë, Hotovë, Shelegur). They seem not to be present in the southwestern mountanious region of the country. The Albanian brown bear distribution is part of the larger Dinaric-Pindos population that spreads from Slovenia in the north to Greece in the south and thus the country’s geographical location is of crucial importance for maintaining the connectivity of this population. 1 2. Population estimates & monitoring Proper monitoring and research on brown bears in Albania have been largely lacking in the past, thus information on their numbers is mostly based on expert estimations. In the past 6 years more solid data on bear presence has been collected, mainly through the work of various projects undertaken by non-profit organizations. Recent camera-trapping surveys, tracking and sign identification as well as questionnaire surveys have generated a good amount of knowledge on the status of brown bears in the country (Trajçe et. al. 2008; Ivanov et. al. 2008; Keçi et. al. 2008; Trajçe & Hoxha 2011). Currently, experts estimate that some 180 – 200 bears might be roaming the mountains of Albania. There is however a clear discrepancy between the official information given by state authorities and experts’ evaluations in regard to the bear population size. The latest official estimation of the bear population in Albania is presented at the Annual Report on the State of Environment for 2009 as consisting of 686 individuals (MoE, 2010). There is however no detail given on the rationale behind this assessment and according to experts’ opinion and field evidence so far, this is a gross overestimation. 3. Legal status & relevant management agencies The brown bear is classified as Vulnerable (VU) according to the Red List of Albania (Red List of Flora & Fauna, 2007) and enjoys a full legal protection status sanctioned by the new Law on Wildlife Protection (2008) and Law on Hunting (2010). The species has been considered as fully protected at least since 1956 as it is sanctioned on the respective governmental decrees at the time. In the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Bego et al. 1999) the brown bear is selected as a priority species and the development of an action plan for its conservation is recommended as an immediate action to take. In 2007 an action plan was compiled (Bego 2007) and adopted by the Ministry of Environment, however no concrete action has been seen so far in accordance to the document. The institution responsible for brown bear management is the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration. 4. Population goal and population level cooperation There are no explicit population goals for brown bears in Albania. Information on the population trend is lacking, however increased incidences of poaching, habitat degradation and general human encroachment, indicate that the bear population has been facing a dramatic decrease in the past decades and is nowadays at an all time low. Population level cooperation for conservation is good among researchers and non-governmental institutions of the range countries. Unfortunately, up to date, on the GO level there has not been any major initiative of cooperation in regard to brown bear conservation and management. 5. Conflicts and conflict management The wildlife baseline survey conducted by PPNEA in 2006-07 gives primary insights on the conflicts existing between humans and brown bears in Albania. Human-brown bear conflicts seem to be widespread in the country and bears were reported to cause significant damage on crops, fruit trees, and big livestock and to a lesser extent on beehives (Trajce et. al. 2008, Keci et. al. 2008). Human- brown bear conflicts are believed to explain to a certain extent the reasons for illegal killing of brown bears. However, a human dimension study recently conducted by PPNEA to determine public attitudes of the rural population towards large carnivores reveals that the general public opinion 2 towards bear is predominantly positive, the support for their conservation is high and conflicts that brown bears cause are generally tolerated by the local population (Trajce 2010). Currently, there is no form of compensation system and there are no prevention or mitigation measures undertaken by management authorities for addressing the issue of livestock depredation. Traditional livestock herding with presence of shepherd and guarding dogs remain still in place in large parts of the country – particularly in the mountainous regions where also LC species occur. A few initiatives have been implemented in recent years by local NGOs to promote traditional breeds of livestock guarding dogs and donate pure bred animals to a number of shepherds in central and south Albania. 6. Threats The recent work of PPNEA, confirms that the main threats to brown bears in Albania are linked to human persecution and habitat destruction. In addition, one of the main conservation concerns for brown bears in Albania seems to be their use for human entertainment and public attraction objects. Brown bears are increasingly being used either dead or alive by roadside restaurants or other private enterprises as attraction animals, possibly to attract more clients in their premises. This phenomenon seems to be quite widespread and relatively new for the country, having its beginnings only after the 1990s and, as evidence suggests, is spreading at an alarming rate in many restaurants and cafés across Albania. As of August 2011, 28 illegally kept captive bears have been documented and there are indications of at least 20 more cases that need further verification. Captive bears are usually taken from the wild as cubs after their mother is poached and they are sold for relatively high sums of money. This means that for every
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Incorporating Natural and Human Factors in Habitat Modelling and Spatial Prioritisation for the Lynx Lynx Martinoi
    Web Ecol., 16, 17–31, 2016 www.web-ecol.net/16/17/2016/ doi:10.5194/we-16-17-2016 © Author(s) 2016. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Incorporating natural and human factors in habitat modelling and spatial prioritisation for the Lynx lynx martinoi K. Laze1,a and A. Gordon2 1Leibniz Institute of Agriculture Development in Transition Economies, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany 2School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, P.O. Box 2476, Melbourne 3001, Australia anow at: Polytechnic University of Albania, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, Rr. “M. Gjollesha”, No. 54, 1023 Tirana, Albania Correspondence to: K. Laze ([email protected]) Received: 11 June 2015 – Revised: 30 December 2015 – Accepted: 11 January 2016 – Published: 2 February 2016 Abstract. Countries in south-eastern Europe are cooperating to conserve a sub-endemic lynx species, Lynx lynx martinoi. Yet, the planning of species conservation should go hand-in-hand with the planning and management of (new) protected areas. Lynx lynx martinoi has a small, fragmented distribution with a small total population size and an endangered population. This study combines species distribution modelling with spatial prioritisa- tion techniques to identify conservation areas for Lynx lynx martinoi. The aim was to determine locations of high probability of occurrence for the lynx, to potentially increase current protected areas by 20 % in Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. The species distribution modelling used generalised linear models with lynx occurrence and pseudo-absence data. Two models were developed and fit- ted using the lynx data: one based on natural factors, and the second based on factors associated with human disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Global Seagrass Distribution and Diversity: a Bioregional Model ⁎ F
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 350 (2007) 3–20 www.elsevier.com/locate/jembe Global seagrass distribution and diversity: A bioregional model ⁎ F. Short a, , T. Carruthers b, W. Dennison b, M. Waycott c a Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, Durham, NH 03824, USA b Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD 21613, USA c School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 Queensland, Australia Received 1 February 2007; received in revised form 31 May 2007; accepted 4 June 2007 Abstract Seagrasses, marine flowering plants, are widely distributed along temperate and tropical coastlines of the world. Seagrasses have key ecological roles in coastal ecosystems and can form extensive meadows supporting high biodiversity. The global species diversity of seagrasses is low (b60 species), but species can have ranges that extend for thousands of kilometers of coastline. Seagrass bioregions are defined here, based on species assemblages, species distributional ranges, and tropical and temperate influences. Six global bioregions are presented: four temperate and two tropical. The temperate bioregions include the Temperate North Atlantic, the Temperate North Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Temperate Southern Oceans. The Temperate North Atlantic has low seagrass diversity, the major species being Zostera marina, typically occurring in estuaries and lagoons. The Temperate North Pacific has high seagrass diversity with Zostera spp. in estuaries and lagoons as well as Phyllospadix spp. in the surf zone. The Mediterranean region has clear water with vast meadows of moderate diversity of both temperate and tropical seagrasses, dominated by deep-growing Posidonia oceanica.
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende Images by John Schoen
    Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende images by John Schoen Two hundred years ago, brown (also known as grizzly) bears were abundant and widely distributed across western North America from the Mississippi River to the Pacific and from northern Mexico to the Arctic (Trevino and Jonkel 1986). Following settlement of the west, brown bear populations south of Canada declined significantly and now occupy only a fraction of their original range, where the brown bear has been listed as threatened since 1975 (Servheen 1989, 1990). Today, Alaska remains the last stronghold in North America for this adaptable, large omnivore (Miller and Schoen 1999) (Fig 1). Brown bears are indigenous to Southeastern Alaska (Southeast), and on the northern islands they occur in some of the highest-density FIG 1. Brown bears occur throughout much of southern populations on earth (Schoen and Beier 1990, Miller et coastal Alaska where they are closely associated with salmon spawning streams. Although brown bears and grizzly bears al. 1997). are the same species, northern and interior populations are The brown bear in Southeast is highly valued by commonly called grizzlies while southern coastal populations big game hunters, bear viewers, and general wildlife are referred to as brown bears. Because of the availability of abundant, high-quality food (e.g. salmon), brown bears enthusiasts. Hiking up a fish stream on the northern are generally much larger, occur at high densities, and have islands of Admiralty, Baranof, or Chichagof during late smaller home ranges than grizzly bears. summer reveals a network of deeply rutted bear trails winding through tunnels of devil’s club (Oplopanx (Klein 1965, MacDonald and Cook 1999) (Fig 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Regulamin Odznaki „Korona Gór Europy” I
    REGULAMIN ODZNAKI „KORONA GÓR EUROPY” I. Postanowienia wstępne. 1. Odznaka „Korona Gór Europy” została ustanowiona w 2019 r., przez Hutniczo-Miejski Oddział PTTK w Krakowie. Nadzór nad nią sprawuje Hutniczo-Miejski Oddział PTTK w Krakowie. Celem odznaki jest zaktywizowanie turystów górskich do zdobywania bardziej wymagających szczytów i poznawania piękna naszego kontynentu. 2. Odznaka „Korona Gór Europy” obejmuje wszystkie najwyższe szczyty w poszczególnych 47. państwach Europy, zgodnie z załączonym wykazem. II. Zasady zdobywania odznaki. 1. Odznakę może zdobyć każdy, bez względu na obywatelstwo, wiek, członkostwo w organizacji turystycznej. 2. Odznaka posiada trzy stopnie: a) brązowa – przyznawana za zdobycie 16. różnych szczytów, dowolnie wybranych z załączonego wykazu, przy czym trzy szczyty muszą mieć wysokość powyżej dwóch tysięcy metrów; b) srebrna – przyznawana za zdobycie 32. różnych szczytów, dowolnie wybranych z załączonego wykazu, przy czym sześć szczytów musi mieć wysokość powyżej dwóch tysięcy metrów; c) złota – przyznawana za zdobycie wszystkich 47. szczytów z załączonego wykazu. 3. Podczas weryfikowania odznaki uwzględniane są szczyty zdobyte od 1.01.2000 r. Czas zdobywania kolejnych szczytów jest nieograniczony. 4. Wyznaczone szczyty mogą być zdobywane indywidualnie lub zespołowo i w ramach zdobywania innych odznak turystycznych. 5. Podczas wędrówek należy przestrzegać zasad bezpiecznego i racjonalnego uprawiania turystyki górskiej, przestrzegać zasad i odnośnych przepisów prawa obowiązujących w poszczególnych państwach
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the State of Nature Conservation in Spain October 2008
    Evaluation of the state of nature conservation in Spain October 2008 Report of Sumario 3 Introduction 5 Regulatory and administrative management framework 9 Protection of species 13 Protection of natural sites 19 New threats 23 Conclusions and proposals Área de Conservación de la Naturaleza Ecologistas en Acción Marqués de Leganés, 12 - 28004 Madrid Phone: +34 915312389, Fax: +34 915312611 [email protected] www.ecologistasenaccion.org Translated by Germaine Spoerri, Barbara Sweeney, José H. Wilson, Teresa Dell and Adrián Artacho, from Red de Traductoras/es en Acción Introduction pain is known and appreciated worldwide for its natural abundance. Its favourable biogeographical position, variety of climate and orography, extensive coastline and significant Sgroups of islands confer Spain with extraordinary natural conditions. The great diversity of ecosystems, natural areas and wild species native to Spain make it the country with the greatest biodiversity in Europe and a point of reference on the issue of nature conservation. Figures released by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment are revelatory in this regard. The total estimated number of taxons in Spain exceeds 100.000. It is the country with the highest number of endangered vascular plants in the European Community and 26% of its vertebrates are included in the “endangered”, “vulnerable” or “rare” categories, according to classification of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). A clear example of the importance of biodiversity in Spain is the identification of more than 121 types of habitats, which represent more than 65% of habitat types listed in the European Directive 92/34 and more than 50% of habitats considered priority by the Council of Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • VIRGINIA BLACK BEAR What Kind of Bears Are in Virginia? 101
    VIRGINIA BLACK BEAR What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? 101 Jaime Sajecki Bear Project Leader ………Black Bears! What Kind of Bears Are In What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? Virginia? Brown and Blond Phase Black Bear Cubs Brown Bear What Kind of Bears Are In What Kind of Bears Are In Virginia? Virginia? Only 58% of Virginians correctly named black bears as the only species of bear living in Virginia. Brown Bear Brown Bear 1 Weight Males (boars) Females (sows) adult weight adult weight LIFE HISTORY 200-500 100-250 OF BLACK pounds pounds BEARS Large, Non-retractable Claws Senses Nearsighted Keen sense of smell/hearing Bears can see in color: This helps them find insects and small Climbing trees colorful berries while foraging. Digging up insects Bears stand on their hind legs to get a better view and to smell and “taste” the air Defense Behaviors Movements SPRING/SUMMER Solitary most of the time. • Bears leave dens in search of food - Food is limited Active at dawn and dusk • Female bears : Travel with cubs • Male bears: Mostly solitary Omnivorous and opportunistic • Yearlings may be with siblings • Yearlings left to fend for themselves when female ready to mate again 2 Movements What Bears Eat FALL • ~75% of the bear’s diet consists of vegetative FOOD! FOOD! FOOD! matter; berries, nuts, grasses, and fruits Bears can forage up to 20 hours a day in preparation for denning • ~25% consists of insects, larvae, carrion, small animals, and fish. Although they are not particularly good hunters, they have been known to prey on small to medium- sized mammals such as rodents and deer fawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Lynx 1 Eurasian Lynx
    Eurasian Lynx 1 Eurasian Lynx Eurasian Lynx[1] Conservation status [2] Least Concern (IUCN 3.1) Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Genus: Lynx Species: L. lynx Binomial name Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758) Eurasian Lynx 2 Eurasian Lynx range Synonyms Felis lynx (Linnaeus, 1758) The Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is a medium-sized cat native to European and Siberian forests, South Asia and East Asia. It is also known as the European lynx, common lynx, the northern lynx, and the Siberian or Russian lynx. While its conservation status has been classified as "Least Concern", populations of Eurasian lynx have been reduced or extirpated from western Europe, where it is now being reintroduced. Physical characteristics The Eurasian lynx is the largest lynx species, ranging in length from 80 to 130 cm (31 to 51 in) and standing about 70 cm (28 in) at the shoulder. The tail measures 11 to 25 cm (4.3 to 9.8 in) in length. Males usually weigh from 18 to 30 kg (40 to 66 lb) and females weigh 10 to 21 kg (22 to 46 lb).[3] [4] [5] Male lynxes from Siberia, where the species reaches the largest body size, can weigh up to 38 kg (84 lb) or reportedly even 45 kg (99 lb).[6] [7] It has powerful legs, with large webbed and furred paws that act like snowshoes. It also possesses a short "bobbed" tail with an all-black tip, black tufts of hair on its ears, and a long grey-and-white ruff.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trophic Ecology of Wolves and Their Predatory Role in Ungulate Communities of Forest Ecosystems in Europe
    Acta Theriologica 40 (4): 335-386,1095, REVIEW PL ISSN 0001-7051 The trophic ecology of wolves and their predatory role in ungulate communities of forest ecosystems in Europe Henryk OKARMA Okarma H. 1995. The trophic ecology of wolves and their predatory role in ungulate communities of forest ecosystems in Europe. Acta Theriologica 40: 335-386. Predation by wolves Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 in ungulate communities in Europe, with special reference to the multi-species system of Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland/Belarus), was assessed on the basis results of original research and literature. In historical times (post-glacial period), the geographical range of the wolf and most ungulate species in Europe decreased considerably. Community richness of ungulates and potential prey for wolves, decreased over most of the continent from 5-6 species to 2-3 species. The wolf is typically an opportunistic predator with a highly diverse diet; however, cervids are its preferred prey. Red deer Ceruus elaphus are positively selected from ungulate communities in all localities, moose Alces alces are the major prey only where middle-sized species are scarce. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus are locally preyed on intensively, especially where they have high density, co-exist mainly with moose or wild boar Sus scrofa, and red deer is scarce or absent. Wild boar are generally avoided, except in a few locations; and European bison Bison bonasus are not preyed upon by wolves. Wolf predation contributes substantially to the total natural mortality of ungulates in Europe: 42.5% for red deer, 34.5% for moose, 25.7% for roe der, and only 16% for wild boar.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoqeri/Studio Që Disponojnë Licencë Profesionale Të Vlefshme Të Punimeve Të Zbatimit Në Ndërtim (Përditësim 12 Mars 2018)
    SHOQERI/STUDIO QË DISPONOJNË LICENCË PROFESIONALE TË VLEFSHME TË PUNIMEVE TË ZBATIMIT NË NDËRTIM (PËRDITËSIM 12 MARS 2018) DATA Nr. SHOQËRIA DREJTUES LIGJOR NR LICENCE TRAJTIMIT REZIDENCA 1 AGB3 (Clean & Construction) TR SHKELQIM GOGA NZ.7217/2 19.02.2018 2 2 BE TR BESIM BELBA NZ.7595 20.11.2017 3 AGRA-LU TR LUIS SHTEPANI NZ.7583 20.11.2017 4 DELTA PHARMA-AL TR EDUART CURRAJ NZ.7587 20.11.2017 5 ALB-TIEFBAU SH FLAMUR HOXHA NZ.0786/13 29.08.2017 6 2T TR ARTAN SAKA NZ.3455/11 07.08.2017 7 4A-M TR ARDIT METALIAJ NZ.6546/6 07.09.2017 8 ERGI EL FADIL BALLA NZ.4047/13 07.12.2017 9 "A.K" TR ASTRIT KUQI NZ.2998/6 6.10.2008 10 "ALDOSCH" TR TOM DOSHI NZ.2395/4 16.02.2009 11 "ALPA" PG SHPETIM PALLA NZ.2701/6 5.03.2012 12 "ARIS" VL ARISTOTEL VERA NZ.2052/4 15.06.2009 13 "DRINI-A" LE AVNI DANI NZ.3585/6 18.07.2011 14 "KOLA" PU NIKOLL KOLA NZ.2031/5 19.07.2010 15 "KRISTAL" MT SULEJMAN KUKA ELEZ NEZIRI NZ.0060/10 4.08.2008 16 "XHAXHO" VL FERDINAND XHAXHO NZ.0255/11 5.04.2010 17 2 AF COMPANY DR ALFRED MUHO NZ.6086/1 2.05.2011 18 2A-L TR ARTAN SHERIFI NZ.4184/2 5.09.2011 19 2D KO ILIRJAN DINELLARI NZ.6053 6.04.2009 20 2-END TR DURIM KISHTA NZ.6565/1 15.08.2014 21 2G FR GENTIAN XHEMA NZ.6787 7.05.2012 22 2K-B SR MANE BREGASI NZ.5240/4 21.02.2017 23 2NK GROUP TIRANEJORGO KASO NZ.7091/1 01.12.2015 24 2R-GROUP KUKESJETMIR UKPERAJ NZ.7379 07.07.2016 25 2S DR SPIRO SULI NZ.5689/1 15.12.2008 26 ALBANIAN HIGHWAY CONCESSION TR NICOLA SPADAVECCHIA NZ.7568/1 27.12.2017 27 3A - F TR AHMET LEKA NZ.7463 22.12.2016 28 3A-B TR LINDITA DISHA NZ.7334 31.03.2016 29 3A-PROFILE TR LENI GRUDA NZ.6386/3 10.01.2018 30 3TRE-CON VL KRESHNIK CIPI NZ.5825 7.04.2008 31 A&EM TR ALFRED COMA NZ.4972/3 4.08.2008 32 A&G HASAJ MMRITVAN HASAJ NZ.6694 7.11.2011 33 A&I DESIGN DR INDRIT HAMITI NZ.4015/1 18.04.2017 34 A.AGOLLI KO AUREL AGOLLI NZ.5949 6.10.2008 35 A.B.BE TR BESNIK PELIVANI NZ.7505 24.03.2017 36 A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Rewilding and Ecosystem Services
    ¢ POSTNOTE Number 537 September 2016 Rewilding and Ecosystem Services Overview ¢ Rewilding aims to restore natural processes that are self-regulating, reducing the need for human management of land. ¢ Few rewilding projects are underway, and there is limited evidence on their impacts. ¢ Rewilding may provide ecosystem services such as flood prevention, carbon storage and recreation. It often has low input costs, but can still benefit biodiversity. ¢ Some valued and protected priority habitats such as chalk grassland currently depend on agricultural practices like grazing. This POSTnote explores the consequences of Rewilding may not result in such habitats. increasing the role of natural processes within ¢ No government policy refers explicitly to landscapes. Evidence from the UK and abroad rewilding, but it has the potential to suggests that rewilding can benefit both wildlife complement existing approaches to meet and local people, but animal reintroductions commitments on habitat restoration. could adversely affect some land-users. What is Rewilding? Rewilding and Current Conservation Practice There is no single definition of rewilding, but it generally UK landscapes have been managed to produce food and refers to reinstating natural processes that would have wood for millennia, and 70% of land is currently farmed.9 occurred in the absence of human activity.1,2 These include €3bn per year is spent on environmental management of vegetation succession, where grasslands develop into farmland across the EU.10,11 This includes maintaining wetlands or forests, and ecological disturbances caused by wildlife habitats on farmland such as heathland and chalk disease, flooding, fire and wild herbivores (plant eaters). grassland, which involves traditional agricultural practices Initially, natural processes may be restored through human such as fire and grazing.12,13 Rewilding involves ecological interventions such as tree planting, drainage blocking and restoration (the repair of degraded ecosystems),14 and reintroducing “keystone species”3,4 like beavers.
    [Show full text]