sign in sign up
<<
Home , Caspian tiger, Eurasian lynx, Kangal, Provinces of Turkey

Status and management of brown in

6. Emre Can1'3and inci Togan2'4

1 WWF Turkey, PK 871 06045, , Turkey 2Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract: The brown ( arctos) is the largest carnivorein Turkey.Its presentdistribution is mainly confined to the intact naturalhabitats of the and EasternAnatolian regions. Forest fragmentationand direct persecutionby humanshave resultedin populationdeclines in other regions duringthe last 50 years. Human-bearconflicts are more often observed in the easternBlack Sea than other areas within Turkey, but the species does not seriously threatenhumans in Turkey. Turkish authoritieshave not kept records of bear damage, but depredationhas mainly occurredon cattle and . The has a more positive image among the local people than the ( lupus). Brown bearsare a protectedspecies, but protectedareas in Turkeyare too small to provide a refuge for the species. Priorityactions for the conservationof brown bears in Turkeyare legislationdevelopment and implementation,research on population status and range, expansion of currentprotected areas, and identification of new ones. Public awareness and capacity building of the local authorities on theoretical and practical aspects of wildlife management,such as designing surveys, collecting systematic data, analyzing and reportingdata, and brown bear handling techniques, will also play a critical role.

Key words: brown bear, conservation,distribution, management, status, Turkey, Ursus arctos

Ursus15(1):48-53 (2004)

Turkey is located between and and has gutturosa), (Rupicapra rupicapra), wild a total land mass of 780,576 km2. The Black, Aegean, (Capra aegagrus), mouflon (Ovis orientalis), and wild and Mediterraneanseas surrounda substantialpart of boar (Sus scrofa) (Swift and Holloway 1967; Hus 1974; Turkey. Despite the existence of broad plains and 1984; Ustay 1990; Demirsoy 1996; Shackleton plateaus,Turkey's topographic structure is highly moun- 1997; Can 2001; M. Pani, 1998, Wildlife ecology tainous,with an averagealtitude of 1,130 m. Turkeyhas planning and managementproject final report, UNDP/ one peak >5,000 m, 3 >4,000 m and 129 peaks FAOProjectTUR/96/003/A/01/12.23, Ankara,Turkey). >3,000 m. Informationis lacking on populations and the exact in Turkeyhas several species of large carnivoresthat are distributionfor the majorityof largemammals Turkey. brown bear in is ecologically, economically, and scientifically important Similarly,basic informationon Turkey in addition to the brown bear, including wolf, striped very limited: Turkey is not even mentioned in recent for brown bears worldwide (Hyaena hyaena), Eurasianlynx (Lynxlynx), and compilationsor action plans (Caracal caracal) (Can 2002). The Caspiantiger (Servheenet al. 1999, Swenson et al. 2000, Zedrosseret of ( virgata) and the Anatolian al. 2001). We summarize the present knowledge needs in () are big that once had brown bears and their conservation Turkey. a wider distributionin the country. The Anatolian leo- to pard is now listed as critically endangeredaccording Methods World Conservation Union (IUCN 2003). The large We developed a questionnaireand sent it to local herbivore species which form the prey base for Ministry of Forestry offices and military offices in carnivores are red (Cervus elaphus), of Turkey. The questionnairerequested in- (Gazella sub- (Capreolus capreolus), formationon bear presence (sightings, , feeding or resting signs, tracks).A total of 506 questionnaireswere distributedin 28 of Turkey's 81 provinces. In 23 of the were [email protected]@metu.edu.tr 28 provinces where the questionnaires distributed,

48 BROWN BEARS IN TURKEY * Can and Togan 49 informal follow-up interviews were v held with 191 people (Ministry of Forestrypersonnel, militarypersonnel, hunters, and citizens). Selected sites o were visited to validatethe information o from the interviews and to search for brown bear sign. Administrativeper- sonnel of the General Directorate of National Parks and .. Wildlife of " . the Turkish Ministry of Forestry ("Directorate", hereafter) were also AegeanSe interviewedabout organizational, func- , tional, and legal issues of wildlife protection,management, and conserva- tion. We used numerous maps of Turkey (maps on various scales, forest Fig. 1. Appreoximate distribution of brown bear in Turkey, 2003. All maps, and maps of roads and human shaded areas do not necessarily contain brown bears. settlementpatterns) to infer brown bear distribution relative to habitat availability, habitat nigra), oak, and juniper (Juniperus excelsa) forests connectivity, and extent of human inhabitations and ranging from 1,000 m to 1,500 m are also important resultantbiotic pressures,and to preparean approximate potentialhabitat. distributionmap for the brown bear in Turkey. The forested areas in eastern Turkey are less continuous than in the . Therefore, functionalhabitat in the formeris separatedinto more or Results less isolated areas with some inter-connectivity.Bear Distribution of the brown bear population populations in eastern Turkey may be divided into According to the Directorate, the brown bear is several sub-populations.Distinct populationsmay have continuouslydistributed throughout the Black Sea region formed in westernTurkey because forest corridorshave from to . The eastern Black Sea region become unusable as a result of human activities. There probably supportsthe largest brown bear populationin are no reliable populationestimates for brown bears in Turkey (Emin Nasuhoglu, Directorate,Ankara, Turkey, Turkey. personal communication,2000). In general, the distri- bution of brown bears is confinedto the forest and intact Legal status and management natural habitats of Ankara, , Artvin, Bingol, The Directorateis in charge of protection, manage- , Bolu, , (_anakkale,(_ankln, Elazig, Erzu- ment, and conservationof wildlife in Turkey, including rum, , Gtimtiuhane, Hakkari, , , the brownbear. The LandHunting Law of 1937 (Official ,, Mugla, Mu?, ,Sakarya, , Gazette of TurkishRepublic 1937) constitutesthe legal , iSmak, , , , , and basis for all wildlife management,protection, and con- Zonguldakregions (Fig. 1). servation activities. According to the Land Habitattype and quality are presumablykey factors Law, the brown bear is not listed as a pest species (as influencingbrown bear distribution. Important habitat for are the wolf, hyaena, leopard, and ), but ratheras brown bears is provided by broad-leaf deciduous and a protectedspecies. However, the Directoratemay allow conifer forests in the Black Sea region from 500 to 1,500 recreationalhunting of brownbears for a fee. The Central m; humid and sub-humidconiferous forests in the high HuntingCommission, which meets annuallyto determine mountainsof northeaster Turkeyfrom 1,000 m to 2,000 hunting regulations for Turkey, set the brown bear m; dry oak (Quercus spp.) and pine (Pinus nigra, P. hunting fee at $US 2,000 for 2002 with a fine of sylvestris) forests in the hinterlandsof the Black Sea 4,500,000,000 Turkish lira (-$US 3,000 at the 2002 from 500 to 1,500 m; and dry forests of East exchange rate) for illegal hunting of brown bears from 850 m to 2,700 m. Lower Mediterraneanbelt (TurkishMinistry of Forestry 2002). According to the forests from 800 m to 1,500 m, Mediterraneanmountain authorities, hunting of bears should be permitted to forests from 500 m to 2,000 m, and dry black pine (P. control damage to beehives and crop depredation.

Ursus 15(1):48-53 (2004) 50 BROWNBEARS IN TURKEY* Can and Togan

There are officially about 2.5 million hunters in Table 1. Number and size of conservation areas in Turkey.One needs to be at least 18 years old and posses Turkey which may provide habitat for large carni- vores, 2003. a license to hunt. Recently, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Forestry started a joint education Total Extentof programfor those who want to become a hunter.New Protectedarea Number area(ha) country(%) hunting licenses are issued after successful completion NationalParks 33 686,631 0.88 0.1 of the trainingprogram. NatureReserves 35 83,023 NatureParks 17 0.09 The Directoratehas been to its structure 69,505 trying update WildlifeProtection Area 107 1,614,899 2.07 andestablish large herbivore censuses throughoutTurkey ProtectionForests 53 365,884 0.47 (beginning in 2000), but these attemptshave not been Total 2,819,942 3.61 coordinatedwith censuses of the carnivores.Turkey is a member of the Ber Convention, the Convention on Interational Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the Biological Diversity Although survey respondentsdid not reportpoaching Convention, all of which are relevant to brown bear. of brown bears, interviews with local people suggested in the wester and eastern There is neither a managementplan nor a monitoring that brown bear populations Black Sea are for bear which is programfor brown bears in Turkey. regions poached fat, believed to be of medicinalvalue. The illegal kill rate of brown bears is unknown,but it is reportedthat in areas Presence of brown bears protected exists in the Black Sea region. There is no reliable has been set aside for About 3.6 million ha of land that informationfrom eastern Turkey because the region is and indirect to conservation provide direct protection remote, characterizedby rugged mountainous terrain, brown bears in large carnivoresand Turkey (Table 1). and very difficult to police. Commission and According to the Central Hunting The ongoing Baku--Ceyhancrude oil pipeline is forbiddenin national Forest Law (No. 6831), hunting project (a large-scale, internationalproject starting in nature parks, naturereserves, parks, protection forests, Azerbaijanand passing throughGeorgia and Turkey)is brown bears in and wildlife protectionareas. Therefore, notable because the pipeline route passes through the additional brown those areas have protection. Today, provincesof Kars,, and , which include bears occur in 15 of Turkey's 33 nationalparks (Fig. 2). remote and intact mountainoushabitats for brown bears. are too small to However,these protectedareas generally Huntingfor wild boarwith is the most frequenttype such as the brown act as refuge areasfor large carivores of hunting,and bearsare killed occasionallyduring those bear. hunts. However, such kills are hidden in the villages because the is under protection. Illegal killing also occur unintentionallywhen bears are killed by Major threats may snares set for , , and roe deer, or Brown bears in Turkey are threatenedby habitatloss illegally baits set for wolves and . and degradation,and persecution by humans because by poisoned illegally of damage to beehives and livestock. Forests constitute and humans approximately20.7 million ha in Turkey (26.8% of the Brown bears, livestock, on humans have been in country). Of these forests, 10.5 million ha (51%) are Bear attacks reported no official records are consideredto be productive,whereas the remaining10.2 Trabzon and , but kept by communication, million ha of forests are unproductiveor degradeddue to authorities (E. Nasuhoglu, personal with local and excessive exploitation.Presently, 49% of Turkishforests 2000). Communication forestry military that most of the bear attacks on are heavily degraded (Kaya and Raynal 2001). Un- personnel suggested from close disturbedforests are about 2.5% of the total forest area, humans in the Black Sea region result to some and some of these forests exist outside protected areas encounters with mother and cubs. According brown bear to livestock to (Kalem 2000). Brown bear populations in Turkey are local people, damage appears less common than caused wolves. most likely negatively affected by large-scale forest be much damage by there are no records on damage to fragmentationand degradationthat has occurredduring Although kept local have reported that the last 50 years. However, the formerlarge-scale clear- livestock by bears, people brown bears and cattle as domestic prey. cutting system has recentlybeen changed to narrowand prefer sheep lacks measures, small-scale shelter-woodsystems (Muthoo 1997). Sheep husbandrygenerally protective Ursus 15(1):48-53 (2004) BROWNBEARS IN TURKEY* Can and Togan 51

Fig. 2. Presence of brown bears in national parks in Turkey, 2003.

and herds are unattendedmost of the time. Unlike in 150,000 km of forest roads have been constructedsince Europe, where extermination of bears was often en- 1974, with a further 4,000 km planned for each year couraged as a means of eliminating livestock depreda- until 2010 (Muthoo 1997). According to Pani (un- tion, no bounties have been organized by the state for published report 1998), habitatloss is increasing due to brown bears in Turkey. There is no compensation for unsustainable forestry practices and unsustainable de- damage caused by brown bears in Turkey. velopment in some areas. Nevertheless, in some areas such as the Kiire Moun- tains in Kastamonu,the human migrationrate to larger Discussion towns and cities is high and there is more space avail- Population threats able for brown bears than 20 years ago. The same Mursaloglu (1989) stated that measures are very applies to many areas in eastern Turkey, where people effective in protecting wildlife in Turkey. However, in have moved to largertowns to find betterjobs and living reality, wildlife has been of concern only to hunterswho conditions. Habitat degradation is largely a result of kill and use wildlife in Turkey (Swift and Holloway human dependency on forests for fuel wood, extrac- 1967). Excessive hunting is a serious threat to wildlife tion of other forest products, and extensive livestock in Turkey (Swift and Holloway, 1967, Pani unpublished grazing. report 1998, Can 2001). Law enforcementcapacities of the local authoritiesare minimal, and field staff spends Legal status and management most of their time on forestry activities rather than The Land Hunting Law of 1937 determinesall wild- conductingregular anti-poaching patrols. life protectionconservation and managementissues. The currenthunting law is quite old and lists wolf, striped Habitat threats hyena, and leopard as pest species. Legal responsibil- Turkey's human population has increased from 13 ities often overlap between governmentaloffices; there million in the 1920s to approximately 62 million in is no legal mandate for institutionsresponsible for en- 1997. This has put tremendouspressure on land, water vironmental issues. A new hunting law is currently resources,and the environment.The combinedeffects of being developed in Parliament,but these considerations rapid urbanizationand industrializationand associated have not been taken into account in the new proposal. economic activities have resulted use of natural re- At present, although the Ministry of Forestry is the sources above sustainable levels. About 99% of the major governmentalorganization dealing with wildlife forests in Turkey are owned by the state and nearly protection,conservation, and management,the Ministry

Ursus 15(1):48-53 (2004) 52 BROWNBEARS IN TURKEY * Can and Togan of Environmentis also responsible for legal issues of management.The limited capacity of the local authori- wildlife. There is very little coordinationbetween these ties creates a new niche and opportunitiesfor wildlife organizations,although plans exist to restructurethese researchand conservationorganizations in Turkey. ministriesas a single ministry. The general approach in Turkish legislation is to protectnatural resources without specific reference to sus- Conservationrecommendations tainability.Lack of such legislationparticularly effects in Because Turkey is a European Union candidate situ conservationof large areasof importantbiodiversity country,national authorities should considerimplement- outside of protected areas. Internationalpressure to ing management and monitoring programs similar to include environmental approaches in legislation has those present in many EuropeanUnion member coun- promptedrapid introductionof complex concepts with- tries. Because >80% of the national parks with brown out supporting legal implementationmechanisms, in- bearpopulations are <500 km2,we recommendthat new stitutionalmandates, and support facilities. Inadequate protected areas be declared and the existing protected harmonizationof national legislation with international areas where brown bears live be expanded. The laws andconventions causes conflictsbecause supporting Directorateadministrators should encourage their staff implementationregulations are lacking. Although Tur- to record damage caused by large predators,including key has numerouslaws, regulations,and programsthat brown bears. Similarly, the Directorateshould conduct favor conservation,implementation of these guidelines anti-poachingactivities, and local authoritiesshould keep requiresincreased commitment and vigilance (Kaya and recordsof poaching activities. Raynal 2001). Current forest management plans do not consider the presence of brown bears and other wildlife species; Brown bears, livestock, and humans therefore, the effects of forestry practices on wildlife In general,brown bears do not have as bad an image need to be evaluated and forest management plans as the wolf has in Turkey,and the general feeling about revised accordingly.The Directorateshould evaluatethe Works bears among local people, including forestrypersonnel, currentroad and dam plans of the State Water and the of is positive. Villagers live in dispersed locations in (DSI), the Ministry of Energy, Ministry for Turkish forests, especially in the eastern Black Sea Transportationin eastern Turkey. A status survey in eastern region, which leads to bear-human conflicts. Most brown bears is urgentlyneeded Turkey along crude oil reports of livestock killing by brown bears come from the route of the Baku-Tbilisi- pipeline this centralAnatolia, but depredationdue to livestock being project. The sites that will be affected by pipe- be monitored and the unguardedis infrequent. line constructionshould strictly to brown Translocationof problem brown bears is rarely used potential impact of the pipeline construction be studied. in Europe (Linnell et al. 2002), and it is not currently bear populationsshould conflict between brown bear and humans an option for Turkey because there are no trained The serious be addressedwith a personnel.Little is known about public attitudestoward in easternTurkey might compensa- bears beehives. brown bears on a European level, but some national tion system in areaswhere brown damage methods such as the surveyshave shown thatpeople from the countrysideare However, traditional placing on or the use of electricfences should generallymore negative than urbandwellers, and young beehives platforms to limit brown bear The native age and higher education are often associated with a be tried damage. and have been used for livestock more positive attitude toward bears (Swenson et al. breedsof Akbas of and because local 2000). The same probablyapplies to Turkey. guarding in some parts Turkey, Akbaseffective Therehave been no programsfor public awarenessor people considerKangal and againstlarge breeds limit the brown bear- education, although this is an important component carnivores, these might conflict in If the Directorate of any conservation initiative. Educational and public human Turkey. necessary, with faculties to establish awareness programs play a crucial role for reaching should cooperate veterinary a for so that Kangal pups can management objectives; therefore, WWF Turkey and breedingprogram Kangal to local communities with conflict with the World Society for the Protection of be provided bears. (WSPA) is working on an educationprogram on brown brown that the Directorateestablish, train, bears in Turkey which may strengthen the environ- We recommend well carnivore mental conscience of the public and may stimulatethe and support a equipped damage pre- fieldwork allowances should local authoritiesto show interest in bear research and vention team. Special Ursus 15(1):48-53 (2004) BROWNBEARS IN TURKEY * Can and Togan 53

also be arrangedto encourage the team members. The KALEM,S. 2000. WWF Europeanforest scorecards,Turkish carnivoredamage preventionteam should work to limit national report. Turkish Society for the Conservation of brown bear-human conflicts and should consider and Nature (DHKD), ,Turkey. implement management alternatives such as removal, KAYA, Z., ANDD.J. RAYNAL.2001. Biodiversity and conserva- tion of Turkishforests. Conservation97:131-141. translocation,and aversive conditioning, depending on Biological LINNELL,J.D.C., D. STEUER,J. ODDEN,P. KACZENSKY,AND J.E. the severity and circumstancesof the situation.A com- SWENSON.2002. Europeanbrown bear compendium.Safari pensation should also be established and the program Club International,Herdon, Virginia, USA. work of the carnivore team should damage prevention MURSALOGLU, B. 1989. Regional report on the status and be with a awareness supported public and education protectionof bears in Turkey. Workshop on the situation program. and protectionof the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Scientific research is needed on brown bear range Council of Europe EnvironmentalEncounters Series 6: and habitat use. Field surveys and monitoring systems 31-33. Strasbourg,France. are practically non-existent for large carnivores as MUTHOO,M.K. 1997. Forestsand forestryin Turkey.Food and well as brown bears, even in protectedareas in Turkey. Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO), Because Turkeyis a EuropeanUnion candidate,national Ankara,Turkey. OFFICIALGAZETTE OF TURKISHREPUBLIC. 1937. authorities should use this opportunity to appear Land Hunting Law. Law no: 3167, issue:3603. Prime committedto achieve the conservationgoals set in both Ministry, Ankara, Turkey. the Europeanand Internationallegislation. SERVHEEN,C., S. HERRERO,AND B. PEYTON, COMPILERS.1999. Bears: status, survey and conservationaction plan. IUCN/ SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups. World Con- Acknowledgments servationUnion, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge,UK. We thankT. Can, G. Ince, and A. Domac for preparing SHACKLETON,M.D. 1997. Statussurvey and conservationaction the figures, T. Can and Y. Lise for assistance in the plan for Caprinae.Wild sheep and and theirrelatives. preparationof the wildlife questionnaires,W. Buetzler World Conservation Union, Gland, and for his supervisionduring fieldwork,E. Nasuhoglu and Cambridge,UK. wildlife staff of Directorate who provided valuable SWENSON,J.E., N. GERSTL,B. DAHLE,AND A. ZEDROSSER.2000. informationthrough interviews, H. Tuna and M. Tuna Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear in Council of Nature for assistance for transportation in the field, and Europe (Ursus arctos). Europe, and EnvironmentNo. 114, Strasbourg,France. T. Gurpinarand A. Birsel from WWF Turkey. SWIFT, W.L., AND C.W. HOLLOWAY.1967. Report to the Governmentof Turkeyon wildlife management.Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, Literaturecited Italy. CAN, O.E. 2001. The statusof brownbear wolf, andEurasian TURAN, N. 1984. Tiirkiye'nin av ve yaban hayvanlan: in and recommendationfor effective lynx Turkey conser- Memeliler.[Game species andwild animalsof Turkey:Mam- vation Middle East Technical programs.Thesis, University, mals.] Ongun Kardesler MatbaacilhkSanayii, Ankara, Ankara,Turkey. Turkey.(In Turkish.) . 2002. carnivoresin 38. World Large Turkey.Species TURKISHMINISTRY OF FORESTRY.2002. Central hunting ConservationUnion, Canada. Quebec, commission decisions for 2002-2003 hunting period. A. 1996. Memeliler DEMIRSOY, []. ,evre Bakanligi Turkish Ministry of Forestry National Parks and Game {(evre Genel of Miidiirliigii[Ministry EnvironmentGeneral Wildlife, Ankara,Turkey. (In Turkish.) Directoratefor Nature]. Meteksan A.,S., Ankara, Turkey. USTAY,A.H. 1990. Hunting in Turkey. Aksoy Matbaacillk (In Turkish.) A.,$., Istanbul,Turkey. HuS, S. 1974. Av ve avcilik hayvanlan [Game animals and ZEDROSSER,A., B. DAHLE,J.E. SWENSON,AND N. GERSTL.2001. hunting]. Istanbul Orman Fakiiltesi yayinlar [Istanbul Statusand managementof the brown bear in Europe.Ursus University ForestryFaculty Publications],Kutulmu, Mat- 12:9-20. baasi, Istanbul,Turkey. (In Turkish.) IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN red list of threatenedspecies. World Received: 4 August 2002 Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, www.redlist. Accepted: 16 October 2003 org, accessed 7 January2004. Associate Editor: J.C. Linnell

Ursus 15(1):48-53 (2004)