SHORT COMMUNICATION

Preliminary brown bear survey in southeastern

Alexandros A. Karamanlidis1,2,6, Stavri Pllaha3, Introduction Lambros Krambokoukis1, Kristaq Shore3, and The brown bear (Ursus arctos) is a key species for Andreas Zedrosser4,5 biodiversity of the Holarctic region (Servheen et al. 1999, Ray et al. 2005, Korsten et al. 2009) and 1ARCTUROS - Civil Society for the Study and Protection often functions as a flagship species, capable of and Management of Wildlife and the Natural Environ- attracting attention and resources for conservation ment, 53075 Aetos, Florina, because of its charismatic and iconic nature 2 Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Manage- (Simberloff 1999). Science-based information on ment, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, bear populations and their status exists in most ˚ 1432 As, Norway European countries (Zedrosser et al. 2001). A 3Transborder Wildlife Association, Natura Nderkufitare, notable exception is Albania, which during times Rr. Pandeli Cale Nr. 26, Korc¸e¨, Albania of political isolation during the communist regime 4Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Environ- mental and Health Studies, Telemark University College, and the current economic crisis in Europe has NO-3800 Bø i Telemark, Norway produced little reliable information on the status 5Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity of brown bears in the country. Bears in Albania Research, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game belong to the Dinaric–Pindos population, which Management, University of Natural Resources and ranges from Slovenia in the north to Greece in the Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Gregor-Mendel Street 33, south (Linnell et al. 2008). The estimated popula- A-1180 Vienna, Austria tion size of bears in the country is 180–200 individuals (Kaczensky et al. 2013); however, the Abstract: The political isolation during the commu- reliability of this estimate is unknown. It is nist regime and the economic crisis that followed its believed that the bear population in Albania is downfall adversely affected the conservation of currently declining because of ongoing habitat brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Albania. In 2008– destruction and high human-caused mortality (i.e., 2009 we conducted questionnaires and field surveys mainly poaching; Zedrosser et al. 2001, LCIE in southeastern Albania to determine the presence of 2005, Korro et al. 2010). Bears are legally pro- bears and evaluate bear–human interactions, and tected in Albania, and a national Action Plan for on-site inspections to record the status of bears held the species was adopted by the Ministry of in captivity. We recorded bears mainly in the eastern Environment, Forests and Water Administration and southeastern part of the study area and in 2007 (Bego 2007). However, this plan has not documented wide-scale bear–human conflicts, which been fully implemented and no management often resulted in the killing and a generally negative efforts or monitoring system is in place, while at public perception of bears. We documented 25 bears the same time indications of illegal trophy hunting in captivity, often under marginal welfare conditions and capturing wild bears for exhibition or as and noted wild-born cubs that were maintained in pets exist (Godes 1997, Korro et al. 2010). The captivity to meet the demand for captive bears. We magnitude of these conservation and welfare issues recommend additional studies to better evaluate is unknown. brown bear status; nation-wide education on species Given the limited published information concern- conservation needs and how to mitigate negative ing brown bears in Albania, we conducted a interactions; and efforts to improve welfare of bears preliminary survey to collect baseline information in captivity. on the status of brown bears in southeastern Albania. We collected information on the presence Key words: bear–human interactions, brown bear, of bears and their interactions with humans, and conservation, Dinaric–Pindos region, distribu- recorded the minimum number known of captive tion, Ursus arctos, welfare bears and their potential origin. We used this Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) information to formulate research and management actions to facilitate effective conservation of brown 6email: [email protected] bears in Albania.

1 2SHORT COMMUNICATION

Study area killings of bears, which enabled us to evaluate Albania is a mountainous country in southeastern whether .2 respondents were referring to the same Europe with a warm Mediterranean climate. We case. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were used to conducted this study in administrative districts check whether the observed frequencies of respon- in southeastern Albania that contained vegetation dent professions and places of residency differed communities (i.e., areas including deciduous and significantly from the expected frequencies. Also, a coniferous forests, crops, pastures, orchards and Wilcoxon W-test was performed to evaluate the scrublands) considered suitable for bears (Posillico significance of reported attitudes toward bears in the et al. 2004). The study area (approx. 2,000 km2)is region. The questionnaires were carried out in 8 estimated to represent approximately one-third of administrative districts in southeastern Albania, and the total landscape considered suitable for bears in each district was considered a sampling unit. Albania. To offer support for the information on bear presence received from the questionnaire survey, we attempted to homogeneously survey forestry roads Methods in the study area during spring (Apr–May) in both We applied 3 methods to record the presence of 2008 and 2009 to collect direct (i.e., observations, bears in the study area. We conducted a question- dead individuals) and indirect signs of bear presence naire survey (2008–2009) on bear presence and bear– (i.e., tracks, scats, feeding signs). This approach has human interactions among randomly selected male been used successfully to survey bear populations in residents. We interviewed male residents because, southern Europe (Clevenger et al. 1997, Karamanli- due to cultural and social circumstances, they are the dis et al. 2014). Because of the large size of the study ones generally involved in outdoor activities and area and the short period of suitable weather were considered the most knowledgeable in regard to conditions, priority was given to survey as much the status of bears in our study area. The question- suitable bear habitat as possible, and thus we naire consisted of 35 questions organized in 4 inspected each road only once during the study groups: (1) information about the respondent period. profession and place of residency; (2) information We surveyed the electricity and telephone pole about the presence of bears in the area, including network (hereafter, power poles) in the study area bear presence, residency status (i.e., permanent, for signs of bear marking behavior (i.e., hair, bite seasonal, or sporadic), and records of reproduction; marks, tracks). We used power poles with signs of (3) information on bear–human interactions in the bear presence to establish hair traps using barbed area, including occurrence of bear damage, types of wire (Kendall and McKelvey 2008). These hair traps damage, human response to purported nuisance were inspected once per month from April to July bears, average frequency of bear damage incidents and in November 2008, and from March to per year, main season of bear damage, locations September 2009. This method has been successfully affected by bear damage, most recent occasion of used to monitor bear populations in neighboring bear damage, mitigation measures applied, cases countries (Karamanlidis et al. 2007, 2010). We of bear aggression toward humans, and cases of analyzed hair samples in a lab (Wildlife Genetics deliberate killing of bears; and (4) information on International, Nelson, British Columbia, Canada) the human perception of bears in the region (i.e., that specializes in non-invasively obtained samples dangerous vs. not dangerous, harmful vs. not using the protocol developed by Karamanlidis et al. harmful, shy vs. not shy, aggressive vs. not (2010). The combination of interviews with local aggressive), the attitude toward ‘‘dancing’’ bears people and ground-truthed surveys is suitable for (i.e., positive vs. negative), and the attitude toward detecting bears and can yield accurate distribution bears held as pets in restaurants (i.e., positive vs. maps (Liu et al. 2009). negative). We asked people to point out on a map We assessed the number and location of captive the locations of damage by bears to human property, bears by talking to the general public and requesting aggressive interactions of bears toward people, and information from public authorities (i.e., represen- where illegal killings of bears had occurred. During tatives of the Forestry Department, veterinary the interviews, we received detailed information on authorities, etc.) and verified all reports of bears in bear damage, aggressive incidents, and deliberate captivity by site inspections. We carried out these

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) SHORT COMMUNICATION N 3

Fig. 1. (A) Map of Albania indicating the study area where we conducted questionnaires and field surveys in southeastern Albania to determine the presence of bears and evaluate bear–human interactions, and on-site inspections to record the status of bears held in captivity, during 2008–2009. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of questionnaires carried out in each of the 8 administrative districts in the study area. (B) Close- up of the study area indicating the locations where cases of bear aggression, illegal killings of bears, and bear damage to human property were recorded during the questionnaire survey. Numbers in parentheses indicate a location where more than one case of bear evidence was recorded. The close-up presents also the locations where bear signs were recorded during the field and power pole surveys. Survey efforts were opportunistically focused on high-suitability areas and to confirm bear presence from questionnaires. inspections throughout the entire country and also the people interviewed suggested a seasonal or collected information on the sex, age, and area of permanent bear presence, while in the western-most origin of captive bears. districts (i.e., Gramsh, Skrapar, and Berat) this percentage was lower (i.e., 53–79%). Bear reproduc- tion was reported from all districts, with the Results exception of the western-most district of Berat. Also We carried out 136 questionnaire surveys in 8 the reports of the occurrence of bear-caused damage administrative districts in southeastern Albania were greatest in the northeastern and eastern-most (Fig. 1A). Most people interviewed were older men districts (i.e., Librazhd, Pogradec, Korc¸e¨, Kolonje, (i.e., .50 yr of age) and they worked in rural and Pe¨rmet), where 80–100% of the people inter- professions such as farming, livestock breeding, or viewed reported bear damage, in contrast to the sheepherding (68%; Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, western-most districts (i.e., Gramsh, Skrapar, and x2 5 10.318, 1 df, P 5 0.001). Also, most (81%; x2 5 Berat), where only 35–70% of the people interviewed 28.676, 1 df, P , 0.001) of them claimed to be living reported bear damage. The damage reported was or working within a 25-km radius of permanent bear primarily crops (45%), but damage to livestock presence. However, in the northeastern and eastern- (33%) and beehives (22%) was also reported. During most districts of the study area (i.e., Librazhd, the interviews, we recorded 55 locations where bear Pogradec, Korc¸e¨, Kolonje, and Pe¨rmet) 96–100% of damage to human property had occurred, 15 cases of

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) 4SHORT COMMUNICATION bear aggression toward humans, and 15 cases of borders with the neighboring countries Former illegal killings of bears (Fig. 1B). All these negative Yugoslav Republic [FYR] of Macedonia and Greece, interactions occurred during the 3 years previous to and lower presence of bears toward the west and administration of the questionnaires. The respon- southwest of the study area (Fig. 1B). However, dents generally had a negative perception of bears; because of the low number of bear signs recorded in bears were considered dangerous (56%) and harmful the field, these results must be viewed with caution (62%), but not aggressive (60%). Respondents in the and additional field work is required to create a more northeastern and eastern-most parts of the study accurate distribution map of the species in the area (i.e., the areas with the most bear-caused country. damage) generally had a more negative perception The use of power poles for monitoring bear of bears. Most respondents did not approve of bears populations has been used successfully in neighbor- being held in captivity for exhibition purposes or as ing countries such as FYR Macedonia and Greece pets (89%; Wilcoxon W 5 36.0, P 5 0.001). (Karamanlidis et al. 2010, 2014). However, this We surveyed about 500 km of forestry roads in the method was not successful in Albania because most study area and recorded 15 signs of brown bear of the power poles are made from concrete. presence (11 tracks, 2 scats, and 2 dead animals; Alternative methods for monitoring bear status in Fig. 1B). We collected genetic samples of the dead Albania should be pursued and could include animals; however, those samples did not provide traditional sign surveys (Kendall et al. 1992), and/ enough DNA for further genetic analysis because of or genetic data obtained from the collection of scat their advanced stage of decomposition. samples (Bellemain et al. 2005, Skrbinsˇek et al. 2010) We inspected 29 wooden power poles and or from hair samples collected from rub trees recorded evidence of bear marking and rubbing (Latham et al. 2012). activity on 7 of them (Fig. 1B). We installed barbed- Bear–human conflicts are common throughout the wire hair traps on all 7 power poles and inspected entire range of brown bears (Zimmerman et al. 2003, them 84 times during the study. We recorded bear Gunther et al. 2004, Rondinini and Boitani 2007), presence at the hair traps 11 times and collected 12 and can pose a serious threat to the conservation of hair samples. The majority (N 5 7) of the hair the species (Swenson et al. 2000). The questionnaire samples were collected in April and May. Genetic survey indicated widespread bear–human conflicts, analysis of these samples indicated the presence of at including agricultural damage and deliberate killing least one male and one female bear in the study area. of purported nuisance bears. Our results are in We evaluated 35 reports of bears in captivity and general accordance with those of a previous ques- verified the presence of 25 animals in captivity tionnaire survey in the study area regarding bear– throughout Albania, as private pets (N 5 8), as human interactions (Godes 1997), as well as in the ‘‘photo’’ bears (N 5 1), or at restaurants (N 5 16). northern part of Albania (Kec¸i et al. 2008) and We recorded bears of all age classes (i.e., 28% cubs- neighboring Greece (Karamanlidis et al. 2011). of-the-year and yearlings, 20% subad, 52% ad). The perception of and the attitude of question- Based on the information provided by the people naire respondents toward bears was mainly negative; questioned, most (68%) of these animals originated however, the majority of respondents were older from the wild, from Albania. local men working as farmers or livestock breeders. This population group is generally the most negative toward large carnivores (Bjerke and Kaltenborn Discussion 1999), and the extrapolation of their attitudes to We present the results of the first field survey the general public is likely questionable. However, on brown bear presence in southeastern Albania. despite their negative perception of bears, most Accurate information on species occurrence is respondents were not in favor of holding wild bears important in understanding population dynamics in captivity. This result was in contrast to a previous and thus is indispensable in effective conservation study in the area, where most respondents did not planning (Rondinini et al. 2006). The combined express negative feelings toward keeping animals in results of the questionnaire and field surveys indicate captivity or for exhibition purposes (Godes 1997), a higher presence of bears in the northeastern and indicating a positive change in this conservation and southeastern part of the study area, along the welfare issue. Our results also differ from the more

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) SHORT COMMUNICATION N 5 positive attitudes of people in northern Albania nuisance bears, bears in captivity), an envi- toward bears (Kec¸i et al. 2008, Trajce 2010). It is ronmental education campaign presenting unclear whether these differences are due to different information that highlights the important methodological approaches (i.e., how the questions ecological role of bears and introduces alter- in the interviews were formulated) or are due to native and effective methods of mitigating the actual regional differences in the attitudes of negative effects of bear interactions, appears Albanians toward bears. as a conservation priority. Such a campaign Keeping brown bears in captivity as pets, for should be carried out on a national scale and subsistence (e.g., dancing bears; Koene 1994, Sesha- target people in the rural as well as the urban mani and Satyanarayan 1997), or for revenue (e.g., parts of the country. Environmental education bile extraction; Servheen 1999) is an important programs are an integral part of bear conser- conservation and welfare issue that can have vation and management and have been used to negative impacts on wild bear populations (Garssen reduce bear–human conflicts (Gore et al. 2006) 2006). The results of our study, as well as results of a and promote coexistence between bears and subsequent survey in Albania (Korro et al. 2010), humans (Morgan et al. 2004). suggest a relatively high number of privately owned 3. A thorough investigation of the issue of captive bears. We were unable to obtain genetic captive bears in close cooperation with rele- samples from captive bears, but most private bear vant authorities is needed before initiating owners claimed their bears were from Albania. Only potential confiscation of these animals and the one animal was described as being born in captivity. costly creation of a Bear Sanctuary (Garssen This suggests that poaching wild females to capture 2006). Similar sanctuaries have been used to the cubs as pets occurs in Albania; however, the solve this problem in Greece (ARCTUROS magnitude and conservation impact on the wild bear 2013) and (Four Paws 2013), while at population remains unknown. the same time contributing to the environmen- tal sensitization of local citizens. Recommendations Though based on limited field data, our results suggest that brown bears in Albania face numerous Acknowledgments conservation challenges, and therefore actions are We thank the field teams of ARCTUROS and the needed to safeguard the future of the species in the Transborder Wildlife Association for their help in the country. We recommend the following priority field work and in conducting the questionnaires. We research and management actions, which are in greatly appreciate the overall logistical help of C. accordance with the high-priority actions of the Zouras, L. Georgiadis, and M. de Gabriel Hernando. National Action Plan (Bego 2007): J. Belant, P. Ciucci, M. Proctor, A. Trajc¸e, and an anonymous reviewer provided valuable comments that 1. The current lack of reliable data on the status greatly improved an earlier version of the manuscript. of brown bears in Albania hinders the This study received funding from Alertis, fund for bear development of an effective conservation and nature conservation; the International Association strategy for the species. Given the limited for Bear Research and Management; and the non- financial resources available for surveying governmental organization ARCTUROS. bears in Albania, we suggest prioritizing the creation of a fine-scale distribution map derived from on-the-ground surveys and questionnaires, which could serve as a base- Literature cited ARCTUROS. 2013. Animals in captivity. http://www. line for population trend monitoring (Liu arcturos.gr/el/index.php?option5ozo_content&perform5 et al. 2009). view&id546&Itemid542. Accessed 18 Feb 2014. 2. Considering the endangered status of brown BEGO, F. 2007. The brown bear (Ursus arctos) action plan. bears in Albania and the numerous threats and Report prepared under the GEF Biodiversity Enabling problems of their coexistence with humans Activity. The Republic of Albania, Ministry of Envi- documented during our study (i.e., damage to ronment, Forest and Water Administration, Tirana, human property, illegal killing of purported Republic of Albania.

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) 6SHORT COMMUNICATION

BELLEMAIN,E.,J.E.SWENSON,D.TALLMON,P.TABERLET, AND G. SCHWADERER,A.SPANGENBERG, AND J.D.C. LINNELL. S. BRUNBERG. 2005. Estimating population size of elusive 2008. Conflicts between lynx, other large carnivores, and animals with DNA from hunter-collected feces: Four humans in Macedonia and Albania. Pages 257–264 in methods for brown bears. Conservation Biology 19:150–161. Macedonian Ecological Society, editor. Proceedings of BJERKE, T., AND B.P. KALTENBORN. 1999. The relationship the III Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes Macedonia. Special Issues of Macedonian Ecological toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Society, Struga, Republic of Macedonia. Psychology 19:415–421. KENDALL, K.C., L.H. METZGAR, D.A. PATTERSON, AND CLEVENGER, A.P., F.J. PURROY, AND M.A. CAMPOS. 1997. B.M. STEELE. 1992. Power of sign surveys to monitor Habitat assessment of a relict brown bear Ursus arctos population trends. Ecological Applications 2:422–430. population in northern Spain. Biological Conservation ———, AND K.S. MCKELVEY. 2008. Hair collection. 80:17–22. Pages 135–176 in R.A. Long, P. MacKay, J.C. Ray, FOUR PAWS 2013. Belitsa Sanctuary. http://www.four- and W.J. Zielinski, editors. Noninvasive survey meth- paws.org.uk/projects/bears/belitsa-sanctuary/. Accessed ods for North American carnivores. Island Press, 18 Feb 2014. Washington, DC, USA. GARSSEN, A. 2006. Management strategy to handle welfare KOENE, P. 1994. The ex-dancing bears in Bursa: Behavioral problems of captive brown bears (Ursus arctos). Case problems. Pages 73–84 in G.M. Dorrestein and M. study on captive brown bears in Georgia. University of Kahraman, editors. Proceedings of the International Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. Conference on Aspects of Bear Conservation. REPRO, GODES,K., EDITOR. The brown bear in the south Balkans. Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. A compendium. ARCTUROS, , Greece. KORRO, K., G. BAARS,A.C¸ AUSHI, AND R. NOVAKU. 2010. GORE, M.L., B.A. KNUTH, P.D. CURTIS, AND J.E. Enumerating captive brown bears in Albania. Interna- SHANAHAN. 2006. Education programs for reducing tional Bear News 19:7. American black bear–human conflict: Indicators of KORSTEN,M.,S.Y.W.HO,J.DAVISON,B.PA¨ HN,E.VULLA,M. success? Ursus 17:75–80. ROHT,I.L.TUMANOV,I.KOJOLA,Z.ANDERSONE-LILLEY,J. GUNTHER, K.A., M.A. HAROLDSON,K.FREY, S.L. CAIN,J. OZOLINS,M.PILOT,Y.MERTZANIS,A.GIANNAKOPOULOS, COPELAND, AND C.C. SCHWARTZ. 2004. Grizzly bear– A. VOROBIEV,N.MARKOV,A.P.SAVELJEV,E.A.LYAPU- human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, NOVA,A.ABRAMOV,P.MA¨ NNIL,H.VALDMANN,S.V. 1992–2000. Ursus 15:10–22. PAZETNOV,V.S.PAZETNOV,A.M.RO˜ KOV, AND U. SAARMA. KACZENSKY,P.,G.CHAPRON,M.vON ARX,Ð.HUBER,H. 2009. Sudden expansion of a single brown bear maternal ANDRE´ N, AND J. LINNELL. 2013. Status, management and lineage across northern continental Eurasia after the last distribution of large carnivores—bear, lynx, wolf & ice age: A general demographic model for mammals? wolverine—in Europe, Part 2. Report prepared with the Molecular Ecology 18:1963–1979. assistance of Istituto di Ecologia Applicata and with the LARGE CARNIVORE INITIATIVE FOR EUROPE [LCIE]. 2005. Bear contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative online information system for Europe. http://www.kora. for Europe under contract N070307/2012/629085/SER/B3. ch/sp-ois/bear-ois/index.htm. Accessed 18 Feb 2014. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. LATHAM, E., J.B. STETZ, I.V. SERYODKIN,D.MIQUELLE, KARAMANLIDIS, A.A., D. YOULATOS,S.SGARDELIS, AND Z. AND M.L. GIBEAU. 2012. Non-invasive genetic sampling SCOURAS. 2007. Using sign at power poles to document of brown bears and Asiatic black bears in the Russian presence of bears in Greece. Ursus 18:54–61. Far East: A pilot study. Ursus 23:145–158. ———, E. DROSOPOULOU,M.DE GABRIEL HERNANDO,L. LINNELL, J., V. SALVATORI, AND L. BOITANI. 2008. GEORGIADIS,L.KRAMBOKOUKIS,S.PLLAHA,A.ZEDROS- Guidelines for population level management plans for SER, AND Z. SCOURAS. 2010. Non-invasive genetic studies large carnivores in Europe. A large carnivore initiative of brown bears using power poles. European Journal of for Europe report prepared for the European Commis- Wildlife Research 56:693–702. sion (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2). Europe- ———, A. SANOPOULOS,L.GEORGIADIS, AND A. ZEDROS- an Commission, Brussels, Belgium. SER. 2011. Structural and economic aspects of human– LIU, F., W.J. MCSHEA,D.GARSHELIS,X.ZHU,D.WANG,J. bear conflicts in Greece. Ursus 22:141–151. GONG, AND Y. CHEN. 2009. Spatial distribution as a ———, A. STOJANOV,M.DE GABRIEL HERNANDO,G. measure of conservation needs: An example with IVANOV,I.KOCIJAN,D.MELOVSKI,T.SKRBINSˇEK, AND A. Asiatic black bears in south-western China. Diversity ZEDROSSER. 2014. Distribution and genetic status of and Distributions 15:649–659. brown bears in FYR Macedonia: Implications for MORGAN, C.P., J. DAVIS,T.FORD, AND N. LANEY. 2004. conservation. Acta Theriologica 59:119–128. Promoting understanding: The approach of the KEC¸I, E., A. TRAJC¸E,K.MERSINI,F.BEGO,G.IVANOV,D. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Outreach Project. Ursus MELOVSKI,A.STOJANOV,U.BREITENMOSER,M.vON ARX, 15:137–141.

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014) SHORT COMMUNICATION N 7

POSILLICO, M., M.I.B. ALBERTO,E.PAGNIN,S.LOVARI, AND SIMBERLOFF, D. 1999. Biodiversity and bears—a conserva- L. RUSSO. 2004. A habitat model for brown bear tion paradigm shift. Ursus 11:21–28. conservation and land use planning in the central SKRBINSˇEK, T., M. JELENCˇ ICˇ , L.P. WAITS,I.KOS, AND P. Apennines. Biological Conservation 118:141–150. TRONTELJ. 2010. Highly efficient multiplex PCR on RAY, J.C., K.H. REDFORD, R.S. STENECK, AND J. BERGER. noninvasive DNA does not require preamplification. 2005. Large carnivores and the conservation of Molecular Ecology Resources 10:495–501. biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. SWENSON, J.E., N. GERSTL,B.DAHLE, AND A. ZEDROSSER. RONDININI, C., K.A. WILSON,L.BOITANI,H.GRANTHAM, 2000. Action plan for the conservation of the brown AND H.P. POSSINGHAM. 2006. Tradeoffs of different bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Nature and Environment types of species occurrence data for use in systematic 114, Strasbourg, Belgium. conservation planning. Ecology Letters 9:1136–1145. TRAJCE, A. 2010. Conservation planning for guilds or ———, AND L. BOITANI. 2007. Systematic conservation individual species? The relative perceptions of wolves, planning and the cost of tackling conservation conflicts bears and lynx among the rural Albanian public. with large carnivores in . Conservation Biology University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK. 21:1455–1462. ZEDROSSER, A., B. DAHLE, J.E. SWENSON, AND N. GERSTL. SERVHEEN, C. 1999. The trade in bears and bear parts. 2001. Status and management of the brown bear in Pages 33–38 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, Europe. Ursus 12:9–20. editors. Bears. Status survey and conservation action ZIMMERMAN, B., P. WABAKKEN, AND M. DOETTERER. 2003. plan. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Brown bear–livestock conflicts in a bear conservation Bern, ; and Cambridge, England, UK. zone in Norway: Are cattle a good alternative to sheep? ———, S. HERRERO, AND B. PEYTON, EDITORS. 1999. Bears. Ursus 14:72–83. Status survey and conservation action plan. Interna- tional Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland; and Cambridge, England, UK. SESHAMANI, G., AND K. SATYANARAYAN. 1997. The dancing Received: 10 April 2013 bears of India. The World Society for the Protection of Accepted: 1 January 2014 Animals, London, England, UK. Associate Editor: P. Ciucci

Ursus 25(1):1–7 (2014)