Preliminary Brown Bear Survey in Southeastern Albania
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SHORT COMMUNICATION Preliminary brown bear survey in southeastern Albania 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, Greece 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