Chapter 6 Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan for Europe IUCN Category: Lower Risk, least concern CITES Listing: Appendix II Scientific Name: Ursus arctos Common Name: brown bear Figure 6.1. General brown bear (Ursus arctos) distribution in Europe. European Brown Bear Action Plan (Swenson, J., et al., 1998). 250 km ICELAND 250 miles Original distribution Current distribution SWEDEN FINLAND NORWAY ESTONIA RUSSIA LATVIA DENMARK IRELAND LITHUANIA UK BELARUS NETH. GERMANY POLAND BELGIUM UKRAINE LUX. CZECH SLOVAKIA MOLDOVA FRANCE AUSTRIA SWITZERLAND HUNGARY SLOVENIA CROATIA ROMANIA BOSNIA HERZ. THE YUGOSL. FEDER. ANDORRA BULGARIA PORTUGAL ITALY MACEDONIA SPAIN ALBANIA TURKEY GREECE CYPRUS 55 Introduction assumed to live in southwestern Carinthia, representing an outpost of the southern Slovenian population expanding In Europe the brown bear (Ursus arctos) once occupied into the border area with Austria and Italy (Gutleb 1993a most of the continent including Scandinavia, but since and b). The second population is located in the Limestone about 1850 has been restricted to a more reduced range Alps of Styria and Lower Austria and comprises 8–10 (Servheen 1990), see Figure 6.1. individuals; it is the result of a reintroduction project started by WWF-Austria in 1989. In addition to these populations, the Alps of Styria and Carinthia and to a lesser Status and management of the extent also of Salzburg and Upper Austria, are visited by brown bear in Austria migrating individuals with increasing frequency. A third Georg Rauer center of bear distribution is emerging in northwestern Styria and the bordering areas of Upper Austria (Dachstein, Distribution and current status Totes Gebirge, and Sengsengebirge) where, since 1990, 1–3 bears have been present almost continuously (Frei, J., At present, there are just a few brown bears living in Bodner, M., Sorger, H.P. pers. comm.) Austria, but the situation is promising and bear numbers Aste (1993) determined the distribution of suitable are rising. Austria is apparently in the first stages of a bear habitat over all of Austria by investigating these repopulation process. Since the extermination of the last parameters: fragmentation of forests, density of human indigenous populations in the 19th century (Rebel 1933; population, and intensity of tourism. According to this Tratz 1964) the bear has never disappeared completely survey, appropriate habitats are found in central and from Austria for long periods. Time and again, individuals southern Austria; in western Austria there are suitable from the Slovenian population migrated into Carinthia areas only if the impact of tourism is reduced (Figure 6.2). and sometimes even further north (Amon 1931, Puschnig 1928 and 1930, Thurn-Valsassina 1965). These pioneers generally disappeared after a short stay and the efforts to Legal status shoot them were unsuccessful. In the fifties, the number of bear visits increased, and since then, tracks, observations, In the majority of the federal states (Burgenland, or damages have been recorded by the Carinthian hunting Niederösterreich, Oberösterreich, Steiermark, Kärnten, organization Kärntner Jägerschaft nearly every year and Tirol) the brown bear is protected by hunting law as a (Anderluh 1987, Gutleb 1993a, Knaus 1972). In the 1980s, species with no open season. In Vorarlberg it is protected bears in Carinthia were still considered sporadic migrants by natural conservation laws. Salzburg is the only state (Bauer and Spitzenberger 1989). The incidence of females where the protection of bears is embodied in both laws. with cubs of the year in 1989 and 1990 in the mountains The capital of Austria (Wien) is the only federal state around the Weissensee (Carinthia) marks the transition where the brown bear is not protected by law because it is point from a migrant to a resident population in southern regarded as non-existent (Kraus and Kutzenberger 1993). Austria. Most of these regulations came about 20 years ago as a Today in Austria the brown bear occurs in two small reaction to the increase in the occurrence of migrating populations (Figure 6.2). Three to six individuals are bears. At that time, public attitudes began to change Figure 6.2. Present CZECH 50 Km distribution of the brown 0 50 Miles bear (Ursus arctos) in Austria 1989–1993 (Gutleb 1993a; Rauer GERMANY 1993; and Steirische Present Distribution Landesjägerschaft pers. Future Distribution comm.). Potential bear habitat in Austria (Aste 1993). HUNGARY ITALY SLOVENIA 56 towards nature in general and, in particular, toward large These insurance arrangements are funded by the federal predators and their right to exist. hunting organizations in Carinthia, Styria, and Salzburg. In Lower Austria the insurance is paid by WWF-Austria. In Upper Austria, a full compensation program is still Population threats outstanding. The damages from 1994 were paid partially by a special fund with money from WWF, the hunting Bears in Austria are not endangered by direct persecution organizations, and nature conservation agencies of the because the problem of poaching does not exist. state. In the northeastern part of the bear range (where a Nevertheless the survival and growth of this fragmented project is releasing bears), WWF also offers electric fences population is not at all certain as the numbers are still far to beekeepers who set up hives at sites where the chances below the size of what is generally considered the minimal of bear encounters are high. viable population. The expected increase of the Austrian The aim of the WWF Bear Project is to build up a bear population heavily depends on the increase of the viable bear population in the Alps of Lower Austria and Slovenian population and the continued existence of Styria. The idea for this project was prompted by the migration corridors to enable the Slovenian surplus existence of a lone male bear who had migrated to this individuals to reach Austrian bear habitats. region in 1972. Between 1982 and 1986, a group of interested people and organizations headed by the hunting organization of Lower Austria investigated the feasibility Habitat threats of a release project (Hager 1985), but finally abandoned these plans. WWF-Austria continued this work and started The increase in human recreational activities and mobility the reintroduction (augmentation) project in 1989 with put a heavy strain on bears and other wildlife. An increase the release of a young female. This test bear was followed in the impact of tourism on bear habitats of Lower Austria in 1992 and 1993 by an adult female and a young male and Styria to the level of Northern Tyrol would shatter all respectively. The released animals have been radio tracked the hopes for the establishment of a viable Austrian bear to gather data on their habitat use, foraging strategies, and population. migration patterns, and to document the fate of this small The continual rise in the intensity of road traffic requires initial population (Dieberger and Rauer 1991; Rauer the construction of highways and the improvement of 1993). Three cubs in 1991 (of which only one survived until national roads, thus leading to increased dissection of late autumn) and five cubs (three and two) in 1993 warrant potential bear habitat (e.g. Phyrnautobahn and Liesing- the hope that this experiment will be successful. Because Palten Tal). In the Carinthian government’s plans to build several migrants showed up in the project area in 1994, the a new road through an undeveloped forest in the lower release of further individuals has been canceled for the Gailtal to improve highway (Gailtalzubringer) access, it near future. was stressed that this unspoiled forest, growing on the WWF-Austria and the hunting organizations of debris of an enormous ancient land slide, is an important Carinthia and Styria are presently strong proponents of corridor for bears to use in crossing the valley, and should bear conservation in Austria. The efficient management not be destroyed (Mattuschka 1992). of a growing bear population requires intensified Austria is a country with a very high forest road cooperation from all the groups and organizations density (0.45m/km2 productive forest including public concerned, including the governmental nature conservation roads used for logging; Österreichischer Waldbericht 1992 agencies, the hunting organizations, the beekeepers’ unions des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft). and farmers’ committees, and the private nature Although forest roads are generally closed to public traffic conservation associations. Realizing these demands, the by barriers, they are constant sites of disturbance because governments of the states sharing the Austrian bear they attract hikers, mountain bikers, and mushroom or population have ordered wildlife biologists to conceive a berry pickers. The Austrian government still supports the management plan in 1995. Thereby all the organizations construction of forest roads, especially in a program mentioned above will be invited to clarify their points of aimed at managing protected forests, where the accessibility view and contribute their ideas and help to achieve common is comparatively low (0.093m/km2.). As a result, possible solutions to the problems inevitably arising in human- refuge areas are deteriorating. bear coexistence. Management Human-bear interactions In most of the states where bears occur regularly, programs Attacks on sheep and beehives make up the bulk of damages exist to compensate people for damages caused by bears.