Brown bear-livestock conflicts in a bear conservation zone in Norway: are cattle a good alternative to sheep? Barbara Zimmermann1, Petter Wabakken, and Michael Dotterer Facultyof Forestryand WildlifeManagement, Hedmark University College, N-2480 Koppang,Norway Abstract: We evaluated the potential for reducing livestock conflicts within a bear (Ursus arctos) conservationzone by replacingsheep with cattle. We interviewedcattle farmersand veterinariansand investigatedlivestock and depredationstatistics from governmentalland-use and wildlife management in HedmarkCounty, south-easternNorway. This county bordersa reproducingbrown bearpopulation in Sweden and alreadycontains several residentmale brown bears. A brown bear conservationzone, within which beardensity is plannedto increase,covers 46% of the county's surface.There were about 7 times as many free-rangingsheep (128,600) as cattle (18,200) during summer 1998, with densities lowest inside the bear conservationzone. Estimatedfree-ranging cattle mortalitywas about 16 times lower than sheep mortalityin summer 1998. During the past 13 years, no cattle were confirmedas killed by brown bears. The perceptionof the brown bear as a threatto cattle is higher among farmers than among veterinariansor managers.We found little supportfor the allegation that cattle become more difficultto control in the presenceof brown bears. Regardingbrown bear predation,we consider cattle a good alternativeto sheep in Norway. In southeasternNorway, however, the expected ex- pansion of the brown bear reproductionarea and an increasingwolf (Canis lupus) populationmakes this assertion less certain. We stress the need for researchon the predatorybehavior of large male brown bears and wolves, as well as on measures to protect free-rangingcattle against potential predation. Key words: brown bear, Canis lupus, cattle, domestic sheep, livestock depredation,Norway, Ursus arctos, wolf, zoning management Ursus14(1):72-83 (2003) Livestock productionin Norway has a long tradition 1920s due to intensive hunting. Gradually improved of using the vast marginalforest and mountainhabitat; protectionof brownbears in Sweden allowed an increase, cultivatedland is limited. Currentland-use policies still resulting in 4 reproductioncore areas (Swenson et al. try to use these outlying areas in various sustainable 1995). At present, there are 800-1,300 brown bears in ways (Landbruksdepartementet1993, Milj0verdeparte- Scandinavia,including 26-55 in Norway (Milj0verde- mentet 1997). These policies are intended to help partementet1997, Zedrosseret al. 2001). Most bears in maintain rural settlements and secure the strategic Norway are males roamingclose to the Swedish border has capacity for independentfood production. After large (Swenson et al. 1998b). The Norwegiangovernment carnivores (brown bears, wolves, Eurasianlynx [Lynx established5 bear conservationzones along the Swedish lynx], and wolverines [Gulo gulo]) became reduced or border to ensure viable populations (Milj0vemdeparte- eradicated at the beginning of the twentieth century, mentet 1992). This zoning managementallows increased sheep could be kept largely untendedin the forests and controloutside the conservationzones. Inside,alternative of mountainareas during summergrazing (Reinton 1955). conflict-reducingmeasures that still allow some form Until 150 years ago, several thousand brown bears land-use are a priority (Milj0vemdepartementet1992, inhabitedmost of the ScandinavianPeninsula (Sweden 1997). Sheep losses have increased markedly, and the bears has not halted andNorway; Swenson et al. 1995). However,the number annual removal of some problem of brownbears decreased to a low of about 120 duringthe this trend(Wabakken and Maartmann1994, Sag0r et al. 1997). A comparison among European countries re- vealed Norway had the highest livestock depredation ratesby far;at least 25 times as many sheep are annually 1 email: [email protected] 72 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS IN NORWAY* Zimmermann et al. 73 lost to bear predation per brown bear than in other of the county. Moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreolus countries(Kaczensky 1996). capreolus), and red deer (Cervus elaphus), as well as In Norway, large carnivore-livestock conflicts have wild reindeer(Rangifer tarandus) in the mountainsare promptedseveral studies on the preventionor reduction present and subject to intense harvest. of sheep depredation, including the economics and Hedmark County borders one of 4 brown bear re- social aspects of depredation (Wabakken and Maart- production core areas in Sweden. In 1996, an esti- mann 1994, Linnell et al. 1996, Mysterudet al. 1996, mated 9-13 males occupied Hedmark County and a Flaten and Kleppa 1999, Krogstadet al. 2000, Rings0 few females occasionally crossed the national border et al. 2000). In addition to carnivoremanagement and (Milj0vemdepartementet1997); bears regularly hiber- sheep protectiontechniques, the governmentis encour- nate on the Norwegian side of the border (Swenson aging farmers,particularly in bear conservation zones, et al. 1996). The Norwegian segment of the population to turn from sheep farming to sources of income less is expected to increase, including more reproducing affected by bears (Milj0verdepartementet1992, 1997). females in the future. The insufficientcultivated ground makes the use of for- The Scandinavian wolf population is shared by est and alpineareas as grazinglands essentialto the econ- Hedmark County and neighbouring Norwegian and omy for a majorityof these farmers. Swedish counties to the south and east. This population Is the replacementof sheep with free-rangingcattle increasedfrom about 10 individualsduring the 1980s to a problem-free solution? Will brown bears and other 62-78 wolves in 1998 (Wabakkenet al. 2001). In winter predatorsswitch to cattle after sheep removal?The gov- 1998-99, 2 packs and 2 pairs were located totally or ernmental Conservation Agency of Hedmark County, partially inside Hedmark County (Wabakken et al. southeasternNorway, asked us to answerthese questions. 1999). Lynx occurredin the forested areas of Hedmark They also asked us to investigate a common allegation County (Wabakken et al. 1995, Odden et al. 2000), thatcattle become more difficultto handlewhen exposed whereas wolverines and golden eagles (Aquila chrys- to brown bears on summerpasture. aetos) were found in some of the mountain areas and Despite many recent studies on sheep productionin high altitudeforests (Wabakkenet al. 1995, Landaet al. Norway, free-ranging cattle farming has rarely been 1998). In 1998, brown bears accounted for 47%, lynx studied. We gathered informationfrom farmers,veter- for 23%, wolves for 14%, wolverines for 10%, and inarians, and governmental agencies on practices and golden eagles for 6% of the livestock losses to predators problems with free-rangingcattle in HedmarkCounty, (E. Maartmann,Hedmark County Conservation Agency, southeastern Norway. Our objectives were to (1) Hamar,Norway, personal communication,1999). identify the distributionof free-rangingcattle and sheep ranges in relation to large carnivoredistribution, brown bears in particular; (2) quantify qualities of cattle grazing ranges that might expose cattle to increased Methods We divided Hedmark into 5 depredationrisk; (3) identify sources of cattle mortality County regions defined the of brown bears and in general and carnivore-relatedmortality in particular; by presence wolves (Fig. lb). The eastern most (4) investigate the allegationthat cattle become difficult region (code 3) was the brown bear conservation zone. to manage with brown bear presence. This zone covered 46% of the county. Breedingfemale brown bears in the borderarea, established male brown bears, and some wolves in- Study area habited this zone. Two other regions had occasional The study area (27,388 km2) was situated in south- occurrenceof brown bears and a few locally established wolves The 2 central Scandinaviaand comprises HedmarkCounty in (code 2). remaining regions had rare occurrences of brown bears and southeasternNorway (Fig. la). Human population is lacked established wolves The scatteredthroughout the county and generallyhas a low (code 1). northern-mostregion is mostly density (average 6.8 persons/km2). Lowest densities alpine, whereas the southern-mostof these 2 regions is dominated forest. are in the east and north of the county, commonly with by <1 person/km2.Boreal coniferous forest dominatesthe landscapeup to 900 m above sea level; alpine vegetation Data sources takes over above the treeline. is the Forestry dominant To evaluate the potential of cattle farming as an land-use but some occurs in all system, agriculture parts alternativeto sheep productionon brown bear occupied Ursus 14(1):72-83 (2003) 74 CATTLE-BROWNBEAR CONFLICTS INNORWAY * Zimmermannet al. a) b) -- Fig. 1. Study area of (a) HedmarkCounty in Norway in the Scandinavian Peninsula and wolf and brown bear distribution (b) in Hedmark County: 1 = occasional bear and wolf presence, 2 = occasional bear presence, established wolves in some areas, 3 = bear conservation zone, bears and wolves established in some areas, 1998. rangelands,we used 3 sourcesof information:(1) govern- personal communication, 2000). On the regional and mental land-use and conservationagencies, (2) farmers county level, we consideredthese numbersreliable. who owned free-rangingcattle, and (3) districtveterinar- Cattle farmers. In 1998, 880 farmersin Hedmark ians. Sources and samplingmethods are detailedbelow. County practiced free-ranging