Annex 35 - Action E8

Transcrição

IMPROVING COEXISTENCE OF LARGE
CARNIVORES AND AGRICULTURE IN S-EUROPE
ANNEX 35
ACTION E8 – SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
Carnivore Damage Prevention News, December 2005
The Use of
Livestock Guarding Dogs
in Portugal
by
Silvia Ribeiro & Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca
Introduction
Conflicts with wolves that result from depredation
on livestock are not new and different strategies have
been used to deal with them. Historically people
aimed to reduce conflicts by exterminating the
predator. In Portugal, human persecution led to Iberian wolf, Canis lupus signatus, extinction in 80% of
the country, particularly since the 1970s (PetrucciFonseca 1990). Alternatively and simultaneously to
wolf persecution, original and effective non-lethal
methods of livestock protection have also been developed. These methods reflect an ancient knowledge that resulted from a long coexistence between
wolves and livestock. The most widespread is the
presence of a shepherd accompanied by livestock
guarding dogs (LGDs). Nevertheless, in Portugal the
use of good LGDs and the knowledge on how to
raise them is being lost and non-efficient dogs,
namely small-medium sized hunting or mongrel
dogs and dogs not raised in a correct manner are
generally used. Since the wolf became protected in
–
Page 27
1988, the inefficient protection of most livestock has
led to increased depredation and conflicts.
Predation on livestock
Due to the scarcity of wild ungulates, wolf diet is
based on livestock leading to considerable damages.
On a national level, annual damages to livestock
reach a total of 1,000-1,500 goats or sheep and 250300 cattle or horses (data supplied by the Institute for
Nature Conservation – ICN). Confirmed wolf damages are compensated by the ICN according to the
current market value. Compensation has presently
reached a total annual amount of 600,000 €
(729,000 U$) (ICN). Wolves prey on the domestic
species available. This availability depends not only
on the abundance of the species but also on the ease
of capture by the predator. In wolf range there are
around 347,000 sheep, 123,000 goats, 131,000 cattle
and 28,800 horses. Roe deer, Capreolus capreolus,
densities are low to moderate and red deer, Cervus
elaphus, is only locally common in the North-eastern
part of the country. Despite being very abundant the
wild boar, Sus scrofa, is a difficult prey for the wolf.
In Alvão Natural Park and adjacent mountains
(North), the wolf diet is essentially based on goat
(70%) and wild boar (14%) (Carreira & PetrucciFonseca 2000). However, in the most Northern
mountains in Peneda-Gerês National Park, where
cattle and horses are free-grazed, wolves prey mainly
on goats (37%), horses (27%), especially young, and cattle (19%)
(Álvares et al. 2000). In the Centre
of the country wolves feed mainly
on cattle (33%) and goats (23%),
and to a lesser extent on horses/
donkeys (9%), sheep (7%) and wild
boar (7%) (Quaresma 2002). Outside the wolf distribution range,
stray dogs are also responsible for
damages on livestock (Ribeiro &
Petrucci-Fonseca 1998). In these
areas, the use of livestock protection measures has decreased since
wolf disappearance and attacks by
dogs usually result in multiple killing or maiming of livestock.
Implementation
of the LGD project
Fig. 1: Juvenile female Cão de Castro Laboreiro alert to the presence of
strangers near the flock on a mountain pasture. (Photo: Raquel Simões)
To help reduce this constant conflict Grupo Lobo has developed an
Page 28
action plan that aims to recover the use of
LGDs and evaluate its use as an efficient
livestock protection method to contribute
to wolf conservation. At the same time it
also aims to contribute to the conservation
of the Portuguese breeds of LGDs, some
of them also endangered, like the Cão de
Castro Laboreiro (Figure 1) or the shorthaired variety of the Cão da Serra da
Estrela (Figure 2).
Although initially defined in 1988 this
action plan only began in 1996. Since then
a series of consecutive funds enabled the
continuation and expansion of the project.
Besides its experimental basis, the project
also promoted a series of studies on LGD
behaviour, genetics and morphology.
These studies have been performed by
several undergraduate, master and doc- Fig. 2: Adult female Cão da Serra da Estrela of the short-hair variety
integrated into a sheep flock on the plains in the Northeast of Portugal.
toral students. Behaviour studies have (Photo: Silvia Ribeiro)
been developed to increase the knowledge
about LGD behavioural development and the process
LGDs by Coppinger & Coppinger (1980) that deof socialization that are the basis for efficient LGD.
fines three components: 1) attentiveness; 2) trustworBesides considerations about the origin and relationthiness; 3) protectiveness. Attentiveness is evaluated
ship between breeds, inbreeding analysis and bioaccording to the methodology defined by Coppinger
metric studies are also very useful for breed manageet al. (1983).
ment and conservation. Other methods of livestock
Veterinary care and food are provided until the
protection are also being tested and implemented as
dog reaches adulthood. To guarantee the correct eduwell as the gathering of information on methods tracation and welfare of the dog, and consequently its
ditionally used.
efficiency, an agreement is signed with the livestock
The project operates in 4 phases. The first conproducers establishing the rules to be followed resists in the selection of livestock producers (based on
garding dog ownership, education, health care, feedthe number of damages, the existence of conditions
ing, breeding and legal responsibility. Dogs that died
to receive a dog and the willingness to participate,
were replaced, if their death did not result from a
which is evaluated during a personal interview) and
fault of the livestock producer. To improve the
of the litters and dogs available (based on the characknowledge of livestock producers about LGD
teristics and working ability of the parents and on the
breeds, education and behaviour, a leaflet was probehaviour/health/morphology of the pups).
duced and given to participating and other interested
In the second phase the pup is integrated into the
livestock producers. A second leaflet was also proflock and in the third phase dog’s behavioural and
duced concerning basic veterinary care, feeding and
physical development is monitored until it reaches
breeding of LGD as well as general legal aspects readulthood (18-24 months of age). During monthly
garding dog ownership.
visits the dogs are physically examined and their behaviour is evaluated. This evaluation is based on obProject intervention area
servations of the dog during the grazing period of the
flock or while with the livestock in the barns and
The project is being developed mainly in the mouncomplemented with inquiries to the livestock protainous areas of the North and Centre of Portugal,
ducer.
including the Districts of Vila Real, Viseu and
In the last phase the evaluation of the dog’s effiGuarda. In these regions livestock production has a
ciency is performed. This is done according to three
big economic importance, human density is low and
criteria: 1) reduction in damages; 2) behaviour of the
distributed through small villages. Geography is very
dog; and 3) satisfaction of the owner. The behaviour
diverse and can change from plateaus to steep valis evaluated according to the model proposed for
leys with altitudes that can reach 1,400 meters. Due
Page 29
guarded during the day and confined during the night in stables located close to villages. Although
some flocks of sheep can be kept
unguarded in fenced pastures, this is
rare and is usually only for some
hours of the day. In the flatter and
warmer regions flocks are usually
confined into light and mobile corrals for the night, during the summer, protected by dogs (Figure 3).
Scaring devices like plastic bags or
old clothes are occasionally hung
close to the corral. Flocks are accompanied by an average of 2-3
dogs, although this number can
range from 0-10 dogs, depending on
the size of the flock. These dogs are
Fig. 3: Juvenile male Cão da Serra da Estrela of the short-hair variety near
usually small mongrel/hunting dogs
the corral where its flock is confined during the night.
or dogs raised incorrectly that are
(Photo: Raquel Simões)
not effective. The reasons why
small dogs are used are not known, but it may be reto the frequent fires, vegetation cover consists
lated with the wolf decrease and the cross-breeding
mainly of bushes that can sometimes attain considerof the existing LGDs with smaller hunting dogs and
able heights (Figure 1). Pine, Pinus sp., eucalyptus,
their consequent and progressive replacement with
Eucalyptus sp., or oak, Quercus sp., woods are still
smaller and hunting type or mongrel dogs.
found. Precipitation is medium to high, occasionally
with snow, and temperatures are low in winter.
Goats are the most common livestock species. PreviLivestock mortality
ous studies found a density of 2.6 wolves/100 km² in
Prophylactic veterinary care for livestock is not very
the North (Carreira & Petrucci-Fonseca 2000) and of
common and mortality due to disease can be very
3.4 wolves/100 km² in the Centre of the country
high, especially among young animals. During 2004,
(Alexandre et al. 2000).
according to the data gathered through an inquiry to
Some dogs have also been introduced in flocks in
participating livestock producers, in 22 flocks an
the eastern parts of the Centre and North of the counaverage of 54 animals died per flock, ranging from 2
try, in the Districts of Castelo Branco and Bragança,
to 260 animals, mainly due to diseases. This correrespectively. These are less mountainous regions losponds to a mortality rate of 15%, 88% of which
cated outside or at the border of the wolf distribution
were young animals. An overall juvenile mortality
area. In these areas the climate is drier and warmer
rate of 28% was registered, reaching 63% of the
and sheep are more abundant. Plantations of olive,
yearly kid or lamb production in some flocks and an
Olea europaea, and cork trees, Quercus suber, and
economic loss of 13,750 €. Wolf damages are comoccasionally eucalyptus are common (Figure 2).
paratively low and correspond to an average of 26%
Stray dogs are present although their abundance can
of the overall livestock mortality. In flocks with high
vary considerably between years and time of the
mortality wolf damages can be as low as 8% of the
year.
total mortality.
Husbandry systems
LGDs
Livestock production focuses mainly on meat and
Since 1997 a total of 97 dogs, 48 males and 49 feoccasionally also on milk production. Flocks can
males have been integrated into 63 flocks. These
vary from 10 to 700 animals - although bigger comdogs are mainly from the Cão de Castro Laboreiro
munal flocks can occur, with a mean number of 180,
(n = 44) and the short-haired variety of Cão da Serra
and are typically herded by one, and occasionally,
da Estrela breeds (n = 32), although 11 belong to the
two shepherds. In mountainous areas flocks are
Page 30
stock. Of all the dogs that were
born among livestock and later integrated, the adults are considered
excellent and the juveniles good
and exhibiting adequate behaviours. Three dogs were transferred
to other flocks due to noncompliance of the livestock producers with the guidelines initially
established regarding LGD raising
and education. Four adult and juvenile dogs were also transferred
due to inadequate behaviours towards livestock (inattentiveness
and untrustworthiness) and recovered/improved. One dog was
transferred due to excessive agFig. 4: Fig. 4. Adult female Rafeiro do Alentejo integrated into a sheep flock on
gressiveness toward strange livethe Eastern plains in the Centre of Portugal. (Photo: Silvia Ribeiro)
stock leading to attacks to
neighbouring flocks, seriously injuring three animals. Three dogs were excluded, one
long-haired variety of the Cão da Serra da Estrela
because of reduced attentiveness to the flock and two
and 10 to the Rafeiro do Alentejo breeds (Figure 4).
because of untrustworthy behaviour. Lack of protecThe dogs were selected from litters after weaning
tion was only registered in the case of attacks by
and were mainly integrated into the flocks at the age
stray dogs. This situation happened in two flocks and
of 7-13 weeks, although 27 were integrated at an
can be explained by the fact that LGDs became haolder age, at 14-25 weeks of age. Most of the older
bituated to the presence of familiar stray dogs, since
puppies were descendent from working dogs and
they were previously observed chasing dogs from the
were born in the midst of livestock and others were
flock. Regular monthly monitoring of 19 dogs during
offered by dog breeders (Figure 5).
the grazing period after they were integrated into the
Pups were integrated into sheep, goat or mixed
flock revealed that before 6 months of age pups exflocks that range in size from 30-400 animals, with a
hibit an unstable behaviour. Before that age interacmean number of 175 animals. After integration, pups
tions with livestock (e.g. investigatory behaviours)
were always kept with the livestock. This was also
are frequent, especially play behaviour that steadily
recommended for adult dogs to prevent wandering
increases until 6 months and then abruptly decreases.
and other potential problems or accidents (Figure 6).
After 5-6 months of age pups progressively inUsually only one dog was integrated per flock alcreased their distance from shepherds and reduce
though in 9 and 6 flocks, respectively, one or two
their distance to the flock (staying most of the time
additional pups were later integrated to increase proat less than 5 meters). Pups exhibit a progressive intection and also to form breeding pairs. This enabled
dependence from the shepherds and an increased orithe production of 57 new pups that were integrated
entation towards the flock. Agonistic behaviour has
into flocks, 38 of which were monitored by the proonly been observed from livestock to dogs, except
ject.
for adult dogs that protected their food from livestock and the above mentioned dogs that exhibited
Behaviour and efficiency of LGD
untrustworthy behaviour.
Data on the efficiency and behaviour of 40 dogs
Of all the adult dogs, 92% were evaluated as excelwas also gathered during personal interviews with
lent or good in attentive behaviour, 98% in trustworlivestock producers. The effect on damage was anathy behaviour and 90% in protective behaviour. It is
lysed by comparing yearly livestock losses to predainteresting to note that 8 of the 10 dogs that were intion before and after the dogs’ integration. Accordtegrated later into flocks and survived until adulting to the obtained data, after the integration of the
hood, are considered excellent or good. Of those, 5
dogs damages decreased in 75% of the cases, did not
dogs were descendents from guard/companion dogs
change in 7.5% while 17.5% of the livestock producand 3 from working dogs and were born among live-
Page 31
Fig. 5: Litter of Cão de Castro Laboreiro that was born in
the stable among a goat flock. (Photo: Silvia Ribeiro)
Fig. 6: Adult male Cão da Serra da Estrela of the shorthair variety confined in the stable with its flock.
(Photo: Silvia Ribeiro)
ers said they increased or did not know. Dogs were
always considered responsible for the observed damage reduction that ranged from 13-100%. Interestingly, in some cases where the amount of damage
did not change or even increased, dogs were also
considered responsible for reducing potential damages (taking into account the depredation in
neighbouring flocks). In fact, annual predation rate is
dependent on many factors that influence predator
density and availability of prey and can change significantly from one year to the next (Ribeiro &
Petrucci-Fonseca 2004). The mean number of animals killed before and after the dogs’ integration was
8 and 5, respectively. In terms of performance 90%
of the adult dogs were classified by livestock producers as being excellent or good, only 3 were considered sufficient and none was considered bad. Regarding the behavioural components, livestock producers evaluated 80% of the dogs as excellent-good
in attentiveness, as well as 98% in trustworthiness
and 92% in protectiveness.
Nearly 23% of the pups injured young animals in
the flock and one killed a kid goat during play behaviour. After they have grown up no other incidents
have been recorded and dogs are left together with
lambing goats/ewes without causing problems. During pursuit of strange animals most dogs did not go
farther than 500 meters from the flock and returned
within 5-30 minutes, although some could go away
for longer periods and distances.
On 10 occasions dogs were observed to face
wolves that attacked the flocks, but only one dog
was slightly injured on the shoulder. Most dogs
barked at (83%) and barked/pursued (65%) dogs that
approached the flock, while 43% attacked and 23%
wounded other dogs. Most dogs were not considered
to be aggressive towards strange people that approached the flock. They usually barked at (90%)
and approached/followed (23%) the stranger until he
went away from the flock. Only two females and one
male were considered to be more aggressive: two
tried to attack a person that entered the stable where
the dog was with the livestock and the other tried to
attack a person that passed through the flock. In both
cases no injuries resulted. Regarding strange domestic animals that approach the flock (cattle and other
flocks) 73% of the dogs barked and 48% also pursued them away from the flock. Encounters with
other livestock were less frequent for the remaining
dogs. One dog attacked and seriously injured three
animals from other flocks (see above). Nearly 83%
of the dogs were observed chasing wildlife (mainly
foxes, Vulpes vulpes, but also rabbits, Oryctolagus
cuniculus, and wild boar) but only on three occasions
were foxes or rabbits killed. Contrary to chasing
foxes, that usually lasted for 15-20 minutes (but
could be longer), chases to rabbits did not last long
and did not result in active hunting behaviour, but
were elicited when a rabbit suddenly ran past a dog.
Mortality of LGDs
During the last 7.5 years a total of 25 dogs died, corresponding to a mortality rate of 26%. This rate is
higher before the age of 24 months, with 68% of all
deaths occurring during this period. After two years
of age, mortality was reduced to 0.7 dogs per year.
No significant differences were found between male
and female mortality. The main causes of mortality
(including also dogs that disappeared or were ex-
Page 32
cluded because of disease) were disease (44%) (e.g.
leishamniosis, leptospirosis, hip dysplasia) and accidents (56%). Two dogs (1 adult and 1 pup) were
killed by wolves and 5 (4 adults and 1 pup) disappeared while accompanying the flock. Four dogs
died after eating illegal poisoned baits (meant for
predators) and one was shot by hunters
(unintentionally).
Costs of using LGDs
The price of a LGD pup can vary widely, from 250 €
to 500 €, depending on the parents and the breed.
These costs include first vaccinations, microchips
and registry in the Portuguese Kennel Club. An estimate of the annual maintenance expenses (including
medium quality food, vaccinations and parasite treatment) can vary from 170 € to 300 €, if an estimate of
the expenses with occasional veterinary care is also
included. Expenses in the first year are mainly due
to the dogs’ acquisition and in the following years to
feeding expenses. To be cost-effective, in the first
two years after being integrated a LGD must cause a
reduction in the damages of at least 600 €. In practical terms, it means the dog should prevent the killing
of 5-9 (depending on the expenditure value considered) adult animals of the flock in its first year of life
and of 2-4 in the following years, considering the
mean current market value of adult goat/sheep. In the
studied flocks where predation rate was medium to
high, the use of LGD was very profitable and the
amount saved in damages could reach 3,000 €. This
was not true in those cases where predation was low
(less than 5 animals per year) or no reduction in the
number of damages was observed. In many cases the
expenses with the dogs were paid off after two years.
When predation is an episodic event the constant
presence of a LGD can be compensatory, because
livestock producers can have significant damages in
only 1 or 2 attacks for a period of several years. We
should also consider the fact that most livestock producers spend little money on dog food (using less
expensive food or leftovers), thus greatly reducing
maintenance expenses. Another important aspect to
take into account in this analysis is the high mortality
rate of LGD in the first two years of life. This will
reduce their economic efficiency, since it means acquiring and raising another pup. Providing pups at
reduced (or no) cost and supporting part (or all) of
the occasional veterinary expenses with the dogs are
important to reduce the costs associated with the use
of LGDs, thus making them cost effective even when
predation rates are low.
Problems and recommendations
The lack of compliance of livestock producers with
the guidelines for LGD integration and education
was the major cause for inattentive behaviour. This
stresses the need for monitoring the social conditions
where LGDs are raised. On the other hand reduced
socialization with people made it difficult to catch
and examine the dogs when necessary. This was
more common in some litters and with pups that
were integrated later. Untrustworthy behaviour of
pups, due to excessive play, occasionally caused serious injuries or the death of very young animals, so
special attention should be taken during the first
lambing season. These situations should be promptly
solved by reprehending the dog immediately after it
happens or, in more serious cases, by separating it
from the animals that elicit the behaviour until the
dog “grows out of it”. Nevertheless, in most cases
livestock producers were very tolerant to these situations since they would be compensated by the future
benefits in using the dog. In some cases LGDs can
attack hunting dogs that approach the flock or chase
vehicles. These behaviours should be prevented and
controlled by the shepherd during the dog’s development to avoid reinforcing them. Cases of inappropriate behaviour can sometimes be corrected or improved by changing the dog to a different environment (flock). Monitoring the social environment in
which the dog is raised is crucial for developing its
potential effectiveness. This should be done during
the socialization period but it is also important to
control the raising conditions until the dog reaches
maturity. Another problem is the fact that males often stray when females (from villages or other
flocks) are in heat, thus leaving the flock unprotected. To avoid potential accidents males should be
restrained during a couple of weeks. The initial selection of the livestock producers to participate in the
project also proved to be very important. Selecting
the most motivated livestock producers (and not necessarily those with higher damages) made it easier to
successfully raise efficient LGDs. This greatly contributed to overcome the initial distrust regarding the
use of LGDs from the project and increased the willingness of other livestock producers to start using
them after recognizing the working abilities of the
dogs that were integrated.
Impacts of the project
One important impact has been the increased tolerance towards the wolf. The support given by the pro-
ject in what concerns LGDs and the payment of
damages are referred by some livestock producers as
the main causes that prevent the use of illegal lethal
methods to reduce predation. Another impact was
the overall increase in concern by livestock producers regarding the welfare of the dogs integrated in
the project. There was also a higher regard for these
dogs in comparison to others, due to their performance and contribution to flock protection. One factor
that contributed to the acceptance of the project and
the acknowledgment of the importance of using good
LGDs has been the reputation achieved by some of
the dogs integrated in the project. One of the most
important means of diffusion of the use of LGDs has
been the transfer of information between livestock
producers. This is evident in the more than 40 requests for dogs by new livestock producers, in the
last few years.
Acknowledgments
The project has been funded by the current Environmental Institute (Ministry of Environment), the National Institute of Agrarian and Fish Research
(Ministry of Agriculture), under the PAMAF and
AGRO Programmes, the Foundation for Science and
Technology (Ministry of Science), the Bernd Thies
Foundation (Switzerland) and more recently by the
LIFE-Natura 2000 (LIFE-COEX) as well as by donations from private individuals and from the German Wolf Society (Gesellschaft zum Schutz der
Wolfe e.V.). The project has been developed by
Grupo Lobo together with other institutions, namely,
the Animal Biology Department (DBA) of the Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon University (FCUL), the
Centre of Environmental Biology (CBA), the Institute of Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(INETI), the Regional Agricultural Department of
Trás-os-Montes (DRATM), Alvão Natural Park and
the Institute for Nature Conservation (ICN). The Cão
de Castro Laboreiro Dog Club (CCCL), the Cão da
Serra da Estrela Breeders Club (LICRASE), private
dog breeders as well as the Portuguese Kennel Club
(CPC) also collaborated. We would also like to thank
the graduate students and researchers that helped
with the project. Raymond Coppinger has been a
consultant throughout the project.
References
Alexandre, A.S., A.T. Cândido & F. PetrucciFonseca. 2000. A população lupina a Sul do rio
Douro (The wolf population South of the Douro
Page 33
river). Galemys, 12(NE): 113-122.
Álvares, F., E. Pereira & F. Petrucci-Fonseca. 2000.
O Lobo no Parque Internacional Gerês-Xurês.
Situação populacional, aspectos ecológicos e perspectivas de conservação (The wolf in the International Park of Gerês-Xurês. Population status,
ecology and conservation perspectives). Galemys,
12(NE): 223-239.
Carreira, R. & F. Petrucci-Fonseca. 2000. Lobo na
região Oeste de Trás-os-Montes (Portugal) (Wolf
at the western region of Trás-os-Montes). Galemys, 12(NE): 123-134
Coppinger, R. & L. Coppinger. 1980. Livestock
Guarding Dogs. An Old-World Solution to an
Age-Old Problem. Country Journal, 7: 68-77.
Coppinger, R., J. Lorenz, J. Glendinnig & P. Pinardi.
1983. Attentiveness of guarding dogs for reducing
predation on domestic sheep. Journal of Range
Management, 36: 275-279.
Quaresma, S.M. 2002. Aspectos da situação populacional e hábitos alimentares do lobo Ibérico a Sul
do rio Douro (Aspects of population status and
feeding habits of the Iberian Wolf South of Douro
river). Undergraduate Thesis in Biology. Lisbon:
Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon University.
Petrucci-Fonseca, F. 1990. O lobo (Canis lupus signatus Cabrera, 1907) em Portugal. Problemática
da sua conservação (The wolf in Portugal. Problematic of its conservation). Doctoral Thesis in Biology. Lisbon: Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon University.
Ribeiro, S. & F. Petrucci-Fonseca. 1998. The impact
of stray/feral dogs on livestock. In S. Reig (Ed.),
Book of Abstracts of the Euro-American Mammal
Congress (Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 19-24
July).
Ribeiro, S. & F. Petrucci-Fonseca 2004. Recovering
the use of livestock guarding dogs in Portugal: results of a long term action. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 7: 2-5.
Contact
Grupo Lobo, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade
de Lisboa,
Bloco C2, 3º Piso, 1749-016 Lisboa
Portugal
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://lobo.fc.ul.pt
La conservation du loup
ibérique au Portugal :
une nouvelle
histoire
?
Par Silvia Ribeiro et Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca, Grupo Lobo
Au Portugal, son déclin a été particulièrement
accentué depuis les années 1970 et l’espèce
occupe maintenant seulement 20% de son
aire de distribution originelle qui englobait le
pays tout entier. Les raisons ayant conduit à
cette situation sont universelles : destruction
de l’habitat et fragmentation dues aux
activités humaines et aux persécutions
humaines motivées par la compétition
(chasse et élevage), le tout associé à une
dimension mythique négative attribuée au
loup.
Distribution du loup au Portugal d'après Pimenta et al., 2005
Le loup ibérique en danger
Comme pour les autres grands carnivores,
l’histoire du loup ibérique est complexe car
elle associe des questions d’environnement et
à des questions de société, à la fois sur une
grande échelle spatiale et sur une longue
période de temps. Comme dans la majeure
partie de son aire de distribution européenne,
les populations de loup de la péninsule
ibérique ont aussi souffert d’une réduction
drastique : alors qu’elle occupait la totalité
de la péninsule au début du XIXème siècle,
l’espèce habite principalement aujourd’hui
les régions montagneuses du nord-ouest
ainsi qu’un petit noyau au sud de l’Espagne
(Andalousie, Sierra Morena orientale).
Gazette des Grands Prédateurs n˚22
n˚20
149
D’après 2 sondages nationaux réalisés en
1994/1996 et 2002/2003 par le Grupo
Lobo et l’Institut pour la Conservation de la
Nature (ICN, 1997 ; Pimenta et al., 2005), les
populations de loup ces 10 dernières années
sont restées plus ou moins stables bien que
certaines, instables, soient situées dans des
zones plus humanisées et marginales. Les
effectifs sont estimés à 220-460 animaux
(63 meutes), divisés en 2 noyaux de part et
d’autre du fleuve Duero qui agit comme un
frein à la dispersion du loup. Le noyau le plus
important et le plus stable, comprenant 90%
des individus, est situé au nord du fleuve et
est connecté aux populations espagnoles.
Dans cette zone, des chaînes montagneuses
importantes, inclues dans des aires protégées,
avec une faible densité humaine et un
élevage relativement important, fournissent
un refuge adéquat pour le loup. Ce noyau
joue un rôle essentiel en étant une source
importante d’individus en dispersion pour les
secteurs alentours plus instables (Álvares et
al., 2000b). La plus petite population au sud
du Duero (9 meutes) est isolée, fragmentée
et est actuellement face à un risque
d’extinction important (Grilo et al., 2002;
Pimenta et al., 2005). Les causes principales
de mortalité sont les accidents routiers
(40%), les pièges (17%), les tirs (12%) et le
poison (10%) (Pimenta et al., 2005).
Ses couleurs différentes au niveau du
museau, des pattes avant et du garrot et
sa taille légèrement plus petite par rapport
aux autres loups européens ont conduit
Angel Cabrera à identifier le loup ibérique,
Canis lupus signatus, comme sous-espèce
en 1907. Le loup ibérique est listé espèce
« en danger » sur le livre rouge portugais
(Portuguese Red Data Book) et est protégé
Cordes utilisées autour d'un enclos
Vrais conflits
et loup mythique
Le développement de l’agriculture et de
l’élevage a causé un changement dans la
relation de l’homme avec son environnement
naturel et créé de nouveaux conflits avec les
grands carnivores. La principale raison de cet
antagonisme est la prédation du bétail qui,
dans certaines régions du Portugal où les
proies naturelles sont rares, peut atteindre
90% du régime alimentaire du loup (Álvares
et al., 2000b). La réponse de l’homme à cette
situation a été une tentative d’extermination
de tous les prédateurs. L’une des méthodes
les plus impressionnantes pour capturer les
loups a été la construction de pièges en
pierre en forme de puits – les « fojos ». Ces
structures atteignaient leur technicité la plus
élaborée dans le nord-ouest ibérique où leur
utilisation remonte au Xème siècle pour finir
à la fin des années 1970 dans certains cas.
Les plus monumentaux étaient composés
de 2 murs en pierre ayant jusqu’à 1 km de
long et 2 mètres de haut convergeant en un
puits profond dans lequel les loups étaient
conduits lors d’une chasse impliquant un
grand nombre de personnes venues d’un
ou plusieurs villages (Álvares et al., 2000a).
Plus récemment, l’utilisation du poison a
eu un impact considérable particulièrement
dans les régions où les loups se nourrissent
principalement du bétail. Depuis le
XVIIIème jusqu’au milieu du XXème siècle,
les autorités portugaises encourageaient
l’utilisation du poison pour tuer les loups.
Plusieurs manuels furent édités, décrivant
les nombreux moyens pour exterminer le
loup, ciblés particulièrement sur l’utilisation
des poisons, détaillant leurs préparations et
les précautions nécessaires (Álvares, 2003).
Ces conflits ont aussi été motivés par les
mythes et les croyances inhérents au loup,
le dotant de pouvoirs surnaturels, vision
Dans certaines régions, des anciennes
prières sont toujours récitées pour conjurer
les influences démoniaques du loup ou
pour prévenir ses attaques sur le bétail.
L’une des manifestations culturelles les plus
impressionnantes est l’utilisation de parties
du corps des loups pour guérir les maladies
des humains ou du bétail. Ainsi l’utilisation
d’un morceau de la trachée dont on dit
qu’elle a des propriétés guérissantes est
toujours en usage dans le nord du Portugal
pour guérir une maladie (“lobagueira”) qui
apparaît chez les cochons et serait causée par
« l’haleine empoisonnée » du loup (Álvares,
2004; Álvares & Primavera, 2004).
Vers une coexistence
possible
Au cours de l’histoire, indépendamment de
la persécution directe du loup, l’homme a
aussi développé des méthodes pour tenter
de réduire la prédation du bétail sans tuer
le prédateur. La plus répandue est le chien
de protection. C’est un type spécial de chien
sélectionné sur des centaines d’années pour
protéger le bétail des attaques de prédateurs.
conduit à la création de plusieurs races. Au
Portugal 4 races existent : Cão de Castro
Laboreiro, Cão da Serra da Estrela (variétés à
poil long et à poil court), Rafeiro do Alentejo
et Cão de Gado Transmontano. Bien éduqués,
ces chiens peuvent se révéler très efficaces
et réduire fortement les dommages.
© Sylvia Ribeiro
culturelle du loup reflétant les désirs et les
peurs humaines. L’une des croyances les plus
frappantes toujours présente dans l’esprit
des ruraux du nord du Portugal est le loupgarou. On croit fortement qu’une malédiction
placée sur une personne normale peut le
transformer en bête qui attaque les humains
et les animaux.
© Francisco Alvares
© Javier Talegón
par la législation portugaise depuis 1988. La
loi définit aussi la mise en œuvre de mesures
de compensation dans le cas de dommages
aux troupeaux et limite les interventions
humaines sur son habitat.
Chien de protection
Cão de Castro Laboreiro
D’autres méthodes incluent des dispositifs
d’effarouchement pour garder éloignés les
prédateurs ou la construction de structures
pour empêcher l’accès au bétail par ceuxci. Bien que l’usage de ces méthodes a
progressivement reculé, à la suite de la
disparition des prédateurs et pour d’autres
raisons économiques et sociales, certaines
sont toujours utilisées dans un certain
nombre de régions au Portugal et en
Espagne (Ribeiro, 2005; Talegón & Ribeiro,
2005), notamment l’utilisation de bruits
forts, comme des pétards, dans les cas où
le risque de prédation immédiat est élevé,
d’épouvantails, de cordes ou de fradry
disposés autour du corral. Ces cordes étaient
traditionnellement utilisées dans certains
régions le long de la frontière Espagne
/ Portugal. Elles étaient installées à une
distance de 50-100 cm autour des enclos
mobiles en bois et à une hauteur de 50 cm.
Des morceaux de vieux vêtements ou de
tissus y étaient parfois accrochés et disposés
tous les 50-100 cm, touchant presque
le sol. Près de la frontière orientale avec
l’Espagne, plusieurs types de corrals, mobiles
ou non, étaient construits pour enfermer
et protéger les troupeaux des attaques de
loup. Il y a un certain intérêt à collecter ces
informations puisqu’elles peuvent avoir de
l’importance dans nos efforts de réduction
de la prédation.
Stratégie de conservation
Partie de trachée de loup
pour guérir la lobagueira
Ces chiens furent couramment utilisés dans
tout le bassin méditerranéen où l’élevage du
bétail était important. Bien que leur allure
et leur comportement soient semblables,
les préférences régionales des bergers ont
15
Bien qu’aucun plan d’action n’ait été élaboré
par les autorités, le Grupo Lobo a établi en
1987 une stratégie de conservation nommée
le Projet Signatus (Signatus Project). Il a pour
buts de contribuer à la conservation du loup
ibérique au Portugal à travers une approche
multidisciplinaire. Plusieurs actions ont ainsi
été développées : suivi de la population, étude
écologique (régime alimentaire, utilisation
s
Corral de regroupement nocturne en pierre sèche
Le Grupo Lobo est actuellement responsable
pour la coordination de la participation
du Portugal au projet Life Coex qui vise à
améliorer la coexistence entre les activités
humaines et les grands carnivores, ours
et loup, dans 5 pays de l’Europe du Sud :
Portugal, Espagne, France, Italie et Croatie*.
* En France, FERUS participe au projet Life
Coex, notamment à travers son action
Pastoraloup (ndlr)
Résultats prometteurs
La mise en œuvre de mesures de prévention
des dommages est l’une des actions les plus
importantes et les plus utilisées pour réduire
les conflits et améliorer l’image des grands
prédateurs. Le Grupo Lobo a défini en 1988
une ligne d’actions pour inciter à réutiliser les
moyens de prévention traditionnels, à savoir
les chiens de protection, mais n’a pu débuter
son projet qu’en 1996 quand les premiers
fonds furent perçus. Depuis 1997, 126 chiens,
70 mâles et 56 femelles, principalement
des races Cão de Castro Laboreiro et Cão
pour leur attention, 97 % pour leur fidélité
et 92 % pour leur caractère protecteur. Les
données sur l’efficacité de 40 chiens furent
aussi recueillies auprès des propriétaires.
L’impact sur les dommages a été analysé
en comparant les pertes annuelles du
bétail avant et après la mise en place du
chien. Après la mise en place des chiens,
les dommages ont diminué dans 75% des
cas et n’ont pas changé dans 7,5% tandis
que 17,5% des éleveurs déclaraient qu’ils
avaient augmenté ou qu’ils ne savaient pas.
Les chiens sont toujours considérés comme
responsables de la réduction des dommages
observée, réduction qui va de 13 à 100%.
Ce qui est intéressant, dans certains cas
où les dommages n’ont pas évolué ou ont
même augmenté, c’est que les chiens sont
aussi considérés comme responsables de
la réduction potentielle des dommages
(en prenant en compte la prédation dans
les troupeaux voisins). En fait, le taux de
prédation annuel dépend de nombreux
facteurs dont ceux qui influencent la densité
des prédateurs et la disponibilité en proies et
peut changer significativement d’une année
sur l’autre. Les éleveurs de bétail ont déclaré
être très satisfaits de leurs chiens et ont
16
classé 90% d’entre eux comme excellents
ou bons ; 3 seulement furent considérés
suffisants et aucun mauvais.
Choisir la bonne approche
Ces résultats montrent l’importance d’une
approche globale et participative de la
conservation en associant des savoirs
différents et en faisant participer des groupes
d’intérêt variés volontaires pour participer.
Cette approche doit prendre en compte tout
un ensemble d’éléments environnementaux
et sociaux, ainsi que leurs conséquences.
Depuis que les humains sont présents
dans presque tous les environnements,
aucune action ne peut réussir sans le
soutien des communautés locales. De plus,
il est important d’aider ces communautés
à trouver une réponse à leurs problèmes
régionaux en incitant des comportements
compatibles avec la conservation de la
nature et de prendre en considération les
inquiétudes actuelles comme le bien-être
animal et l’éthique environnementale.
C’est-à-dire que nous devons prévenir ou
réduire les conflits à un niveau acceptable
sans recourir à des solutions rapides mais
à court terme qui n’apportent pas de réelle
contribution à la résolution du conflit et à
la conservation de la vie sauvage. En même
temps, il faut développer plusieurs méthodes
de sensibilisation et de communication, de
manière complémentaire, afin de toucher le
plus vaste public possible.
© Francisco Alvares
da Serra da Estrela, variété à poils courts,
furent ainsi placés dans des troupeaux de
chèvres et/ou de moutons. Les chiens furent
sélectionnés de lignées de parents déjà
au travail puis placés dans les troupeaux,
suivis pendant leur croissance et évalués
après avoir atteint l’âge adulte. L’efficacité
du chien fut évaluée selon 3 critères :
réduction des dommages, comportement
du chien, satisfaction du propriétaire. Le
comportement du chien fut apprécié selon le
modèle proposé par Coppinger & Coppinger
(1980) qui définit l’attention, la fidélité et le
caractère protecteur lors d’observations de
l’animal vis-à-vis du troupeau, complétées
d’enquêtes auprès du propriétaire. A partir
de l’évaluation de 65 chiens adultes, 92%
furent considérés comme excellents ou bons
© Vinvent Vignon
du temps et de l’espace, interactions avec
le bétail), capacités d’accueil de l’habitat
et impact des activités humaines (e.g.
constructions d’autoroutes), génétique,
parasitologie, dimensions humaines et
relation culturelle entre le loup et l’homme,
projet de réintroduction de proies sauvages,
campagnes d’éducation, éco-tourisme,
soutien aux études scientifiques et mise en
œuvre de mesures concrètes de conservation
(e.g. mesures de prévention des dommages).
Parce que seulement 30% de la distribution
géographique du loup se situe dans des
aires protégées, la proposition de nouveaux
sites Natura 2000 considérés comme
fondamentaux pour la conservation du loup
au sud du Duero a aussi été une priorité pour
le Grupo Lobo.
Fojo se terminant par un puit
dans lequel le loup était conduit
Grupo Lobo
Le Grupo Lobo est une ONG créée en 1985
afin de contribuer à la conservation du
loup ibérique au Portugal. Au delà des
recherches scientifiques et des campagnes
d’information, il a été activement impliqué
dans l’élaboration de la Loi de protection
du loup (Wolf Protection Law, Law 90/88)
et sa révision actuelle. Le Grupo Lobo gère
également le Centre de rétablissement
du loup ibérique. Ce centre a été créé en
pour ceux qui veulent participer à la
conservation de ce magnifique animal.
au Portugal et particulièrement Francisco
Álvares pour son aide pour cet article.
Remerciements
Silvia Ribeiro et Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca,
Grupo Lobo
[email protected]
http:///lobo.fc.ul.pt
Nous voudrions remercier l’équipe de
recherche du Grupo Lobo pour leur
contribution à la conservation du loup
Traduction et adaptation : Sandrine Andrieux
© Grupo Lobo
1987 pour accueillir les loups ne pouvant
plus vivre en milieu naturel. Depuis, il joue
un rôle important d’éducation en recevant
chaque année plus de 3600 personnes,
principalement des écoliers de tout le pays,
en leur apprenant qui est le vrai loup et les
problèmes affectant sa protection. Le Centre
a mis en place un programme international
de bénévoles et un programme d’adoption
17
A multidimensional approach to managing the European brown bear
in Croatia
Djuro Huber1,4, Josip Kusak1,5, Aleksandra Majić-Skrbinšek2,6, Dario Majnarić3,7, and
Magda Sindičić1,8
1
Biology Department, Veterinary Faculty, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
2
Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Večna pot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
3
Croatian Forests, Delnice Forestry Office, Supilova 32, 51300 Delnice, Republic of Croatia
Abstract: Because of its biological characteristics, its important place in the minds of humans,
and the considerable international interest for its conservation, management of the brown bear
(Ursus arctos) in Europe is challenging. The Brown Bear Management Plan for Croatia (BMPC)
was approved in 2004 and addressed interests such as ecology, aesthetics, and economics, as well
as concern for the safety of people and property. It attempts to ensure conditions for the longterm survival of the brown bear, a species listed as endangered by some international regulations
but as a game species (subject to regulated hunting) in others, including Croatia. Careful
evaluation of actions affecting population size represents the most critical part of this plan.
Those actions should sustain long-term viability of the bear population while maintaining
densities at a level that minimize human–bear conflict. To achieve this goal, a series of actions
and measures have to be regulated that are related to (1) bear habitat, (2) human activities in the
habitat (e.g., highway construction, feeding of bears by humans), (3) prevention of problematic
bear occurrences, and (4) the scientific monitoring of population changes. Although the plan’s
development and implementation is the responsibility of bear management experts, various
interests groups were considered. In large carnivore management, and especially in bear
management, there are no final and universal solutions. Changes in the number of bears, areas
of their presence, or behavior require new decisions. This plan offers guidelines for the decisionmaking process, and, because it includes a revision process, can be adapted to address new
circumstances that arise. Citizens interested in conservation, not only in Croatia but also in
neighboring countries, expect Croatia to work toward maintaining the long-term existence of as
many bears as possible in appropriate habitats, with as few negative effects as possible. This
plan is an important step in fulfilling those expectations.
Key words: Croatia, European brown bear, hunting, management, Ursus arctos
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
tend to be very protective, and only in the case of
problem bears is the removal of certain individuals
considered. In countries like Slovenia (Zavod za
gozdove 2002) and Finland (Wultsch 2004), management plans allow a limited bear hunt. In contrast,
Romania (Wultsch 2004), Sweden (Zedrosser et al.
2001), Estonia (Lõhmus 2001), and Croatia resumed
or continued hunting as one option for management
where sufficient numbers survived. In North America,
hunting of brown bears is controlled under management plans in Canada (McLellan and Banci 1999) and
Alaska, but brown bears are strictly protected in the
contiguous United States (Interagency Conservation
Strategy Team 2003). In 2007, grizzly bears in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were delisted as an
Most western and southern European countries
exterminated their brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations before World War II, leaving only a few remnant
nuclei (Abruzzo, Trento, Cantabria, Pyrenees) of
fewer than 100 individuals each (Servheen 1990). This
period was followed by the occasional and slow return
of bears to some parts of their previous range (Clark et
al. 2002). European countries that currently have bear
management plans include Austria (WWF Austria
2005), Spain (Wultsch 2004), France (L’Ours Pyrenees
2006), Greece (Zedrosser et al. 2001), Latvia (Ozolins
2003), and Switzerland (Oberle 2006). These plans
4
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
7
22
BEAR MANAGEMENT IN CROATIA N Huber et al.
endangered species (US Department of Interior Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007).
During many centuries of uncontrolled persecution, bears in Croatia were hunted by still-hunting,
tracking, leg-hold traps, snares, and poisoning
(Frković 1999). Beginning in 1915, bounties were
established to encourage the killing of brown bears
without limits or closed seasons. With the end of
World War II came the need to protect brown bear
populations through management. Hence in 1947, the
first Hunting Act was introduced, followed by the
listing of the brown bear as a game species in 1949.
Additional measures adopted to better conserve
brown bears included formation of forest management units (1960), prevention of illegal killing of
bears, banning the use of poison to control wolf
(Canis lupus) and fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations
(1973), and the introduction of supplemental feeding
of bears (1960s). In 1994, the Hunting Act was
amended to reflect the dissolution of forest management units and the formation of a public corporation.
Even with all that has been implemented, bear
management in Croatia lacks coordination and, in
some mountainous counties, still lacks appropriate
control measures. Regardless of the approach, bear
management is always challenging due to brown
bears’ biological characteristics (slow reproduction,
primarily vegetarian food habits for a species with a
carnivore digestive system, winter denning behavior),
its signifigance in the minds of humans, and the
considerable international interest for its conservation
and hunting. Croatia was one of the first countries in
Europe to classify the brown bear as a game species.
In 2005, Croatia published its Brown bear management plan for the Republic of Croatia (BMPC)
(Dečak et al. 2005). The BMPC’s overall goal is to
‘‘maintain a stable brown bear population in Croatia
at a level that secures its long term survival and
enables co-existence with man’’ (Dečak et al.
2005:66). Specific objectives include habitat preservation, compliance with international legislation,
avoidance of risks for humans and their property,
determining and maintaining a desired bear population level, providing economic benefit for local
residents through tourism and hunting, raising
public awareness, and involving a broad spectrum
of interest groups in management decisions. We
describe how these objectives are being achieved,
present the results of the first 2 years of the plan’s
implementation, and provide recommendations to
address its initial shortcomings.
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
23
Background
Croatia is both a central and south-eastern
European country. All brown bear habitat in
Croatia is within the Dinara Mountain Range,
which runs parallel to the Adriatic Sea coast, from
northwest to southeast, and extends from Slovenia
to Bosnia and Herzegovina (Fig. 1). Consequently,
Croatia shares its bear population with these 2
countries. Currently, bear range in Croatia extends
over 11,824 km2, which represents 20% of the
Republic and 34% of the Republic’s forests. Within
this range, bears permanently occupy 9,253 km2,
whereas 2,571 km2 has occasional bear presence
(Dečak et al. 2005). Elevations in the Croatian part
of the Dinara Mountains vary from sea level to
1,831 m. Forest covers about 70%, which is dominated by a mixture of beech (Fagus sylvatica), fir
(Abies alba), spruce (Picea abies), and other tree
species varying in composition with elevation and
exposure. Mountain peaks and steep slopes (.60u)
are formed of bare rocks. Mean January temperatures range from 21.2uC in Delnice to 23.6uC on the
Risnjak Mountain (Makjanić 1971/72), and snow
cover extends 60–165 days (Bertović and Martinović
1981), depending on elevation.
As requested in the Action plan for the conservation
of the brown bear in Europe (Swenson et al. 2000),
interest groups were invited to participate in the
development of the BMPC. A workshop was held at
the beginning of the process and a final one before
the plan was accepted. Interest groups invited to
workshops were hunters, foresters, researchers,
backpackers, non-governmental organizations, professional conservationists, and other government
people. The BMPC incorporated the results of a
2003 study that assessed public attitude toward
brown bears (779 responses to a questionnaire),
including those of foresters and hunting unit
leaseholders (Dečak et al. 2005:37; A. Majić, 2003,
Human dimensions in brown bear management,
Zagreb, Croatia).
In accordance with the agreement reached at the
first workshop and with the responsibilities originating from international conventions, directives,
plans and recommendations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (later renamed the Ministry of
Majić, A. 2003. Human dimensions in brown bear
management — Attitudes toward and beliefs about brown
bears in Croatia: Descriptive analysis of the survey results,
Zagreb, Croatia.
24
Fig. 1.
Location of Croatia in south-central Europe and the range of brown bear populations.
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management) and
the Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Physical Planning (later renamed the Ministry of
Culture) each appointed 4 members to an expert
committee to develop the BMPC. External experts
were consulted for specific issues before a draft of
the plan was adopted.
Bear management plan for the Republic
of Croatia: Approach, process,
and structure
The BMPC summarizes international and national
legal provisions relevant to bear conservation and
management (Part 1), the situation in Croatia (Part
2), and the management plan (Part 3). Here we
present the goals and actions from Part 3. Elements
of the first 2 parts are included for context.
Monitoring the bear population and mortality
Under the BMPC, the brown bear population is to
be monitored through the systematic collection of
data regarding bear population size and demographic characteristics such as reproduction, mortality,
and population trend. Population trend monitoring
is to be performed by field bear managers through
observation and counting of bears at supplemental
feeding sites and through monitoring of signs of bear
presence (property damage, scats, tree marks, footprints). In particular, records are to be kept of family
groups (mother and 1- or 2-year-old cubs), and sex
and age groups (cubs, yearlings, sub-adults, and
adults). Forms were designed for observations at
feeding sites on moonlit nights.
The approximate number of bears is to be
determined by genetic methods. Samples of fresh
bear scats and tissue from dead bears will serve as
material for DNA analysis. An adequate sample of
scats collected in a specified area during a limited
period and tissue samples from all dead bears should
provide an estimate of the size of the bear population
with an anticipated error of 10%. These data will be
used as a baseline to calibrate the index of population trend acquired through counting bears.
Every known bear mortality is to be recorded.
Standard measurements and samples such as tissue,
teeth, and parasites of dead bears are to be taken and
recorded according to standardized procedures. This
information is to be reported to the relevant ministry
within 24 hours. Every bear hide and skull is to be
individually marked. Marking tags, their distribution,
and method of application are determined by the
relevant ministry. The typical penalty for unreported
bear mortality is the suspension from the privilege of
receiving the hunting quota in the next year.
Estimation of ecological and social
carrying capacity
One of the most demanding issues facing those
preparing the BMPC was agreeing on how many
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
Fig. 2.
25
Brown bear Range in Croatia with the zone categories (Dečak et al. 2005).
bears would live in Croatia if the population were
left unmanaged and untouched (i.e., ecological
carrying capacity). The initial estimation of the
biological carrying capacity was calculated in 2
ways: (a) by summing the numbers of bears expected
in each hunting unit (base game stock; n 5 85),
based on contracts indicating how many bears must
be in the unit at the termination of contract, and (b)
by summing the capacity estimations of areas with
different densities of bears.
The estimated range for the current bear population was a compromise. Local estimates were
collected from experts in hunting management and
bear biologists for the bear range in 1999, and the
sum was used as the lower limit of the range. The
upper limit was the sum of the hunting management
programs plus bears in the National Parks and in
areas where bears are not hunted. None of these
methods is scientifically based, but this initial value
can be corrected as better data are available.
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
As a basis for management, the current bear range
in Croatia was mapped (Fig. 2), distinguishing areas
where bears are permanently present from where
they are only occasionally present. The bear range in
Croatia is continuous with no isolated populations.
The easternmost range is contiguous with Bosnia
and Herzegovina; the northern part adjoins Slovenia’s bear population (Fig. 1). Although bears are to
be maintained in the entire permanent range, the
occasional range was divided into desirable and
undesirable. Within permanent range, bears are
present during all seasons and local inhabitants
accept bears as part of their natural environment. In
areas with an occasional presence, bears are present
sporadically, or the number of bears does not
guarantee the continued existence of the species.
These are habitats to which bears are returning that
are connected to areas with a permanent presence of
bears in Croatia, Slovenia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina (Fig. 1).
26
A separate issue is the likely difference between
biological capacity of the habitat and the so-called
social carrying capacity, of how many bears local
inhabitants are ready to tolerate. For all large
carnivores, including bears, the social carrying
capacity is lower than the ecological capacity. The
general public questionnaire and contacts with locals
at workshops were used to help estimate this
number. The initial estimate was used only for
orientation purpose.
Removal quotas and methods of take
Removal quotas include legal harvest, poached
bears, lethal removal of problem bears, mortalities
due to traffic and other anthropogenic causes, and
non-lethal removal of bears from the population.
Although sex and age of bears to be shot are not
predefined, young bears following their mother and
females leading young cannot legally be shot.
The basic criteria for the allocation of quotas
among hunting units (assignment to leaseholders)
are quality and size of the unit and the bear
population density. On the national level, a total
annual removal of 10–15% of the estimated number
of bears is planned. The annual removal quota is
based on short-term population trend information.
A higher quota (15%) will be used if the trend shows
an increase or if the extent of bear-caused damages
requires stopping population growth. If a negative
growth trend is recorded, the quota can be set lower
(10%) or the hunt could be suspended in certain
years or areas. The percent for calculation of the
quota and the total number of bears planned for
removal in the next calendar year are determined
based on the population estimate and trend in
relation to the projected habitat capacity (i.e. how
many bears are desired in each area). If in any year
the annual quota is exceeded, this surplus is to be
subtracted from the next year’s quota. Likewise, if
deviations appear from the expected proportion of
harvest in total removal, the percent for calculation
of quota is also to be amended. Problem bears
removed from the population are not treated as part
of the harvest quota, but rather as ‘other population
losses.’ The increase of losses may reduce the hunting
quota, and fewer losses may result in more bears to
be hunted in the next year. On the basis of current
experience, the BMPC anticipates that the proportion of total removals attributable to hunting will be
80%, and that 20% will be attributable to other
losses (Dečak et al. 2005:70).
The BMPC sets hunting seasons as 1 March–15
May and 1 October–15 December, which is
2.5 months shorter than hunting seasons in effect
prior to the plan. The shorter season helps avoid the
denning period, and more importantly, makes it
possible to manage bears on the calendar year basis.
In late December and January, the results of the
previous year are to be collected and analyzed as a
basis for decisions for the next year.
In Croatia, bears are hunted with the hunter on an
elevated stand next to a feeding site during at night
during a full moon. Hunting from a high hunting stand
provides a good vantage point for observation, allows
for the determination of age and sex, reduces the
possibility of wounding a bear, minimizes disturbance
of the habitat, provides for the safety of hunters and
others, and enables better control of harvest.
Supplemental feeding with food of plant or animal
origin is an accepted bear management measure in
Croatia, and the BMPC allows for feeding up to
120 days/year in November, February, March, and
April. Grain (corn, oats, barley), wet fodder (sugar,
fodder beet, fruit), meat products (inspected carcasses or condemned meat), and special plots planted
with annual and perennial crops can be used for
supplemental feeding of bears. No processed foods
are to be used at bear feeding sites. A maximum of
300 kg of grain and wet fodder or 400 kg of meat
foods/adult bear is permitted during each supplemental feeding period (Dečak et al. 2005:73–74).
The BMPC permits only 1 feeding site to be
constructed per 40 km2. These sites must be located
.2 km from permanently inhabited human settlements and .300 m from National Park boundaries.
Locations must be chosen that prevent the contamination of water sources (Dečak et al. 2005:73–74).
Habitat conservation
Another priority of the BMPC is habitat conservation. Croatian bear ranges, including those of the
entire Dinaric and Pindos mountains area, are very
valuable and are comparable to the highest quality
habitats in the Carpathian region of Romania. These
habitats allow for high population increases, population stability, and hunting that would not be
possible in many parts of Europe with bear presence
(Cicnjak et al. 1987; Huber and Frković 1993; Huber
and Roth 1993, 1997; Kusak and Huber 1998;
Frković et al. 2001; Majnarić 2002).
Recording the changes of habitat status is required
for the identification and implementation of conserUrsus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
vation measures. In particular, effects on bear
habitats are to be assessed for forest operations,
agricultural development, sport and tourist facilities
and activities, garbage treatment, and proposed
transportation infrastructure: all roads are to be
permeable to bears and other animals with mitigation measures such as tunnels, viaducts, green
bridges (Huber et al. 1998).
Problem bears
According to the BMPC, the primary measure to
prevent the occurrence of problem bears is to reduce
conditioning bears to foods from human sources.
Every food source treated as garbage (food scraps,
garbage in containers, garbage deposited in legal or
illegal dumps) must be inaccessible to bears.
Measures to prevent bear access to garbage include
removal, electric fencing, use of bear-proof containers, and penalizing violators. Bear cubs that become
orphaned or separated from their mother before the
natural family separation typically develop into
problem bears. Therefore, additional measures
include reducing the incidence of orphaning bear
cubs through special care in hunting, prevention of
poaching, avoiding disturbance in denning habitats
during winter, and prohibiting feeding of a motherless cub.
Measures to deal with problem bears include
prevention of access to food sources they regularly
visit, aversive conditioning (noise, shocks from
electrical fences, discharge of noise-making ammunition or rubber bullets) and, if none of these
measures is effective, removing the bear.
Under the BMPC, lethal removal of bears to avoid
conflicts with local residents is to be regulated by the
ministry authorized to issue a permit after the
presence of the bear or bear damage has been
confirmed several times, regardless of the bear
hunting season. The removal of undesirable bears
will be done by a local hunting unit leaseholder, who
is allowed to use group or individual hunting
methods. If they do not wish to, or are not able to
perform this task within the specified time frame, the
ministry will allow others to remove the bear.
Minimizing and compensating damage
Measures for preventing damage by bears under
the BMPC include gathering and distributing
instructions on actions to prevent damage, feeding
bears to keep them away from human sources, and
keeping the size of the population at a level with
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
27
tolerable damage. Current legal practice, as defined
by the BMPC, makes hunting unit leaseholders
responsible for damage caused by game, including
brown bears. If the person suffering the damage has
not added to the damage through irresponsible
behavior, the compensation has to cover the entire
damage. In cases where a bear causes damage in an
area with only occasional presence of bears or in
national parks, damage will be compensated by the
state.
Bears and tourism
Bears are a symbol of the richness of nature, and
the quality of the natural environment affects
tourism. Communities can use bear presence to
increase the value of local products, such as
handicrafts. For instance, the creation and use of a
‘bear label’ on products would mean that they are
derived from a forest managed for bear habitat.
Beyond hunting tourism, bears can promote ecotourism, which includes so-called non-consumptive
use of natural resources (Shackley 1996).
Public information and participation in
decision making
To improve the quality of bear management in
Croatia and to avoid conflicts among interest groups,
the BMPC calls for education and information
campaigns for inhabitants, visitors to bear areas,
and students. By working with the local population,
the social carrying capacity of the area can be
improved. Monitoring public attitudes toward bears
and bear management is to be continuous. The results
of public surveys are one of the indicators for setting
the social carrying capacity.
International cooperation
Croatia’s main international legal obligations are
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), and the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The
Croatian brown bear population is shared with the
Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Because bear population management
in Croatia can influence bear populations in
neighboring countries, the BMPC commits Croatia
to management that will keep its bear population in
balance so that a similar magnitude of migrations
across the borders in both directions can be
28
expected. Croatia expects a similar approach to bear
management from neighboring countries. Scientific
knowledge on Croatian bears will be available to
experts in neighboring countries. Yearly meetings of
bear managers are planned to exchange experiences
and jointly plan quotas for the upcoming year.
Bear emergency team
The Bear Emergency Team (BET) is an intervention group set up by the BMPC of 7–10 experts
tasked with visiting areas reporting exceptional
damage caused by bears, an accident or a death of
a bear, or a problem bear. BET members will
attempt to alter the behavior of problem bears
through aversive conditioning. Where this is not
effective, other options will be employed such as
capturing and marking problem bears (for easier
tracking of the bear’s behavior), translocation,
placing in captivity, and as a final resort, lethal
removal of the animal.
Funding
Funding is to come primarily from 2 sources:
domestic (the state budget of the Republic of
Croatia, hunting unit leaseholders, local and regional administrations, scientific and academic institutions, Croatian Hunting Associations), and international (the European Commission, through various
programs such as LIFE [a European Union program
for projects related to nature and environmental
conservation], for certain years and for certain
projects, and foreign donations).
Implementation and revisions of the BMPC
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management and the Ministry of Culture, Department for Nature Protection are to cooperate in the
implementation of the plan; however, the practical
implementation is overseen by the former. The
committee set by these bodies is to carry out
revisions of the management and the action plans.
The revisions are to be open to the interest groups
and the general public.
The BMPC: Content and
resulting activities
The final document was approved in 2004 and
released in 2005. The development process took
2 years, during which an initial and a final workshop
with wide participation and 7 working committee
meetings were held. The main results from the first
2 years (2005 and 2006) of implementing the BMPC
were prepared. The implementation of these actions
is a process that is expected to take from one to
several years. Here are presented results relevant to
certain actions.
Monitoring the bear population and mortality
Prior to the BMPC, a subjectively decided percent
(between 10 and 50%) was added to the number of
bears seen and was used as the actual count. The
BMPC now accepts counts at feeding sites as an
indicator of trend. To improve objectivity, a
standardized recording procedure has been developed. It will allow for set feeding sites with the same
type of bait from year to year. This standardized
system began in 2007.
To better estimate population, we collected 750
scat samples. (In addition, 120 tissue samples of
bears shot in legal hunts or found dead from other
causes were collected for genetic analyses.) In the
initial phase we extracted DNA from 350 scat
samples and applied polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) to 170. Overall PCR success rate is currently
74%. Current plans include genotyping fecal samples
at 6 microsatellite loci (Mu10, Mu23, Mu50, Mu51,
Mu59, G10L) as well as using the SRY locus for sex
determination (Waits et al. 2000).
A population estimate using these genetic markers
is expected to be available for the 2008 quota setting
process. Because the authors and the field team of
game wardens and park rangers sampled only 3
areas of about 250 km2 each and not the entire bear
range, an extrapolation will be necessary, leading to
a wide margin of error. However, we expect our
DNA-based estimate to yield superior data to
traditional counting methods, and it will be used as
the basis for all future management decisions. It will
also be used to calibrate estimates obtained from
observations at feeding sites.
Ecological and social carrying capacity
The provisional ecological carrying capacity for
brown bears in Croatia was defined and set by the
BMPC at 1,100. The methods of calculation yielded
results close to this number: (1) the sum of numbers
of bears expected to be in each of the 85 hunting
units (base game stock) was calculated at 1,134, and
(2) the sum of the capacity estimations of the
portions of bear range in Croatia was 1,140. This
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
estimate of ecological capacity was slightly greater
than the current population estimate of 600–1,000
bears, which, in turn, came from (1) an estimate
made in 1999 (600), and (2) the sum of current local
base game stocks plus an assumed reproductive
increase of 15% (850 bears), plus 50 bears in the
national parks and 100 bears in areas where bears
are not managed with hunting (1,000 bears; Dečak et
al. 2005:56–57). The outcome is that the estimated
current population size is between 100 and 500 bears
below the ecological capacity of the habitat.
BMPC objectives were set so that desirable
occasional range (1,793 km2) would become permanently occupied and undesirable range (778 km2)
would be kept free of bears. The later includes urban
areas, a narrow costal zone, and the island of Krk;
the latter 2 are tourist areas.
The zone (approximately 2,400 km2) with the best
quality habitat and permanent bear presence was
deemed to be able to support a population density of
2.0 bears/10 km2 and to sustain an annual harvest of
15%, or 36 bears (1/67 km2). In the remaining zone
with permanent bear presence (6,300 km2), the
presumed average density was 1.0 bear/10 km2, for
which the BMPC predicts a sustainable annual
harvest of 10% (63 bears, or 1/100 km2). In the part
of the zone with occasional bear presence where
there are no conflicts between bears and residents,
the permissible annual harvest was set at 9 bears (1/
200 km2), which is close to 10%. In the part of the
zone where bear presence is not desirable, there is no
limit for the number of bears that can be harvested
to minimize conflicts with residents.
The anticipated public acceptance of bear densities, referred to as the social carrying capacity, was
provisionally set at 20% lower than biological
capacity (900 bears). This took into account data
showing that 72.7% of people surveyed ‘‘would agree
with increasing the number of bears in Croatia’’
(Majić, unpublished report, 2003), but also demonstrated that the BMPC was not pushing the limits set
by biological capacity. The general goal for the
Croatian bear population was to keep it close to the
biological capacity of the habitat while minimizing
bear–human conflict.
Removal quotas and methods of take
Most actions during 2005 and 2006 were in accord
with standards set in the BMPC. However, during
2005, only 46 of the quota of 80 bears (58%) were
killed by hunting (23 M, 8 F, 15 with incomplete
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
29
records). Another 22 bears, of expected maximum of
20 (110%; 5 M, 10 F, 7 with incomplete records) died
due to other losses, 10 as traffic kills. Consequently,
the quota for 2006 and 2007 was reallocated at 70%
hunting and 30% other losses. In 2006 recorded bear
mortality was 85: 49 from hunting (38 M, 11 F) and
36 (12 M, 17 F, 7 unrecorded) from other losses (24
from traffic kills). Non-hunting mortality (42% of all
deaths in 2006) were higher than initially expected
(20 or 30%). Ten problem bear kill permits were
issued in 2005, but in 8 cases the bear disappeared or
was shot but unreported. In 2006, 7 bears were shot
as problems out of 12 permits issued.
Incomplete reporting of hunted bears was identified as a major problem in the first year of
implementation. Coverage improved in the second
year due to more clearly explained regulations and
better acquaintance by hunters. Poaching was more
prevalent than suspected (7 in 2005 and 3 in 2006).
The nationwide hunting quota was apportioned
among hunting units based on size, habitat quality,
and previous management of each unit. Total
recorded bear mortality (n 5 281) for 1946–85
included 54% adults (.4 yrs old), 34% bears
.150 kg mass, and 77% males (Frković et al.
1987). Recent data for 1997–2003 included 46%
adults and 67% male in total recorded mortality (n 5
167) (Majnarić 2004). During the first 2 years of
BMPC implementation (2005 and 2006), 78 of 124
dead bears of known sex were males (63%). The bias
toward males is partly due to hunters seeking bigger
trophies and wanting to protect females with cubs;
females with new litters were less frequent visitors at
feeding sites during the spring hunting season.
However, of 56 live captures for research purposes,
36 (64%) were males. Bigger movements and less
cautious behavior of male bears may explain part of
this bias, but also indicate that hunting may have not
yet distorted the sex balance.
Habitat conservation
Habitat conservation goals have already been
achieved in mitigating effects of new highway
construction. The total permeability of new highways (built since 1996) within bear range (225 km) in
Croatia is 18.6%. Structures conducive to permeability include tunnels, viaducts, and 6 overpasses
(‘green bridges’) 100–120 m wide. Several management authorities are in charge of controlling human
use of bear habitat. Hunting authorities take care of
non-disturbance and poaching in hunting grounds,
30
whereas state-owned forestry organizations control
use of forest roads and timber extraction. National
parks and nature parks have their own personnel to
protect their nature reserves. Among other aspects of
habitat conservation, actions to reduce access to
garbage have been promoted by publishing brochures and through the donation of 2 bear-safe
garbage bins, 6 garbage baskets, and 1 electric fence
for a communal garbage dump in Delnice. Unfortunately, maintenance of this fence by the communal
company has been poor. All construction and
development actions have to go through the
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning.
Problem bears
Actions to reduce access to garbage by bears
and to reduce the number of orphaned cubs
are helping to reduce the occurrence of problem
bears. In one case, we immobilized and transplanted a garbage-habituated bear, although it
returned from the release site 20 km distant after
5 days. In other cases we used rubber bullets on
problem bears, although with no clear success. In
most cases, special kill permits have been issued by
the hunting unit of the Ministry for Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Management. However, only 9
of 24 (38%) problem bears were reported to have
been removed.
Minimizing and compensating damage
Luckily, bears in Croatia do not damage human
property very much: recorded cases of damage were
24, 88, and 16 in 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively,
and mean yearly damage compensation paid by
hunting managers was 7,000 euros. Funds provided
by the LIFE project ‘‘Improving coexistence between
large carnivores and agriculture in Southern Europe
(LIFE COEX )’’ supported the donation of 8 electric
fences to beekeepers and 2 to livestock owners, as
well as a pilot project to demonstrate better means of
property protection.
Bears and tourism
With respect to bear tourism, in 2006 Risnjak
National Park posted on its website Bear Trail
Walks. Several groups have since used this program. We approached 4 local producers of cheese
and drinks from local herbs and they all gladly
signed ‘bear friendly’ contracts, which permit
them to display their products with the bear friendly
logo.
Public information and participation in
decision making
To enhance public participation at the 12 presentations of the BMPC, open house events were held in
communities within bear habitat. The results of
the questionnaire on attitudes (Majić, unpublished
report, 2003; 779 returned questionnaires, response
rate of 37.9%) revealed that the bear is highly valued
(94% believe it ‘‘good to have bears in Croatia’’ and
73.9% have feelings ‘‘in favor of bear’’) among the
Croatian public, but the majority (53.7%) of
respondents support trophy hunting of bears.
International cooperation
A Croatian–Slovenian meeting on bear management, with political and expert participation, was
held in February 2007; another one is scheduled for
early 2008.
Bear emergency team
The BET members had two 2-day training
seminars on working protocols and field procedures
to solve problem bear situations in 2005 and 2006. In
2005, BET members rescued a bear from a poacher’s
snare and translocated another bear from a garbage
dump. The dump bear returned within 5 days and
was shot later that year. The BET also investigated
and reported on bear damage sites and on problem
bear behavior. All decisions on removal of bears
were based on those investigations.
Funding
During 2004–08, the main funding to implement
the BMPC came from the LIFE COEX project and
the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management. Additional funding came from
EURONATUR (for the initial workshop), BBIMatra (for genetic work), and the Research Council
of Norway (for monitoring hunting). During these
5 years the total amount spent was 240,000 euros
(US$287,500 [Jan 2006] or 48,000 euros/yr).
Discussion and recommendations
Before adoption of the BMPC, the traditionally
acceptable harvest rate was calculated as 15%. The
main weakness of this approach was the uncertainty
surrounding the population estimate against which
the 15% was applied. Although it remains unclear
whether the harvest was actually 15% or the
population was larger than estimated, the previous
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
management approach did lead to a remarkable
population increase. There were .100 bears in the
late 1950s when trophy hunting started (Frković et al.
1987, Huber and Frković 1993) compared to the 600–
1,000 bears estimated in 2005 (Dečak et al. 2005).
There is no doubt that this population has high
reproductive potential (Frković et al. 2001) and that
the habitat has a high suitability index (Kusak and
Huber 1998). Nevertheless, the harvest percentage
may likely change (in either direction) when better
data on population trend and size becomes available.
The BMPC introduced the calculation of annual
bear removal quotas on a national basis. That is, the
total quota is decided first and later allocated among
hunting units. Likewise, losses from non-hunting
reasons are to be counted in the same way. In the
previous system, all losses were included in the quota
for the local hunting unit. This led to some deaths
not being reported to maintain the opportunity to
shoot a trophy bear and earnings from the hunter’s
fee, which is proportional to trophy size of the bear.
Feeding of bears for hunting and other management
purposes remains controversial. Current management
is a compromise, which is at least temporarily helping
to reduce conflict. Supplemental feeding is permitted
to keep bears in a desired part of the habitat, prevent
them from getting close to human settlements, reduce
damage to property, provide a chance to observe and
monitor trends of bear population growth, treat
eventual health problems, increase the habitat’s
carrying capacity, increase population growth and
reproductive potential, develop eco-tourism (photohunting) and education, and execute the planned
harvest. To deter bears from becoming accustomed to
or dependent on anthropogenic food, supplemental
feeding is limited to 120 days.
In accordance with the Bern Convention, education and information campaigns for different target
groups among local inhabitants should be further
developed. Interest groups as representatives of the
public in bear management should be identified and
their involvement increased.
The committee involving the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (Department
of Game Management) and the Ministry of Culture
(Department of Nature Protection) has been established to revise the BMPC and to produce yearly
action plans. The BMPC is not a final document. It
can be adapted to any change if necessary. Revisions
should be open to the comments and proposals of
interest groups and the general public.
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
31
We recommend establishing a working group that
includes representation from neighboring countries
to develop a joint management approach that
maintains an ideal population level. Annual meetings of international bear managers should be held
to improve cooperation with the intent of exchanging experience and jointly planning quotas for the
upcoming year. The BMPC recommends estimating the total brown bear population size every
3–5 years.
A standardized method for evaluating bear damage, as well as criteria related to justification of
compensation claims, should be developed. The
efficiency of the BET can be improved by paying
individuals on a 24-hour duty basis. Research should
be initiated to quantify the amount of non-natural
food bears ingest and the proportion these foods
represent in a bear’s total diet, as well as the effect
these foods have on the behavior of bears, both on an
individual and population basis. Education and
awareness programs that teach visitors about appropriate behavior in bear habitat through brochures,
flyers, signs on the hiking trails, and lectures should
also be developed. Areas accessible to visitors should
be restricted, or the number of visitors in certain areas
or times (e.g., denning sites in winter) should be
limited. Institutions that keep bears in captivity
should be encouraged to educate and entertain their
visitors, as well as create economic profit.
Acknowledgments
We thank the authors of the Croatian brown bear
management plan and the numerous co-workers
who helped with certain parts of it. We also thank
EURONATUR, LIFE COEX, BBI-Matra (through
ALERTIS) and Research Council of Norway
(through NINA) for financial support. Special
thanks go to Ursus editors and reviewers who
invested their expertise and time to improve this
manuscript. They indirectly also helped to clarify a
number of issues during revision of the BMPC.
Literature cited
BERTOVIĆ, S., AND J. MARTINOVIĆ. 1981. Bioekološke
značajke. (Bioecological features.) Pages 27–43 in I.
Tomac, editor. Gorski kotar. Fond knjige ‘‘Gorski
kotar’’, Delnice, Croatia. (In Croatian.)
CICNJAK, L., D. HUBER, H.U. ROTH, R.L. RUFF, AND Z.
VINOVRSKI. 1987. Food habits of brown bears in Plitvice
32
Lakes National Park, Yugoslavia. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:221–226.
CLARK, J.D., D. HUBER, AND C. SERVHEEN. 2002. Reintroducing bears: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:153–163.
DEČAK, D., A. FRKOVIĆ, M. GRUBEŠIĆ, D. HUBER, B.
IVIČEK, B. KULIĆ, D. SERTIĆ, AND Ž. ŠTAHAN. 2005.
Brown bear management plan for the Republic of
Croatia. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management, Zagreb, Croatia.
FRKOVIĆ, A., R.L. RUFF, L. CICNJAK, AND D. HUBER. 1987.
Brown bear mortality in Gorski kotar, Yugoslavia.
International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:87–92.
———. 1999. Smed–i medvjed u Primorsko goranskoj
županiji. (Brown bear in Primorsko-goranska county.)
Upravni odjel za gospodarski razvoj primorsko-goranske županije, Rijeka, Croatia. (In Croatian.)
———, D. HUBER, AND J. KUSAK. 2001. Brown bear litter
sizes in Croatia. Ursus 12:103–106.
HUBER, D., AND A. FRKOVIĆ. 1993. Brown bear management in Croatia. International Union of Game
Biologist Congress 21:287–292.
———, AND H.U. ROTH. 1993. Movements of European
brown bears in Croatia. Acta Theriologica 38:151–159.
———, AND ———. 1997. Denning of brown bears in
Croatia. International Conference of Bear Research
and Management 9(2):79–83.
———, J. KUSAK, AND A. FRKOVIĆ. 1998. Traffic kills of
brown bears in Gorski kotar, Croatia. Ursus 10:167–171.
INTERAGENCY CONSERVATION STRATEGY TEAM. 2003. Final
conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Interagency Conservation
Strategy Team, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,
Montana, USA.
KUSAK, J., AND D. HUBER. 1998. Brown bear habitat
quality in Gorski kotar, Croatia. Ursus 10:281–291.
LÕHMUS, A. 2001. Large carnivore control and management plan for Estonia 2002–2011. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg, Germany.
L’OURS PYRÉNÉES. 2006. Plan for the restoration and
conservation of the brown bear in the French Pyrénées
2006–2009. L’Ours Pyrénées, France. http://www.lcie.
org/res_sps_bear.htm, accessed 10 January 2008.
MAJNARIĆ, D. 2002. Gospodarenje medvjedom kao zadatak državnog šumarstva. (Bear management as a task
of state forestry.) Šumarski list 11–12:601–611. (In
Croatian.)
———. 2004. Značaj gospodarenja smed– im medvjedom
(Ursus arctos L.) za stabilnost i strukturu populacije.
(Importance of brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) management for the population stability and structure). Thesis.
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. (In Croatian.)
MAKJANIĆ, B. 1971/72. O klimi užeg područja Plitvičkih
jezera. (On climate of central Plitvice Lakes.) Geografski glasnik 33–34:5–24. (In Croatian.)
MCLELLAN, B.N., AND V. BANCI. 1999. Status and
management of the brown bear in Canada.
Pages 46–50 in S. Servheen, C. Herrero, and B. Peyton,
editors. Bears: Status survey and conservation action
plan. IUCN Publication Services Unit, Cambridge,
UK.
OBERLE, B. 2006. Managementplan für den Braunbären in
der Schweiz. (Brown bear management in Switzerland.)
Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr,
Energie und Kommunikation UVEK, Bundesamt für
Umwelt BAFU. (In German.)
OZOLINS, J. 2003. Action plan for the conservation of
brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Latvia. State Forest
Research Institute ‘‘Silava’’, Salaspils, Latvia.
SERVHEEN, C. 1990. The status and conservation of the
bears of the world. International Conference on Bear
Research and Management, Monograph Series 2.
SHACKLEY, M. 1996. Wildlife tourism. International
Thomson Business Press, London, UK.
SWENSON, J., N. GERSTL, B. DAHLE, AND A. ZEDROSSER.
2000. Action plan for the conservation of the brown
bear in Europe (Ursus arctos). Council of Europe TPVS, Strasbourg, France.
US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
Final Rule designating the Greater Yellowstone Area
population of grizzly bears as a distinct population
segment; removing the Yellowstone distinct population
segment of grizzly bears from the federal list of
endangered and threatened wildlife; 90-day finding on
a petition to list as endangered the Yellowstone distinct
population segment of grizzly bears. Federal Register
March 29, 2007:14865.
WAITS, L., P. TABERLET, J.E. SWENSON, F. SANDEGREEN,
AND R. FRANZ. 2000. Nuclear DNA microsatellite
analysis of genetic diversity and gene flow in the
Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos). Molecular
Ecology 9:421–431.
WULTSCH, C. 2004. Brown bear management plans in
Europe and the continental United States. Thesis.
University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
WWF AUSTRIA. 2005. Bears in Austria — a management
plan, revised version. WWF Austria, Vienna, Austria.
ZAVOD ZA GOZDOVE. 2002. Strategija upravljanja z rjavim
medvedom (Ursus arctos). (Brown bear (Ursus arctos)
management strategy.) Ministrstvo za okolje i prostor
Slovenije and Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo i
prehrano Slovenije, Ljubljana, Slovenia. (In Slovenian.)
ZEDROSSER, A., B. DAHLE, J.E. SWENSON, AND N. GERSTL.
2001. Status and management of brown bears in
Europe. Ursus 12:9–20.
Received: 31 October 2006
Accepted: 12 October 2007
Associate Editor: R. Shideler
Ursus 19(1):22–32 (2008)
BOLETIM INFORMATIVO
Verão 2007
EDITORIAL
Chegamos com o Verão a amadurecer pouco a pouco, à medida que os
dias se vão enchendo de calor e sol, e as horas que unem o dia à noite
ainda se prolongam no horizonte das serras, em tons de dourado e azul.
Foto: António Viana da Cunha
O Boletim de Verão 2007
do LOBOARGA, traz algumas novidades interessantes para todos os nossos
leitores. O contributo é
dado por todos os colaboradores que nos vão auxiliando
a
perpetuar
a
memória do Lobo ibérico
na Serra d'Arga e aos
quais
agradecemos
a
cedência do tempo, saber
científico e carinho por
este projecto que já é de
todos... de norte a sul do
país!
Ecologia, Património, Pintura e Leitura são as palavras que definem este
boletim de Estio. Algumas breves, mas outras mais extensas, são as leituras que vos deixamos ficar.
Sabendo que o sol nos convida a ir lá para fora e desfrutar da actual época do ano, não será de todo descabido pedir aos nossos leitores que
leiam este boletim, para que o possível saborear das horas de lazer e de
férias, sejam mais intensas com algumas propostas.
Regressamos com o Outono, a 21 de Setembro, com mais leituras e
novidades deste território de lobos... desde esta "montanha sagrada"!
A todos boas férias!
António Viana da Cunha
LOBOARGA - Boletim Informativo/Verão de 2007
ARTIGO
LIFE-COEX: Melhorar a Coexistência
com o Lobo
Sílvia Ribeiro & Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca
Grupo Lobo
© 2007
Demonstrar que é possível a coexistência entre as actividades humanas e a presença
dos grandes carnívoros, como o lobo e o urso, é o objectivo do Projecto LIFE-COEX.
Este projecto é financiado pelo programa LIFE-Natureza, um instrumento financeiro da
União Europeia que pretende
apoiar a conservação de habitats
naturais e da fauna e flora silvestres ameaçados na Europa.
DIMINUIR OS CONFLITOS
Os grandes carnívoros foram
extintos ou estão ameaçados na
maior parte dos países Europeus
devido à acção do Homem. Esta
situação resulta quer da destruição e fragmentação do habitat
natural das espécies quer da perseguição pelo Homem devido à
existência de conflitos. Os conflitos têm diversos fundamentos,
mas são em grande parte motivados pela competição pelos
FIGURA 1- Rebanho de cabras Bravia na Serra do Alvão
mesmos recursos - os animais (Foto: Sílvia Ribeiro/Grupo Lobo)
domésticos. Estes estão geralmente mais disponíveis que as
presas naturais dos grandes carnívoros (e.g. cervídeos), quer pelo seu maior número
quer pela sua maior facilidade de captura. A resposta do Homem tem sido a perseguição directa aos predadores, numa tentativa de reduzir esses prejuízos. No entanto, o
Homem também desenvolveu outras formas de resposta que não implicam a morte do
predador. Nas regiões onde a criação de gado atingiu uma grande importância podemos encontrar diversos exemplos de métodos de prevenção e de protecção do gado,
desde um maneio ou pastoreio adequado à presença dos predadores, à utilização de
medidas eficazes de protecção como sejam os cães de gado. É esta maneira tradicional
de saber fazer e estar num ambiente natural que se deve retomar.
Assiste-se actualmente a uma maior consciencialização para a importância de conservar a Natureza. Contudo, é nos países considerados mais desenvolvidos que se verifica
uma menor tolerância dos criadores de gado para com os grandes carnívoros. A actual
pressão económica e social sobre a produção pecuária fez com que se alterassem práticas tradicionais e se mudassem comportamentos e, consequentemente, atitudes. Estas
são influenciadas não apenas pelos prejuízos económicos que os predadores provocam,
mas também por factores de ordem emocional. Devido a lendas, superstições e à
transmissão de informação incorrecta, muitas pessoas têm um medo infundado dos
lobos. Além disso, em muitas regiões os sistemas existentes de compensação de prejuízos causados pelos predadores são pouco eficazes na redução dos conflitos. São processos burocráticos lentos e complexos, sendo as indemnizações frequentemente pagas
com atrasos, o que agrava o descontentamento dos criadores de gado.
O Lobo Ibérico na Serra d’Arga… perpetuar uma memória!
2
AUMENTAR A TOLERÂNCIA
A reduzida tolerância à presença dos predadores resulta também de um reduzido
conhecimento sobre estes. Os comportamentos variam com os valores e crenças, que
são por sua vez influenciados pela educação e pela informação disponível. Divulgar
informação correcta ajuda a contrariar as crenças erradas e a gerar comportamentos
compatíveis com a presença dos predadores. A sensibilização ambiental é pois fundamental para melhorar as atitudes e facilitar os esforços de conservação das espécies
ameaçadas.
Mas a presença dos predadores
também pode contribuir para
fomentar o desenvolvimento
sócio-económico das comunidades e ajudar a melhorar a sua
aceitação. Utilizar a imagem
dos predadores pode ajudar na
promoção de actividades de
ecoturismo e na valorização de
produtos locais. Como consequência é possível gerar emprego e fontes adicionais de rendimento, através da oferta de
produtos e serviços pelas comunidades que têm o privilégio de
partilhar o seu espaço com os
predadores.
FIGURA 2- Cão de Gado da raça Cão de Castro Laboreiro protegendo um
rebanho de cabras Bravia, na Serra do Alvão.
(Foto: Raquel Simões/Grupo Lobo)
PARTILHAR EXPERIÊNCIAS
Do que foi dito se compreende
que para aumentar a tolerância
das comunidades rurais para a presença dos predadores é necessário desenvolver
acções de conservação integradas. É este o pressuposto em que se fundamenta o Projecto LIFE-COEX. Este projecto pretende contribuir para desenvolver as necessárias
condições sócio-económicas e legislativas que permitam a conservação dos grandes
carnívoros mediante a minimização das principais situações de conflito que afectam a
sua conservação, promovendo uma abordagem participativa, que implique o envolvimento da comunidade.
Este projecto surge do reconhecimento da importância que a partilha de experiências
pode, e deve ter, nomeadamente ao nível da conservação da Natureza. Como tal envolve 18 entidades, desde organizações não governamentais a organismos públicos, de
cinco Países do sul da Europa - Portugal, Espanha, França, Itália e Croácia. Esta colaboração permite partilhar o conhecimento adquirido pelas comunidades agrícolas e pastoris nos diferentes países e, com a ajuda de novas tecnologias, encontrar um novo caminho, que permita a coexistência do Homem com os grandes carnívoros. Enquanto na
maior parte dos Países o projecto visa a conservação do urso e do lobo, em Portugal o
lobo é o último grande carnívoro existente, pelo que as acções se referem apenas a
este predador.
O projecto tem a duração de quatro anos, prolongando-se até ao final de 2008. A coordenação internacional é da responsabilidade do Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (Itália). A
nível nacional a coordenação é feita pelo Grupo Lobo, estando envolvidas mais duas
entidades - a Escola Superior Agrária de Castelo Branco e a Faculdade de Ciências da
Universidade de Lisboa.
SITUAÇÃO EM PORTUGAL
Em Portugal a população lupina sofreu uma redução muito acentuada, principalmente a
partir de 1970 (Petrucci-Fonseca, 1990).
3
Actualmente estima-se que existam cerca
de 300 lobos que ocupam apenas 20% da
área de distribuição original da espécie,
que incluía todo o território continental
(Pimenta et al., 2005). Esta situação de
ameaça levou à elaboração da Lei de Protecção do Lobo Ibérico, em 1988. Contudo, apesar de estar totalmente protegida
por lei, o abate ilegal da espécie ainda se
verifica.
Uma
percentagem
considerável de mortalidade
resulta
também da
colocação
de
laços
para a captura ilegal
de
javalis
ou da utilização ilegal
de veneno
para
controlo
de
predadores
em
zonas
cinegéticas,
acções com
FIGURA 3- Lobo Ibérico.
(Foto: Jorge Ferreira/Grupo Lobo)
consequências
muito
negativas para outras espécies (Álvares,
2003).
Devido à escassez de cervídeos, a alimentação do lobo baseia-se nos animais
domésticos, essencialmente ovinos e
caprinos (Álvares et al., 2000). Isto conduz a consideráveis prejuízos económicos
e ao aumento dos conflitos com os criadores de gado. Além disso, em muitas
regiões verificou-se a perda progressiva da
utilização e dos conhecimentos sobre os
métodos tradicionais de protecção do
gado, resultando no aumento da vulnerabi
lidade dos rebanhos à predação. Um outro
factor a considerar é a presença de cães
vadios que atacam os animais domésticos
e causam elevados prejuízos (Ribeiro,
1996). Esta situação acentua o descontentamento dos criadores de gado que tendem a culpabilizar os lobos dos ataques.
to (Roque et al., 2005). Este facto permite
o aparecimento de muitos mitos que dificultam os esforços de conservação do predador.
ACÇÕES EM PORTUGAL
Em Portugal a área de intervenção do projecto coincide com a distribuição do lobo a
Sul
do
rio
Douro e com a
região central
da área de
distribuição da
espécie a Norte deste rio.
As principais
actividades
estão relacionadas com a
produção agrícola, florestal
e,
essencialmente, pecuária, na sua
maioria
de
ovinos e de
caprinos, que
representa
uma actividade económica
de
grande
importância em
explorações de pequena escala.
As principais acções a desenvolver no nosso País são:
- Implementar métodos eficazes de prevenção dos prejuízos, tais como a utilização de vedações eléctricas, de cães de
gado de qualidade e correctamente educados, a utilização optimizada das vedações
tradicionais e o maneio do gado de forma
a reduzir o risco de predação;
- Aumentar a sensibilização dos criadores
de gado para a existência de métodos de
prevenção dos prejuízos que permitem a
coexistência entre o lobo e as actividades
Humanas;
- Analisar o efeito de sistemas de compensação dos prejuízos causados por lobos e
iniciar conversações com as entidades
Existe também um grande desconheci- competentes para melhorar a legislação
mento da comunidade em geral, e dos existente de forma a tornar os sistemas de
criadores de gado em particular, sobre o compensação em ferramentas verdadeiralobo, sobre a sua biologia e comportamen- mente eficazes na redução dos prejuízos
4
GRUPO LOBO
O Grupo Lobo é uma associação não governamental, sem fins lucrativos, criada em
1985 com o objectivo de contribuir para a conservação do lobo e do seu habitat em Portugal. Das suas actividades destacam-se a investigação científica e a educação ambiental, bem como a participação em questões legislativas que envolvam o lobo. A investigação desenvolvida é multidisciplinar abrangendo as áreas da ecologia, genética, comportamento ou antropologia. O Grupo Lobo produz diverso material de divulgação e possui
um acervo bibliográfico e de multimédia que disponibiliza. Tem uma exposição itinerante
que pode ser requisitada, tendo já percorrido o País, e realiza palestras se solicitadas. É
ainda responsável pela gestão do Centro de Recuperação do Lobo Ibérico, que tem um
importante papel de sensibilização e educação, recebendo anualmente mais de 3.600
pessoas, principalmente estudantes de diversas regiões do País.
Para mais informações pode contactar o Grupo Lobo ou consultar a página do Projecto LIFE-COEX.
REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
● Álvares, F. (2003). A Problemática dos venenos na conservação do lobo e o seu Impacto na
biodiversidade dos ecossistemas. Relatório Técnico. Programa Antídoto – Portugal.
● Álvares, F., E. Pereira & F. Petrucci-Fonseca (2000). O lobo no Parque Internacional GerêsXurês: situação populacional, aspectos ecológicos e perspectivas de conservação. Galemys, 12
(NE): 223-239.
● Petrucci-Fonseca, F. (1990). O lobo (Canis lupus signatus Cabrera, 1907) em Portugal. Problemática da sua conservação. Dissertação para a obtenção do Grau de Doutor, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa.
● Pimenta, V., I. Barroso, F. Álvares, J. Correia, G. Ferrão da Costa, L. Moreira, J. Nascimento,
F. Petrucci-Fonseca, S. Roque & E. Santos (2005). Situação populacional do lobo em Portugal,
resultados do Censo Nacional 2002/2003. Relatório Técnico. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza/Grupo Lobo.
● Ribeiro, S. (1996). A Problemática dos cães vadios na conservação do lobo: Estudo da situação dos cães vadios em Portugal e caracterização do comportamento predatório do cão e do
lobo. Relatório de estágio para obtenção da Licenciatura em Biologia Aplicada aos Recursos Animais, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa.
● Roque, S., C. Espírito-Santo, C. Grilo, H. Rio-Maior & F. Petrucci-Fonseca (2005). A população
lupina a Sul do rio Douro em Portugal: Análise temporal, atitudes públicas e aperfeiçoamento
dos corredores ecológicos. Relatório Final. Grupo Lobo. POCTI, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.
5
“Cancioneiro da Serra d’Arga”
NOTÍCIAS
Cerca de 27 anos depois, a Fábrica da Igreja da Paróquia de Nossa Senhora de Fátima
(Viana do Castelo) edita pela quarta vez O Cancioneiro da Serra d’Arga, "um repositório
de canções e quadras populares, recolhido na
década de setenta, na serra que lhe dá o
nome, pela mão do Padre Artur Coutinho, à
data pároco nas freguesias das Argas e
Dem".
Munidas de saudade, amor, granito, santidade e paganismo, cerca de 3000 quadras
mobilizam-nos a inspiração para um cantar
de alma de uma época com pureza e genuinidade singular. O quotidiano das memórias
idas de um território cada vez mais em transformação, que só a perenidade das rochas
não apaga, está lá descrito.
Cenas e sentimentos de um quotidiano agreste, simples e humilde, tal como as almas e a
inspiração que lhe dão forma estão vincadas
à melodia de um Alto-Minho que insiste (e
bem) em ser único e irrepetível para os que
nele habitam ou para aqueles que o visitam.
Leitura
indispensável
para
o
autoconhecimento das nossas memórias e para o
desenvolvimento futuro de um território. Esta
obra cumpre para além da missão de dimensão cultural, uma outra de dimensão social,
que actualmente, tal como no passado, se
FIGURA 4– Capa do “Cancioneiro da Serra d’Arga”
centra no apoio dos projectos da paróquia
vianense que agora o edita. Por isso impõe-se
apoiar. O preço do livro é de 10€ e pode ser adquirido junto do cartório da Paróquia de
Nossa Senhora de Fátima ou em qualquer livraria da região.
9ª Arte na Leira
De 14 de Julho a 5 de Agosto a Casa do Marco em Arga de Baixo,
acolhe pela 9ª vez a exposição "Arte na Leira", projecto cultural do
pintor e proprietário do local que dá forma à iniciativa, Mário Rocha.
Espera-se a participação de 81 artistas regionais e nacionais com
diversos trabalhos de Pintura, Escultura, Desenho, Fotografia, Cerâmica, Ourivesaria, Vidro, Moda e Mobiliário e que vão dar um maior
colorido, movimento e forma à paisagem de Arga de Baixo.
A "Arte na Leira" é por si mesmo um evento diferente, que possibilita na calma dos dias de Verão, admirar com melhor sabor, uma
outra forma de ver e sentir a cultura que se promove num espaço
quase anónimo.
FIGURA 5 – Pintura de
Mário Rocha
6
Blogue "Serra de Arga"
Está disponível a partir
da nossa página o Blogue "Serra de Arga" e
que pretende ser um
espaço de apresentação
da
grande
riqueza
patrimonial que este
território comporta.
Com especial destaque
para as obras bibliográficas que a ela fazem
referência, este blogue
pretende
também
divulgar outros acontecimentos culturais tais
como palestras, festas
e romarias, exposições
e tantas outras iniciativas.
Para o tornar ainda
mais rico, basta que os
seus leitores enviem FIGURA 6 – Página principal do blogue “Serra de Arga”
notícias ou fotografias
para o e-mail do blogue ([email protected]). Este blogue possui uma lista de
outras páginas digitais que fazem referência à Serra de Arga nos mais diversos aspectos.
Testemunhos do Urso ibérico (Ursus
arctos pyrenaicus) na Serra d'Arga
A Serra de Arga bem que poderia ser significado de
"serra de lobos". Nada mais justo do que lhe atribuir um
estatuto dessa dimensão, porque na verdade só iria de
encontro ao extenso valor que ela possui em termos
patrimoniais relacionado com a espécie.
Mas ela não fica por aqui!
A Serra de Arga à semelhança de tantas outras áreas
naturais do norte de Portugal, foi em tempo idos habitada por aquela que é actualmente a maior espécie de predador carnívoro da Península Ibérica: o Urso ibérico
(Ursus arctos pyrenaicus).
Este carnívora actualmente em igual estatuto de perigo
de extinção com o Lobo ibérico, apenas habita algumas
zonas de montanha do norte de Espanha, correndo o
sério risco de ver ainda mais diminuída a sua zona de
existência, devido à crescente degradação do seu habitat
natural.
Alguns testemunhos desta presença do Urso ibérico persistem ainda na Serra de Arga, provavelmente
FIGURA 7 – Silha do Urso no Vale
de S. João d’Arga (Foto: António
Viana da Cunha)
7
com mais de 500 anos de idade. Elementos arqueológicos como as "silhas do
urso" (imagem na página anterior) no Vale do Ribeiro de S. João ou inclusive o nome de
cursos de água, como é exemplo o "Ribeiro de Ossos" (derivação do castelhano Osos,
com tradução para português de Ursos) demonstram-nos que também o património
associado ao Urso ibérico possui neste território do Alto-Minho, um potencial muito interessante de investigação, conservação e divulgação.
A equipa do LOBOARGA está no terreno a inventariar este património e nos próximos
números deste boletim fará chegar mais e melhor informação.
LEMBRAMOS...
Centro de Recuperação
do Lobo Ibérico... 20 anos!
Já decorreram 20 anos sobre a inauguração do
Centro de Recuperação do Lobo Ibérico (CRLI), o
único existente em toda a península.
A iniciativa partiu do naturalista britânico Robert
Lyle e do investigador e actual presidente do Grupo Lobo (GL), Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca.
Numa área total de 17 hectares, cerca de 16
exemplares da espécie Canis lupus signatus, constituem presentemente a comunidade que serve de
objecto para estudo de especialistas e investigadores ou de instrumento de educação para a conservação da natureza, junto do grande público.
O CRLI é uma estrutura gerida pelo GL e possui
para além do apoio de várias entidades públicas e
privadas, o de vários pais adoptivos que decidiram
dessa forma dar um contributo afectivo e económico para a sobrevivência dos lobos ali residentes,
que em períodos anteriores foram vítimas de agressões ilegais à sua sobrevivência.
Para mais informações visite a página do GL no seguinte endereço e que tal dar uma
preciosa prenda a esta organização e ao seu centro e tornar-se sócio ou pai adoptivo?
PARABÉNS CRLI! PARABÉNS Clarinha, Douro, Fusco, Alvão, Grunha...!
®
FICHA TÉCNICA - LOBOARGA
Boletim Informativo/Verão 2007
Responsável
António Viana da Cunha
Colaboradores deste número
Grupo Lobo, com Sílvia Ribeiro e Francisco Petrucci-Fonseca
Informações
URL: http://loboarga.naturlink.pt
E-mail: [email protected]
Tlm.: 96 6552428
8
Coexistence of Large Carnivores and Humans: Threat or Benefit? (2008) pp. 90–99.
Large Carnivore Management in Croatia
Djuro Huber
Veterinary Faculty, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 1000 Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The management plans for brown
bears (Ursus arctos), grey wolves (Canis
lupus) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) are
expected to bring together different interests
such as ecological, aesthetical and economic,
as well as care for the safety of people and
their properties. Bears are a game species in
Croatia, while wolves and lynx are legally
protected. The actions following management
plans are to ensure the viable sizes of
populations but within a social capacity. This
means that the densities of large carnivores
should be managed to minimize the conflicts
with people. In order to achieve this goal, a
series of actions and measures related to the
human activities in the habitat such as highway
construction and forestry, the prevention of
damage, the occurrences of problematic
individuals and the scientific monitoring of all
changes in the population have to be regulated.
The implementation of plans is the
responsibility of various interest (stakeholder)
groups. Croatia expects that, its Brown Bear
Management Plan, Wolf Management Plan,
and Lynx Management Plan, all officially
accepted in 2004, will ensure the long-term
existence of optimum large carnivore
populations and their habitats, with as few
negative effects as possible.
Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Traditional
management was organized through
hunting for bears (HUBER & FRKOVIĆ
1993), through administrative protection
(lynx), or there was no defined
management at all (wolf). In 2004 the
officially accepted the Brown Bear
Management Plan (DEČAK et al. 2005),
Wolf Management Plan (ŠTRBENAC et al.
2005), and Lynx Management Plan (FIRŠT
et al. 2005) were finalised and all have
been implemented since 2005. Legal
considerations
were
set
by
the
international and national community. The
signing of international conventions
obliges the country to change the national
acts accordingly.
Key words: Croatia, brown bear, wolf, lynx,
management
•
This paper is to present a brief overview of
management approaches, first of what is
common to all three species and then for
each species.
International agreements governing the
large carnivore conservation issues
relevant for Croatia
•
Introduction
Large carnivores are one of the best
indicators of well preserved biodiversity
but, at the same, time they do pose a big
management challenge. There are
numerous legal, and, more importantly,
practical issues to be met for successful
maintenance
of
large
carnivore
populations.
•
•
•
Croatia holds all three native large
carnivore species: brown bear (Ursus
arctos), grey wolf (Canis lupus) and
90
Convention on Biological Diversity,
(NN: International Treaties # 6/96);
Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats (Bern Convention) (NN:
International Treaties # 3/5/00);
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) (NN: International
Treaties # 12/99);
Directive on the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna
and Flora (Habitats Directive)
(92/43/EEC);
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of
9 December 1996 on the protection of
species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade therein.
Djuro Huber
The Republic of Croatia is signatory to all
relevant international agreements in the
field of nature protection, this being yet
another way of joining the international
community in the global nature
conservation efforts. One of the
framework agreements is the Convention
on Biological Diversity, ratified by Croatia
in April 1996, (NN: International Treaties
#6/96), committing itself to preservation
and enhancement of the existing biological
diversity and sustainable use of its
components.
with Article 9 of the Convention, made an
exception so that bears in Croatia are
treated as species listed in Appendix III of
the Convention. The Bern Convention
adopted the separate Action plans for the
conservation of bears, wolves and lynx in
Europe, developed by the Large Carnivore
Initiative for Europe (LCIE), which has
also listed recommendations for the action
plan for the conservation of wolves in
Croatia.
The Republic of Croatia is a signatory to
the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) (NN: International Treaties
#12/99), which obliges the parties to
control the international trade in
endangered species through a system of
issuing import and export permits and
certificates. Bear, wolf and lynx are listed
in the Annex II of CITES, meaning that
they are potentially threatened species, and
that the related international trade must be
strictly controlled.
Croatia ratified the Convention on the
Protection of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) in
2000. This agreement sets all the measures
to be taken by European countries to
protect wildlife, especially the species
listed in its Annexes, including the
protection of their habitats. The wolf and
brown bear are listed in Annex II, and
lynx in Annex III to the Bern Convention,
i.e. in the list of strictly protected species
whose exploitation, disturbance and
habitat endangerment is prohibited. In
special cases, the Bern Convention allows
for exceptions from this rule when there is
no other acceptable solution and providing
that the exception would not be fatal for
survival of the population in question.
Such exceptions are granted only in well
justified cases of protecting flora and
fauna; preventing serious damage of crops,
livestock, forests, fishponds, water and
other property; in the interest of public
health and safety, aircraft safety and other
prevailing public interest, and for the
purposes of research and education,
repopulation, reintroduction and necessary
reproduction. Further, exceptions can be
granted only under strict supervision, on a
selective basis, and where small numbers
are involved. In such cases, the party in
question is obliged to submit detailed
biannual reports to the Standing
Committee of the Bern Convention on the
exceptions applied. Since the bear
population in Croatia is not endangered
and does not require strict protection, the
Republic of Croatia has, in accordance
The Directive on the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and
Flora, 92/43/EEC, is one of the basic
regulations governing nature protection in
the EU member states. The European
Union members are obliged to integrate
the provisions of this Directive into their
domestic legislation, and the respective
legal harmonisation is expected also from
Croatia in the process of EU accession.
The wolf and bear are listed under Annex
II of the Directive, dealing with plant and
animal species of interest for the European
Community, the preservation of which
requires proclamation of Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC) as parts of the Natura
2000 ecological network.
The Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
of 9 December 1996 on the protection of
species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade therein, regulates the trade
in protected animal and plant species
within the European Union, and presents
the legal basis for the implementation of
CITES Convention in the EU territory.
91
The wolf is listed in Annex A to this
Regulation, which includes species that
are threatened, extinct or rare, so any form
of international trade in such species
would endanger their survival.
respectively (SWENSON et al. 2000,
BOITANI 2000, BREITENMOSER et al.
2000). The management plans described in
this paper follow these lists.
The European Parliament approved on 24
January 1989 the Resolution (Doc. A20377/88, Ser. A) calling upon urgent
action of European countries for wolf
conservation,
adopted
the
Wolf
Conservation Manifest, and appealed to
the European Commission to support wolf
conservation efforts.
Goals in large carnivore management
As a signatory to the above mentioned
agreements, Croatia is obliged to
undertake all appropriate and necessary
legal and administrative measures, at
local, regional, national and international
levels, in order to ensure protection of
large carnivores and their natural habitat,
and also to provide conditions for
maintaining their stable populations which
are also a genetic reservoir and potential
source for dispersal or reintroduction of
the species into other European countries
where their populations have disappeared.
1. Habitat preservation;
2. Complying
with
international
legislation;
3. Avoidance of risks for humans and
their property;
4. Determination and maintenance of
desired population sizes;
5. Economic benefit for local residents
through tourism and eventually
hunting;
6. Raising of public awareness and
sharing management decisions with
interest groups;
7. Scientific research.
Recommendations for the action plans
for conservation of large carnivores in
Croatia
To meet these seven goals the general
approach to the preparation of all three
management plans was to work with
various interest groups, as well as to
survey public opinion and to incorporate
the results of these surveys. Such an
approach took more time, money and
effort, but it helped to avoid the danger of
rejection of the plans by certain single
interest groups. The groups concerned
include various governmental bodies like
Ministries dealing with nature protection,
forestry, hunting, transportation and
tourism, representatives of national parks
and other protected areas, as well as local
governments.
Already
within
the
structures there is a variety of, often
contradicting approaches. The range of
visions among other interest groups like
hunters, live-stock keepers and other
farmers,
environmental
NGOs,
backpackers, animal welfare groups and
others is very wide. A lot of effort is
necessary to reach compromise on each
The overall goal is the maintenance of
stable large carnivore populations in
Croatia at the level that secures their long
term survival and coexistence with man.
The other general goals may be defined
like:
The Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe
was founded in 1995 with the aim of
solving the problems of the conservation
of large carnivore populations (the brown
bear, the wolf, wolverine, the Eurasian
lynx and the Iberian lynx) in coexistence
with humans. This group prepared action
plans for conservation of large carnivores
approved by the Council of Europe at the
meeting of the Standing Committee of the
Bern Convention held in November 2000.
In its Recommendation No. 74 (2000) the
Council of Europe urges national
authorities
to
incorporate
recommendations of the Action Plan for
Conservation of large carnivores in
Europe into their national plans for the
management of this species. There are lists
of actions specifically proposed for
Croatia for bear, wolf and lynx,
92
Djuro Huber
specific issue for each large carnivore
species. The work has to be organized
through a series of workshops with a
professional unbiased approach, including
a neutral facilitation.
of hunting businesses. Also poaching is
present and some areas it significantly
reduces the prey availability.
1.3. Agriculture
The issues behind the management goals
that are common for all three large
carnivore species, as well as some results
where appropriate are briefly described
here:
The major conflict of large carnivores with
humans arises from the livestock
husbandry. Wherever possible, the best is
to discourage the keeping of domestic
ungulates in the large carnivore range. In
over two thirds of their range in Croatia
this is the case, thus bears and lynx are
producing only minor damages. However,
in the southern portion (Dalmatia) wolves
are causing conflicts with sheep and goat
rising. The Plans require damage to
livestock to be evaluated to include
mitigation measures to minimize damage.
1. Habitat preservation
The major recent threats to habitat include:
1.1. Transportation infrastructure
Most
of
heavily populated and
industrialized western countries lost the
chance to support there own large
carnivore
populations
due
to
overdeveloped
transportation
infrastructure. The major problem it
causes is habitat fragmentation, followed
by disturbance, pollution, and direct
mortality in collisions. The impact of
transportation infrastructure may be
mitigated by expensive measures that
allow the animals to cross the route. In
Croatia a total of 9 of green bridges 100200 m wide have been constructed to
allow large carnivores and other animal to
cross the new highways in their range. A
number of viaducts and several tunnels
were also built as requested by
Environmental impact studies. Together
with other tunnels and viaducts that had to
be built due to topography a total of 18.6%
of highways length in large carnivore
range in Croatia allows animal crossing.
1.4. Sport and tourism
Ecotourism based on the presence of large
carnivores is encouraged, but each other
tourist activity in that area is to be
evaluated for possible impact on the
populations. The list includes: skiing
slopes and resorts, off road and forest road
vehicles, collection of berries and
mushrooms, and similar.
2.
Complying
legislation
with
international
This was given the highest priority and
compliance of all the above listed
regulations has been achieved. Where
necessary the national legislation (like the
Hunting law) has been adapted
accordingly.
1.2. Forestry and game management
Forests cover 43.5% of the terrestrial part
of Croatian territory, and in the large
carnivore range it is even over 70%. While
this percentage is high the potential long
term threats are the network of forestry
roads and the selective removal of bear
food producing trees. Game management
is expected to secure a sufficient prey base
for large carnivores, but the acceptance
margin is low due to economic demands
3.
Avoidance of risks for humans and
their property
Through various international projects the
donation of livestock guard dogs and of
electric fences has been applied to
minimize conflict. Folders were printed to
promote the efficient use of such tools.
The risk to humans themselves is to be
93
minimized through proper warnings and
instructions for behavior in large carnivore
ranges.
6. Raising of public awareness and
sharing management decisions with
interest groups
The attitude of local residents towards
large carnivores has been thoroughly
surveyed (MAJIĆ 2003). The process of
creation of the Plans is already an example
including interest groups in making the
management decisions. The plans are also
periodically revised and that is also the
opportunity to include a broader public.
Each year an up-dated Action plan is
produced and it includes public opinions.
4. Determination and maintenance of
desired population sizes
The numbers of large carnivores in their
populations are always the hardest to
determine. At the same time various
groups have deep beliefs about numbers
and produce the widest range of numbers
leading to conclusions that the same
population is at the same time endangered
or over-overabundant by others. Modern
technology has made possible the use
genetic methods to scientifically verify the
true situation. It is important include the
various groups to participate in the
working process in order to ensure that an
estimate, once reached, will be accepted
by all groups.
The Plans have been presented to public
through a series of “open house” and
through formal presentations, as well as in
various printed materials.
7. Scientific research
Maintenance of the desired population size
is another hot issue. First, it is not easy to
agree which size is desirable, as well as to
find out how close to it we are at the
certain point of time. A big level of
patience and compromise is essential.
Then comes the issue of method of how to
keep the population size at desired level.
Enhancing population, including adding
animals when necessary is one end of the
spectrum (possible case for lynx in
Croatia), and the lethal removal is on the
other end (wolf to mitigate damages, or
bear as a trophy game animal).
Most of the Plan actions require solid
based data that can be provided only from
continuous scientific research. The brown
bears in Croatia have been studied since
1981, wolves since 1996 and lynx since
1999. The research includes radio
telemetry, morphology, pathology, diet,
reproduction, mortality and genetic
(CICNJAK et al. 1987, FRKOVIĆ et al.
1987, 2001, HUBER et al. 1998, HUBER &
ROTH 1993, 1997, KUSAK & HUBER 1998,
KUSAK et al. 2005).
Management actions and results for
each one of the large carnivore species
5. Economic benefit for local residents
through tourism and eventually hunting
Bear management
Hunting bears in Croatian case is in the
economical category, and the Plans offer
solutions to produce some benefit from
large carnivores to local residents through
ecotourism in its all aspects: from housing
and guiding tourists to selling local
products.
1. Monitoring
The population is monitored through
the recording of each mortality (due to
hunting and other reasons) while the
living population is also monitored
through counts at feeding sites and
collection of scat samples for genetic
analyses (WAITS et al. 2000).
94
Djuro Huber
The current population size is between
600 and 1000 bears.
Wolf management
1. Acceptable anthropogenic mortality
The wolf management plan allows up
to 10% of estimated wolf population
loss due to human activities. As the
current population estimate in Croatia
is 180 to 220 wolves in 2005, 2006
and 2007 each, the total yearly
mortality of about 18 wolves was
allowed. Each year in September the
balance between the number of wolves
found dead due to traffic or poaching
and the number 18 is allocated to be
hunted in specific regions. These
numbers were 2, 7 and 7 in the last
three years, respectively. The main
goals of this action are to help reduce
damage but also to increase the public
acceptance of wolves in rural areas.
2. Hunting
A national quota of 70 bears for
trophy hunting plus up to 30 for other
causes of mortality (traffic kills,
problem bears removal, illegal killing)
has been allocated to hunting units in
2005, 2006 and 2007. The hunting
season is 01 October to 15 December
and 01 March to 15 May.
3. Supplemental feeding
Bear hunting is allowed only from
hides at feeding sites. Feeding is
restricted to the hunting season and
the amounts and types of food are
limited. There are positive and
negative sides of this practice, but the
obvious positive sides allow the
system to be used.
2. Damage prevention
Wolves create the most damage of all
three large carnivore species in
Croatia. The use of electric fences and
proper livestock guard dogs is
continually
promoted,
including
numerous donations (49 fences and
109 dogs) based on sophisticated
selection criteria.
4. Garbage
Prevention of bear access to garbage
(at dumps, garbage bins or baskets) as
a
feeding
source
has
been
implemented by the use of electric
fences and bear proof containers in
order to prevent habituation that leads
to problem bears.
3. Public involvement and education
Every year 10 to 30 public talks and
open house events are organized to
inform the public on the wolf issues
and to hear the response of general
public.
5. Emergency team
A bear emergency team has been
established and trained to deal with
problem bear cases (using rubber
bullets, translocations and lethal
removal) and to record all bear nonhunting mortality.
Lynx management
It is estimated that only 40-60 lynx exist in
Croatia today. Although the Lynx
management plan allows the considering
of a small hunting quota, it has never been
applied in the last three years. The efforts
are focused on research of genetic status
and other methods to help the population
to grow. A big international project with
neighboring Slovenia is underway to
achieve this goal.
6. International cooperation
The plan is designed to consider the
fact that Croatia shares its population
of brown bears with Slovenia and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bears from
Croatia have been used, together with
the ones from Slovenia, for
reintroductions to Western Europe
(CLARK et al. 2002).
95
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
1. The management plans for brown
bears (Ursus arctos), grey wolves
(Canis lupus) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx
lynx) have to bring together different
interests such as ecological, aesthetical
and economic, as well as care for the
safety of people and their properties.
I would like to thank to all authors of all
three large carnivore management plans in
Croatia, and to all the people that were
involved
in
their
creation
and
implementation. The work on large
carnivore management in Croatia has been
sponsored by various projects and
organizations:
2. Bears are game species in Croatia,
while wolves and lynx are legally
protected.
•
•
3. The management actions are to ensure
the viable sizes of populations but
within a social capacity (which is
almost always below the ecological
capacity).
•
•
4. Actions and measures in large
carnivore management are related to
the human activities in the habitat like
highway construction, hunting and
forestry, the prevention of damage and
the
occurrences
of
problem
individuals
and
the
scientific
monitoring of changes in the
population.
•
•
•
5. The implementation of Plans is the
responsibility of various interest
groups.
6. The large carnivore management plans
undergo occasional revisions, because
in large carnivore management there
are no final and universal solutions.
7. Croatia expects that, with its Brown
Bear Management Plan, Wolf
Management
Plan,
and
Lynx
Management Plan, all officially
accepted in 2004, will ensure the longterm existence of optimum large
carnivore populations and their
habitats, with as few negative effects
as possible.
96
Conservation and management of
wolves in Croatia (Life III project)
Improving coexistence of large
carnivores and agriculture in S.
Europe – COEX (LIFE project)
Capacity building to meet the
challenges of multi-level democracy:
the case of conserving species with
transboundary populations. Norwegian
Institute for Nature Research (NINA)
Gaining and maintaining public
acceptance of brown bear in Croatia –
BBI MATRA project. (ALERTIS)
Transboundary
cooperation
in
management,
conservation
and
research of the Dinaric lynx
population (DinaRis). – INTERREG
IIIA
Conservation of large carnivores in
Croatia. EURONATUR
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Water Management, Ministry of
Science, Education and Sports, State
Institute of Nature Protection, Croatia
Highways.
Djuro Huber
Figures
Figure 1. Location of Croatia in south-central Europe and the range of brown bear populations
Figure 2. Brown bear range in Croatia with the zone categories (from DEČAK et al. 2005)
97
Prevention
Lethal control
Compensation
Figure 3. Large carnivore damage management
Figure 4. Bear friendly logo for local products
98
Djuro Huber
HUBER, D. and ROTH, H. U. (1993):
Movements of European brown bears
in Croatia. – Acta Theriologica
38:151−159.
REFERENCES
BOITANI, L. (2000): Action Plan for the
conservation of the wolves (Canis
lupus) in Europe. Nature and
Environment Series, No. 113, Council
of Europe Publishing. 84 pp.
HUBER, D. and ROTH, H. U. (1997):
Denning of brown bears in Croatia. –
International Conference on Bear
Research and Management 9: 79-83.
CICNJAK, L., HUBER, D., ROTH, H. U.
RUFF R. L. and VINOVRSKI, Z. (1987):
Food habits of brown bears in Plitvice
Lakes National Park, Yugoslavia. –
International Conference on Bear
Research and Management 7: 221-226.
KUSAK, J. and HUBER, D. (1998): Brown
bear habitat quality in Gorski kotar,
Croatia. – Ursus 10: 281-291.
KUSAK, J., MAJIĆ SKRBINŠEK, A. and
HUBER, D. (2005): Home ranges,
movements, and activity of wolves
(Canis lupus) in the Dalmatian part of
Dinarids, Croatia. – European Journal
of Wildlife Research 51: 254-262.
CLARK, J.D., HUBER, D. and SERVHEEN,
C. (2002): Reintroducing bears: lessons
and challenges. – Ursus. 13:153-163.
DEČAK, Đ., FRKOVIĆ, A., GRUBEŠIĆ, M.,
HUBER, Đ., IVIČEK, B., KULIĆ, B.,
SERTIĆ, D. and ŠTAHAN, Ž. (2005):
Brown bear management plan for the
Republic of Croatia. – Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management. Zagreb. 90 pp.
MAJIĆ, A. (2003): Human Dimensions in
Brown Bear Management – Attitudes
toward and beliefs about brown bears
in Croatia: Descriptive analysis of the
survey results. Unpublished report, 61
pp.
SWENSON, J.E., GERSTL, N., DAHLE, B.
and ZEDROSSER, A. (2000): Action
plan for the conservation of the brown
bear in Europe (Ursus arctos). –
Council of Europe T-PVS. 76 pp.
FIRŠT, B., FRKOVIĆ, A., GOMERČIĆ, T.,
HUBER, Đ., KOS, I., KOVAČIĆ, D.,
KUSAK, J., MAJIĆ-SKRBINŠEK, A.,
SPUDIĆ, D., STARČEVIĆ, M., ŠTAHAN,
Ž. and ŠTRBENAC, A. (2005): Lynx
management plan for Croatia. –
Ministarstvo kulture RH, Državni
zavod za zaštitu prirode, Zagreb.
ŠTRBENAC, A., HUBER, Đ., KUSAK, J.,
MAJIĆ-SKRBINŠEK, A., FRKOVIĆ, A.,
ŠTAHAN, Ž., JEREMIĆ-MARTINKO, J.,
DESNICA, S. and ŠTRBENAC, P. (2005):
Wolf management plan for Croatia. –
Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode,
Zagreb
FRKOVIĆ, A., RUFF, R.L., CICNJAK, L. and
HUBER, D. (1987): Brown bear
mortality in Gorski kotar, Yugoslavia.
– International Conference on Bear
Research and Management 7:87−92.
WAITS, L., TABERLET, P., SWENSON, J. E.,
SANDEGREEN, F. and FRANZ, R. 2000.
Nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis of
genetic diversity and gene flow in the
Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus
arctos). Molecular Ecology 9, 421-431.
FRKOVIĆ, A., HUBER, D. and KUSAK, J.
(2001): Brown bear litter sizes in
Croatia. – Ursus 12:103-106.
HUBER, D. and FRKOVIĆ, A. (1993):
Brown bear management in Croatia. –
International Union of Game Biologists
Congress 21:287−292.
HUBER, D., KUSAK, J. and FRKOVIĆ, A.
(1998): Traffic kills of brown bears in
Gorski kotar, Croatia. – Ursus 10: 167171.
99

Annex 35 - Action E8

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Word Pro - 18M1Ing_2011_pro.lwp

Videos completos de bear.com

TED worldwide applications 2016

É tempo de analisar e fazer uma completa reflexão sobre a vida

gambatte ne

Mas Que Nada Notes (01-02-15) 1. MIDIs for Individual parts are

SET LIST | INTERNATIONAL Hotel California

Passei do ponto lua virei em mil noites ,contei eu, na procura, em

Pedro Campos Costa, Paula Sousa, Louis Mariette, Benoit

The Emperor`s New Clothes As novas roupas do

COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS