Brown bear Ursus arctos - Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde
Brown bear Ursus arctos - Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde
Brown bear Ursus arctos - Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ADOPTED<br />
By the Minister of Environment<br />
Precept No. .<br />
2009 .<br />
Action Plan<br />
For the Conservation of <strong>Brown</strong> Bear (<strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong>) in Latvia<br />
Photo by V. Vītola ©<br />
Produced by: Latvian State Forestry Research Institute „Silava”<br />
Authors: Jānis OZOLIŅŠ, Guna BAGRADE, Agrita ŽUNNA, Aivars ORNICĀNS and<br />
Žanete ANDERSONE-LILLEY<br />
Salaspils<br />
2009 (2003)<br />
1
Contents<br />
LATVIAN SUMMARY .................…………….………………………………………..<br />
SUMMARY …………………………….……….………..……………………………….<br />
INTRODUCTION ………………………….……….………..……………………………...<br />
1. SPECIES DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................<br />
1.1. Taxonomy and morphology …….……….………..…………………………….<br />
1.2. Ecology and habitat ..………….…………………...…………………………..<br />
1.3. Species distribution .……………………………………………………..…………………<br />
1.4. Species status ...............………………………………..………………………<br />
1.5. Current research and monitoring in Latvia and abroad ...…………………….<br />
2. REASONS FOR CHANGES IN THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT ……………….<br />
2.1. Factors affecting the population…………………………………………………<br />
2.2. Factors affecting the habitat …………………………………………………...<br />
3. CURRENT CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT .............................<br />
3.1. Legislation .............................................……………………………………..<br />
3.2. Species and habitat conservation measures .…………………………………………<br />
3.3. Bear conservation plan in relation to other species and habitat conservation plans …<br />
3.4. Risk analysis of implementation of the current Species conservation plan ……..<br />
4. GOALS AND TASKS OF THE SPECIES CONSEVATION PLAN ……………………<br />
5. SPECIES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION MEASURES .....................................<br />
5.1. Legislation and nature conservation policy ……………………………………….....<br />
5.2. Species conservation measures ...........................………………………………………..<br />
5.3. Habitat conservation measures ....................……………………………………<br />
5.4. Species research and monitoring …………………………………………………………..<br />
5.5. Awareness-raising and education ...................………………………………………………...<br />
5.6. Review of the implementation table …………………………………………………....<br />
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN …………………<br />
7. REFERENCES ………………………………………<br />
APPENDICES<br />
………………………………………………………………<br />
2
Kopsavilkums<br />
<br />
Aizsardzības politika<br />
Sugas <strong>aizsardzības</strong> plāns ir izstrādāts saskaņā ar Sugu un biotopu <strong>aizsardzības</strong> likuma (izsludināts<br />
05.04.2000.) 17. panta prasībām un paredzēts lāču ilgtermiņa <strong>aizsardzības</strong> nodrošināšanai Latvijā un<br />
Baltijas populācijā.<br />
<br />
Populācijas stāvoklis<br />
Latvijā dzīvojošie brūnie lāči pieder Baltijas populācijai, kas ir apmēram 6800 indivīdu liela, taču<br />
izvietota galvenokārt uz ziemeļiem un austrumiem no mūsu valsts robežām. Latvijā lāči biežāk sastopami<br />
valsts austrumu daļā: Aizkraukles, Alūksnes, Balvu, Gulbenes, Jēkabpils, Limbažu, Ludzas, Madonas,<br />
Ogres, Rīgas, Valkas un Valmieras rajonos. Viens vai daži lāči uzturas arī valsts rietumos – Kurzemē.<br />
Lāču skaits Latvijā ir svārstīgs un vērtējams 10-15 indivīdu robežās. Nav pierādījumu, ka lāči Latvijas<br />
teritorijā vairotos. Populācijas eksistencē izšķiroša loma ir lāču ieceļošanas iespējām no kaimiņvalstīm.<br />
Lāču skaits un izplatība valstī ir salīdzinoši nemainīga kopš 20. gadsimta septiņdesmitajiem gadiem.<br />
<br />
Stāvoklis likumdošanā<br />
Brūnais lācis ir īpaši aizsargājams dzīvnieks saskaņā ar Sugu un biotopu <strong>aizsardzības</strong> likumu<br />
(05.04.2000) un Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 627 Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2000. gada 14.<br />
novembra noteikumos Nr. 396 “Noteikumi par īpaši aizsargājamo sugu un ierobežoti izmantojamo īpaši<br />
aizsargājamo sugu sarakstu” (14.11.2000) 1. pielikumu. Par brūnā lāča nogalināšanu vai savainošanu<br />
jāatlīdzina zaudējumi 40 minimālo mēnešalgu apmērā par katru indivīdu.<br />
<br />
Saglabāšanas mērķis<br />
Netraucēt dabiskos procesus, kas risinās vienotā Baltijas valstu un Krievijas rietumdaļas (Baltijas)<br />
brūno lāču populācijā, tajā skaitā dabisku izplatīšanos Latvijas teritorijā, neveicot pasākumus, lai mākslīgi<br />
paplašināt lāču areālu Latvijas teritorijā vai radītu vairoties spējīgu vietējo populāciju.<br />
<br />
Saglabāšanas prioritātes<br />
Uzturēt monitoringa sistēmu, lai iegūtu zināšanas par populācijas stāvokli un aizsardzībai turpmāk<br />
nepieciešamajiem pasākumiem.<br />
Sekot sabiedriskās domas tendencēm saistībā ar lāču populācijas stāvokli un interešu konfliktu<br />
biežumu.<br />
Savlaicīgi izplatīt objektīvu informāciju par lāčiem un ar tiem saistītiem notikumiem masu saziņas<br />
līdzekļos, neveicinot mītu, nostāstu un pārspīlējumu rašanos. Organizēt izskaidrošanas darbu par<br />
faktoriem, kas kavē lāču atgriešanos Latvijā, un nosacījumiem, kas jāievēro, lai droši sadzīvotu ar šo<br />
apdraudēto savvaļas sugu.<br />
Samazināt tiešu traucējumu laikā, kad lāči meklē vietu ziemas midzenim un ziemas guļas periodā (no<br />
1. novembra līdz 31. martam). Pasākums veicams, pamatojoties uz pierādījumiem par lāču atrašanos<br />
3
konkrētajā teritorijā un panākot vienošanos ar attiecīgās teritorijas apsaimniekotājiem. Neieviest<br />
bezkompromisa prasības, kas padara neiespējamu iedzīvotāju līdzšinējo saimniecisko darbību vai atpūtas<br />
tradīcijas un tādejādi noskaņo sabiedrību pret sugas atjaunošanu Latvijā.<br />
<br />
Veicamie pasākumi<br />
Jāuztur elektronisks lāču izplatības faktu reģistrs (datu bāze), ko iespējams aktualizēt un papildināt gan<br />
profesionāliem speciālistiem, gan brīvprātīgiem ziņotājiem.<br />
Ievācot materiālu no Latvijas lāčiem (apmatojums, svaigi ekskrementi), jāturpina ģenētiskie pētījumi par<br />
dzīvnieku izcelsmi sadarbībā ar Igaunijas speciālistiem.<br />
Informācija par lāču izplatīšanās ceļiem jāizmanto, izvērtējot vides prasības Latvijas transporta tīkla<br />
rekonstrukcijai un attīstībai.<br />
Jāuztur kontakti un informācijas apmaiņa ar Latvijas biškopības biedrību.<br />
Jāsadarbojas ar medību tiesību lietotājiem, mežu īpašniekiem un apsaimniekotājiem, tos informējot par<br />
lāču izplatības faktiem un <strong>aizsardzības</strong> aktualitātēm.<br />
Jāorganizē izglītojošs darbs skolu jaunatnei.<br />
Konfliktu gadījumos lēmumu par lāča bīstamību jāpieņem vienu un to pašu speciālistu grupai vai<br />
pārstāvim neatkarīgi no konflikta vietas un rakstura.<br />
Nākošā rīcības plāna aktualizācija veicama 2014. gadā.<br />
4
Summary<br />
<br />
Conservation policy<br />
Species Action Plan is elaborated according to Clause 17 of the Species and Habitat Protection Law<br />
(issued on 05.04.2000.). It is designed for the long-term conservation of <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia and the whole<br />
Baltic population.<br />
<br />
Population status<br />
Latvian brown <strong>bear</strong>s belong to the Baltic population consisting of about 6800 individuals, most of who are<br />
found to the north and east from the Latvian border. In Latvia, <strong>bear</strong>s are most common in the eastern part of the<br />
country: in Aizkraukle, Alūksne, Balvi, Gulbene, Jēkabpil, Limbaži, Ludza, Madona, Ogre, Rīga, Valka<br />
and Valmiera districts. The numbe of <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia fluctuates about 10-15 individuals. There is no<br />
evidence of breeding in the territory of Latvia. Immigration of <strong>bear</strong>s from the neighbouring countries is<br />
critical for the Latvian <strong>bear</strong> population’s existence. The number and distribution of <strong>bear</strong>s in the country is<br />
relatively unchanged since the 1970s.<br />
<br />
Legislation.<br />
According to the Species and Habitat Protection Law (05.04.2000.) and to Annex I of the Regulations No.<br />
396 of the Cabinet of Ministers „Regulation on the species list of especially protected species and of species<br />
of limited use” (14.11.2000.), brown <strong>bear</strong> is a specially protected species. The fine for killing or injuring a<br />
brown <strong>bear</strong> is 40 minimum salaries for each individual.<br />
<br />
Conservation objective<br />
Not to disturb natural processes happening in the joint Baltic brown <strong>bear</strong> population (comprising the<br />
Baltic States and western part of Russia), including natural dispersal of <strong>bear</strong>s in the territory of Latvia<br />
while at the same time not undertaking any special measures in order to artificially increase <strong>bear</strong><br />
distribution in Latvia or to establish a local breeding population.<br />
<br />
Conservation priorities<br />
To maintain the monitoring system in order to obtain data on the population status an necessary<br />
conservation measures.<br />
To follow trends in public opinion in relation to the brown <strong>bear</strong> population status and the frequency of<br />
interest conflicts.<br />
To timely spread objective information on <strong>bear</strong>s and related issues in the mass media, preventing<br />
rumours and exaggerations. To explain factors preventing the return of the brown <strong>bear</strong> to Latvia and<br />
preconditions for a safe co-existence with this species.<br />
To reduce direct disturbance during the time when <strong>bear</strong>s are looking for winter dens as well as during<br />
hibernation (1 November – 31 March). This should be base done the evidence of <strong>bear</strong> presence in a given<br />
area achieving the agreement with the appropriate territory managers. Not to introduce non-compromising<br />
5
equirements that make the existing activities and territory uses impossible, thus creating a negative<br />
attitude towards species renovation in Latvia.<br />
Measures<br />
To maintain an electronic database on <strong>bear</strong> distribution that could be updated by both professionals and<br />
volunteer reporters.<br />
To collect samples from the Latvian <strong>bear</strong>s (hairs, fresh scats) in order to continue genetic research of the<br />
individuals’ origin in cooperation with the Estonian experts.<br />
Information on <strong>bear</strong> dispersal routes should be used when assessing environmental requirements for<br />
reconstruction and development of the Latvian road network.<br />
To keep in touch and exchange information with the Latvian beekeepers’ society.<br />
To cooperate with users of hunting rights, forest owners and managers, informing them about <strong>bear</strong><br />
distribution and conservation news.<br />
To organise awareness-raising among schoolchildren.<br />
In case of conflicts, the decision about whether a <strong>bear</strong> poses a threat to the public should always be taken<br />
by the same group of experts regardless of the location and nature of the conflict.<br />
The next update of the plan to be carried out in 2014.<br />
6
Introduction<br />
Despite its rarity in modern Latvia, brown <strong>bear</strong> <strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> is a typical mammal species of the East<br />
Baltic that came to the territory of Latvia after the last Ice Age, i.e., about 9,000-11,000 years ago<br />
(Tauriņš 1982; Timm et al. 1998). In the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century, the Latvian<br />
brown <strong>bear</strong> population was totally destroyed and there is no evidence of breeding in the territory of Latvia<br />
for more than 100 years. Looking at this fact superficially, it is unclear why there are so few <strong>bear</strong>s in the<br />
country that on the whole still has got very rich biodiversity while in neighbouring Estonia <strong>bear</strong><br />
population is so big that it should be regulated by hunting. At the same time, it is possible that the<br />
absence of <strong>bear</strong>s in the habitat has a smaller impact on other species compared to other large carnivores –<br />
wolves, lynx and wolverines (that are extinct in Latvia). Bear’s ecological niche is not so unique and<br />
overlaps with other, more numerous species, such as badger, pine marten and wild boar. Besides, these<br />
food competitors of the brown <strong>bear</strong> breed much quicker and adapt to the human presence much easier.<br />
As the largest European predator with a relatively long life expectancy and seasonally divided life cycle,<br />
<strong>bear</strong> has a lot of specific requirements in relation to its environment. These requirements are related to the<br />
rest of the natural environment, human activities and also such environmental factors as climate. Due to<br />
the scarcity of <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia, the inventory of these requirements in Latvia is still not finished, therefore,<br />
we are unable to provide any specific recommendations for habitat conservation and improvement,<br />
including establishment of new protected areas which is usually the most essential measure in rare species<br />
conservation. It is much more important at the moment to carefully monitor population development and<br />
to ensure cooperation between the relevant institutions as well as to inform and raise awareness amongst<br />
the general public.<br />
The most important task at the moment is to assess as fully as possible human – <strong>bear</strong> coexistence. This<br />
assessment should be based both on the local and international experience. At the same time one has to<br />
realise that if the <strong>bear</strong> conservation is successful and its protection regime is increased, it is likely that<br />
these animals will come into contact with humans more and more often and that will be the determining<br />
factor for the brown <strong>bear</strong>’s future in our country.<br />
The goal of the updated <strong>bear</strong> action plan is to provide the existing species conservation system with<br />
the newest scientific information and experience obtained since 2003. The most significant difference<br />
in the updated plan is a broader, more regional approach and a stronger emphasis on species<br />
conservation measures in Latvia in close connection with the status on the Baltic population level.<br />
7
1. Species description<br />
1.1. Taxonomy and morphology<br />
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> is a mammal that belongs to the order of carnivores (Carnivora), <strong>bear</strong> family (Ursidae).<br />
There are 8 <strong>bear</strong> species in the world (Kruuk 2002) of those brown <strong>bear</strong> along with the polar <strong>bear</strong> are the<br />
largest ones (Гептнер и.д.1967). Various taxonomists published very different division into sub-species.<br />
However, according to any of those divisions, it is the Eurasian brown <strong>bear</strong> <strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> that is<br />
found in Latvia and the neighbouring countries. Body length of an adult brown <strong>bear</strong> male can reach<br />
200cm, its weight – 300hk. Some individuals can reach even up to 480kg (Новиков 1956). Females on<br />
average are smaller: about 70% of male’s length (Гептнер и.д.1967) and about 200kg (Kojola, Laitala<br />
2001). Sex dimorphism can also be seen in the growth rate – males grow faster but after 10 years the<br />
difference between sexes in the weight growth rate stops. Skull measurements in Sweden show that males<br />
continue growing in length up to the age of 5-8 years, females – up to 3-4 years (Iregren et al. 2001).<br />
There are no other significant signs of sexual dimorphism amongst <strong>bear</strong>s. According to the body size and<br />
especially skull measurements in relation to the age it is possible to judge the geographic and population<br />
origin of an individual (Iregren, Ahlström 1999).<br />
The body is massive, with a big head, long muzzle and short, thick neck (Fig. 1). In poor light<br />
conditions, it is possible to mistake a <strong>bear</strong> for a wild boar that can be the reason of non-premeditated<br />
killing of a <strong>bear</strong> by hunters.<br />
The fur is long and thick. Pelt colour varies from greyish- or yellowish-brown to dark brown or<br />
almost black (Tauriņš 1982). In Belarus, young animals with a white collar zone or white spots on the<br />
chest and shoulders are described (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
The main indirect signs of bar presence (Clevenger 1994) are footprints (Fig. 2), scats and claw marks<br />
on trees. Russian scientists regards the width of the front paw’s print a sure individual sign that strongly<br />
correlates with the body weight, it exceeds 13.5cm in adult specimens (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
8
Fig.1. A silhouette of a subadult <strong>bear</strong> (by V. Vītola).<br />
Fig. 2. The print of a brown <strong>bear</strong>’s front paw (left) and hind paw (right).<br />
1.2. Ecology and habitat<br />
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong>s are not as fussy in habitat selection as it is often believed. The main requirements<br />
towards the environment are plentiful food and safe hibernation and breeding places. In Latvia, such<br />
conditions can be best ensured by non-fragmented forest massifs with little human disturbance as well as<br />
islands in big peat bogs.<br />
9
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong>s are omnivores and feed mainly by picking food from the ground, digging it from the soil,<br />
tearing the bark off trees and stumps as well as grazing and browsing on plants. However, in certain parts<br />
of its distribution range and in certain seasons, hunting (by stalking) is also important as well as fishing in<br />
sites of fish concentrations (Новиков 1956, Гептнер и.д.1967, Сабанеев 1988, Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993,<br />
Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Plant food constitutes a high proportion of its diet: In the Pskov oblast, <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
often feed the fields of oats or mixture of oats/peas (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). In early summer, <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
browse on young tree shoots and leaves, especially aspens. In mid-summer and its second half, wild<br />
berries become a staple food. In the autumn, acorns are consumed. However, seasonally, especially in the<br />
northern part of the <strong>bear</strong> distribution range (Новиков 1956), meat plays an important role in the <strong>bear</strong> diet.<br />
Bear can prey on big animals. In northern Scandinavia, in spring and summer, the staple food for <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
are adult moose and reindeer, in the second half of the summer they switch to wild berries, although still<br />
consume a lot of wild ungulates - up to 30% of the energy consumed (Persson et al. 2001). Wild boar is<br />
preyed upon rarely. Bears also attack livestock, especially horses and cattle. Animals that learned to look<br />
for food in human settlements, also attack chickens and other domestic birds. It is concluded that in the<br />
NW of Russia, <strong>bear</strong> attacks on livestock almost ceased when in the second half of the 20 th century moose<br />
density increased and small farms were destroyed by collectivisation. Also in Estonia, livestock damage<br />
is very infrequent. In spring, carcasses (especially those of moose) of animals that died due to injuries by<br />
hunters or fell through the ice are a significant part of the diet (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Ants and their<br />
larvae play an important role in the <strong>bear</strong> diet. In order to get them, <strong>bear</strong>s actively excavate anthills. In<br />
Sweden, it was found out that ant remains form up to 16% of scat volume. Ants are especially important<br />
to <strong>bear</strong>s in springtime when other foods are scarce and ants, due to low temperatures, are sluggish and<br />
concentrate in the upper part of the anthill (Swenson et al. 1999). Also in Belarus, <strong>bear</strong>s actively excavate<br />
anthills after snowmelt (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
In Eurasia, brown <strong>bear</strong>s normally pose no threat to humans. Even mother <strong>bear</strong>s, when defending<br />
their cubs, usually scare a human away with a series of snarls and short chase instead of direct attack<br />
(Новиков 1956). Some cases are known from Russia when <strong>bear</strong>s displayed aggressive behaviour even<br />
towards tractors, although such situations usually have some explanation (Κорытин 1986). An injured<br />
<strong>bear</strong> can be very dangerous. Attacks on humans are much more common for the North American subspecies<br />
of the brown <strong>bear</strong> – grizzly <strong>bear</strong> (Floyd 1999, Kruuk 2002).<br />
Daily activity is not particularly cyclic (Гептнер и.д. 1967). In Latvia, <strong>bear</strong> observations can<br />
happen during any time of day but the damage to beehives is usually done during the night.<br />
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> does not truly hibernate. Its body temperature decreases by 3-5˚C only, and <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
keep the ability to synthesise all the necessary amino acids (Hissa 1997). Observations from Russia show<br />
that in the first phase of hibernation the <strong>bear</strong> can quickly leave the den if disturbed or if it smells food,<br />
e.g., a moose approaching (Сабанеев 1988). For hibernation, <strong>bear</strong>s choose undisturbed sites, e.g.,<br />
windfalls, islands in the bogs or lakes. In NW Russia, 70% of the known <strong>bear</strong> dens were situated in<br />
spruce growths (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). According to the Swedish data, female <strong>bear</strong>s on average spend<br />
181 day in a den. Females that give birth to cubs during that winter “sleep” about a month longer than<br />
single females. Hibernation period starts in the end of October, although even before that females attend<br />
the den site more often than the rest of their home range. Starting from the 6 th week before hibernation,<br />
female <strong>bear</strong>s decrease their level of activity and hang around the den site. If disturbed in the beginning of<br />
hibernation, females do not come back to the den but choose a new site up to 6km away from the previous<br />
one (Friebe et al. 2001).<br />
Although there have been several reports on finding <strong>bear</strong> hibernation dens in Latvia (Pilāts,<br />
Ozoliņš 2003), we did not succeed in checking those cases. On 23 January 2005, during wild boar hunting<br />
with beaters in the Beja forestry unit (Alūksne district) a big male was disturbed in its den (Ozoliņš 2005).<br />
10
The <strong>bear</strong> quickly left the den, did not attack the dogs and ran across a clear-cut. It urinated on the run and<br />
the position of urine on both sides of the track was an indication that it was a male <strong>bear</strong>. The den was<br />
situated about 5m from the western edge of the clear-cut between small (up to 3m high) spruce trees.<br />
There was a slight depression that was covered by spruce twigs obtained from the nearby young spruce<br />
trees. The biggest spruce tree (trunk diameter 9cm) was broken in such a way as to cover the den from the<br />
western side. The den was only about 400m form a frequently used forest track. The clear-cut was wet,<br />
with water puddles, overgrown by 2-5m tall birches and some spruces, aspens and willows. A few metres<br />
away, an older den, possibly used by the <strong>bear</strong> during the previous winter, was found. In the vicinity, there<br />
were lots of signs of moose and wild boar. A print of a front paw was found nearby, its size (17.5cm)<br />
showed that the <strong>bear</strong> was a big adult male (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). This incident proves that the opinion<br />
from the Latvian Red Data Book (Andrušaitis 2000) that Latvian <strong>bear</strong>s do not hibernate is not correct and<br />
is most likely due to the data on the winter activities of the individuals that were woken up from<br />
hibernation by disturbance.<br />
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> is polygamous. Males live separately and do not take part in raising cubs. The mating<br />
season takes place in early summer – June-first half of July. Bears mature sexually at the age of 5-8 years.<br />
Females mate only every second year as cubs stay with the mother up to 2 years (Гептнер и.д. 1967,<br />
Tauriņš 1982, Lõhmus 2002). Cubs are born during hibernation in the second half of winter. Their weight<br />
does not exceed 500g at birth (Новиков 1956). In the Novgorod and Pskov oblast, the average litter size<br />
is 2.23 (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). In Estonia, the average litter size is 1.8 (Lõhmus 2002). Potential<br />
fecundity of <strong>bear</strong>s can be much higher – up to 6 cubs but such cases are rare (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
Usually, mother <strong>bear</strong> does not defend cubs in the den and abandon them when escaping but in spring and<br />
summer, after leaving the den, it actively defends cubs, also from humans (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Sex<br />
ratio at birth is 1:1, though there is a slight male prevalence in the population (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
When dispersing from the central part of the population towards the edge of the homerange and to new<br />
territories, a different demographic structure forms: the proportion of males increases, especially that of<br />
sub-adult males 2-4 years old (Swenson et al. 1998). Also, females have smaller litters (Kojola, Laitala<br />
2000). When studying dispersal differences between male and female grizzly <strong>bear</strong>s, it was concluded that<br />
this kind of information is very important. It helps planning protected areas in such a way that facilitates<br />
restoration of the distribution range, decreases inbreeding and animal mortality outside the protected areas<br />
(McLellan, Hovey 2001).<br />
Bears do not have natural enemies in Europe and their life span may exceed 30 years (Гептнер<br />
и.д. 1967). Cubs have a high mortality in their first year. It is known that cubs can be killed by other adult<br />
<strong>bear</strong>s. It is believed that this is mainly done by immigrant adult males (Swenson, Sandegren et al. 2001).<br />
According to the Scandinavian research, young <strong>bear</strong>s can be killed up to the age of 3 years. The reasons<br />
for this phenomenon are unclear (Swenson, Dahle et al. 2001). In Belarus, it is believed that wolves are to<br />
be blamed for the mortality of cubs and juveniles (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993).<br />
Under favourable conditions, <strong>bear</strong> numbers can increase relatively quickly. In Scandinavia, it was<br />
found that in 1985-1995, the annual population increase was 10-15% (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Besides, it is<br />
typical for <strong>bear</strong>s to disperse outside the main distribution range before the carrying capacity is reached in<br />
its central part (Swenson et al. 1998).<br />
Due to a long life span and successful survival of adult individuals, even very small micropopulations<br />
can survive for a certain period. In the West Pyrenees, on the border between France and<br />
Spain, only 6 <strong>bear</strong>s live in an area of 1000 km², and in the South Alps in Italy, 4 <strong>bear</strong>s live in an area of<br />
240 km². Such isolated populations cannot exist in the long term without artificial measures like<br />
introduction of new animals (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Modelling the development of a grizzly <strong>bear</strong><br />
11
population, it was concluded that the minimum population size should be 200-250, and the area – 8556 –<br />
17 843 km², depending on the possible density in a given area (Wielgus 2002).<br />
In Latvia, boreal forests are the most appropriate <strong>bear</strong> habitat, especially where spruce dominates,<br />
with admixture of other tree species. It requires diverse forest structure, thick undergrowth, numerous<br />
rivers and lakes, raised bogs with lots of inaccessible places like windfalls (Новиков 1956, Tauriņš 1982,<br />
Vaisfeld, Chestin1993).<br />
1.3. Species distribution<br />
The brown <strong>bear</strong> appeared in the territory of Latvia in the early holocene, i.e., around 8000 (Tauriņš 1982;<br />
Mugurēvičs Ē., Mugurēvičs A. 1999). Estonian researchers mention an even earlier date no later than<br />
11,000 years ago (Valdmann and Saarma 2001). Excavations show that during the bronze era (1500 BP)<br />
<strong>bear</strong> remains constituted 5.3% of all hunting remains in Latvian pre-historic settlements (Mugurēvičs Ē.,<br />
Mugurēvičs A. 1999). Many <strong>bear</strong>s were hunted in Latvia up to the second half of the 19th century.<br />
Between 19 th and 20 th century, only a few <strong>bear</strong>s remained in the eastern part of Latvia, around Lubāna and<br />
Gulbene (Grevė 1909). The territory of Latgale was not mentioned in the report on <strong>bear</strong> distribution at the<br />
time but it is believed that the remaining individuals in the eastern part of Vidzeme were not isolated from<br />
the Russian population. Therefore, W.L. Lange (1970) mentions in his distribution map a link between<br />
the areas of Lubāna and Gulbene and the border with Russia as late as in 1900. The last local <strong>bear</strong>s in that<br />
area were killed in 1921 – 1926. In the period between two world wars, those <strong>bear</strong>s that periodically came<br />
to Latvia in the area where the borders between Latvia, Estonia and Russia meet were promptly shot<br />
between two world wars. Due to this reason, the former Forest Department deliberately did not report the<br />
known <strong>bear</strong> observations to the forest rangers (Lange 1970), and <strong>bear</strong>s were not mentioned in the official<br />
Latvian game statistics before WWII (Kalniņš 1943). Bears began coming from Russia more often<br />
starting from 1946 (Lange 1970), but only in the 1970s, thanks to the information obtained by J.<br />
Lipsbergs, it was confirmed that <strong>bear</strong>s are found in Latvia regularly (Tauriņš 1982). In the second half of<br />
the 20 th century, <strong>bear</strong> population started recovering throughout Europe, the number increasing almost<br />
twofold (Mitchell-Jones 1999). In Central Europe, <strong>bear</strong> return happens mainly in the mountainous areas<br />
(Kaczensky, Knauer 2001) resulting in a few isolated populations (Fig. 3).<br />
In Estonia, the <strong>bear</strong> number in the official statistics exceeded 100 already in the 1950s. The maximum<br />
(more than 800 <strong>bear</strong>s) was registered in the late 1980s and nowadays the population is estimated to be<br />
around 600. It should be noted that in the second part of the 1980s, about 60 <strong>bear</strong>s were harvested<br />
annually for a few years in a row. Data on the <strong>bear</strong> density in the Pskov oblast in Russia confirm that<br />
<strong>bear</strong>s are relatively scarce in that area, while around lake Peipsi and the Estonian border zone the <strong>bear</strong><br />
density is 2-3 times higher (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). However, in absolute numbers, the <strong>bear</strong> population<br />
in Pskov oblast is strong (>1000 ind.) and is growing in the recent years (Gubarj 2007). In Belarus, <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
are most common in the north, especially in the Berezin nature reserve. In Lithuania, <strong>bear</strong>s are occasional<br />
immigrants and they are not regarded as a part of the local fauna (Prūsaite et al. 1988).<br />
12
Fig. 3. <strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> distribution in Europe in the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st century (after<br />
Swenson et al. 2000).<br />
From March to September 1999, a survey on <strong>bear</strong> occurrence was carried out in all Latvian head<br />
forestry units (except the head forestry of Bauska) as well as in all nature reserves. In total, 220<br />
questionnaires were distributed, and 104 (47.3%) questionnaires were returned. In order to verify the most<br />
recent data, in summer 1999, 9 expeditions were organised to those forestry units where <strong>bear</strong>s were<br />
included into the official census or fresh tracks were seen in the last 6 months: Birži, Dviete, Katleši,<br />
Naukšēni, Nereta, Pededze, Ramata, Viesīte and Zilupe forestry units. During those expeditions, forestry<br />
workers and local inhabitants were additionally interviewed about <strong>bear</strong> observations and damage. Also, a<br />
search was done for fresh <strong>bear</strong> tracks on forest roads. The majority of questionnaires mentioned<br />
observations that were older than 3 years. In all 66 questionnaires that mentioned more or less recent<br />
information on the <strong>bear</strong> presence, respondents also mentioned the signs that proved <strong>bear</strong> occurrence. In 57<br />
cases, <strong>bear</strong> activity igns were reported, in 37 cases, <strong>bear</strong>s were observed directly. Only in 3 cases <strong>bear</strong><br />
cubs were observed, in other 3 cases also dens were found. Those 66 questionnaires also reported 5 <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
that got killed in Latvia. Two more cases (after 1999) are known from Alūksne district, and one <strong>bear</strong> was<br />
deliberately shot in Valmiera district in order to prevent danger to humans. Relatively little information<br />
was acquired on <strong>bear</strong>-caused damage – only 8 cases. In 7 cases, <strong>bear</strong>s damaged beehives, and one<br />
13
questionnaire mentioned considerable damage to an oat field. A significant case of the damage was<br />
reported in August-September in Krāslava district, Svariņi municipality when a <strong>bear</strong> destroyed 6 beehives<br />
in 4 attacks. In 2005, damage to apiaries in Krāslava district happened again – in total, 8 beehives were<br />
destroyed on two farms. In 2007, in Alūksne district, Ilzene municipality, 7 beehives and a portable base<br />
for beehives were damaged.<br />
BALTIC SEA<br />
ESTONIA<br />
? 80<br />
79 81 80 79<br />
79 79 72 79 79<br />
84<br />
79<br />
79<br />
80 78 79<br />
78<br />
79<br />
79<br />
RUSSIA<br />
90 79 79 79<br />
79 77 79<br />
83 83<br />
65<br />
76 78 79 79 77 77<br />
77 88<br />
92 84 82<br />
89 85 84<br />
78 79<br />
85<br />
89 85<br />
84<br />
77 85<br />
77<br />
82 82<br />
77<br />
85<br />
86 78<br />
LITHUANIA<br />
82<br />
79<br />
78<br />
78<br />
?<br />
77<br />
BELARUS<br />
Fig. 4. Bear observation sites and years (according to the data by J. Lipsbergs). The background shows<br />
forest cover and borders of head forestry districts in 1990-1999.<br />
By putting the data on the Latvian forest map, the <strong>bear</strong> distribution based on the data by<br />
J.Lipsbergs was obtained (Fig. 4). The map based on the 1999 survey is shown in Fig. 5. Since 2000, the<br />
situation has not changed significantly, though <strong>bear</strong>s are less often observed on the left bank of Daugava<br />
in the last few years. One <strong>bear</strong> was rumoured to be shot a couple of years ago in Lithuania not far from<br />
the Latvian border (P. Blūzma, personal communication). The most recent distribution data can be seen in<br />
Fig. 6.<br />
14
86-87<br />
BALTIC SEA<br />
84<br />
88<br />
90-93<br />
96<br />
92<br />
85<br />
ESTONIA<br />
91<br />
96<br />
89<br />
80<br />
84<br />
81<br />
RUSSIA<br />
88<br />
83 95<br />
95<br />
92-95<br />
74<br />
93-94<br />
LITHUANIA<br />
91<br />
85-96<br />
93-94<br />
96<br />
BELARUS<br />
Fig. 5. Bear distribution in Latvia based on the survey of 1999. The background shows forest distribution<br />
and borders of head forestry districts in 1990-1999.<br />
Bears that were present in Latvia in 1999<br />
Bears that spend part of the time in Latvia, part in the neighbouring countries<br />
Bear observations in 1997 or 1998<br />
95<br />
Previous <strong>bear</strong> observations<br />
15
6. att. Sites where <strong>bear</strong>s were observed most often after 2000 (mainly the data of the State Forest Service).<br />
When assessing <strong>bear</strong> distribution data, it should be taken into account that <strong>bear</strong>s cover long distances<br />
in spring after hibernation in order to find food as well as during the mating season when looking for a<br />
partner. Such a high mobility caused by the low population density or lack of food can give a wrong<br />
impression of the increase in the <strong>bear</strong> numbers and distribution (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Even though<br />
<strong>bear</strong> distribution in Latvia in the last 20 years can be regarded as stable, it is unclear how their distribution<br />
is related to the number of individuals, i.e., whether the number of resident <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia has remained<br />
stable. The most important <strong>bear</strong> areas where <strong>bear</strong>s are most often observed are Aizkraukle, Alūksne,<br />
Balvi, Gulbene, Jēkabpils, Limbaži, Ludza, Madona, Ogre, Rīga, Valka and Valmiera districts (Fig. 6).<br />
According to the State Forest Service data, <strong>bear</strong> number in Latvia fluctuates around 3-15 (at the moment<br />
no more than 12) (Fig. 7). It is still unknown whether <strong>bear</strong> dispersal westwards is related to the increase in<br />
the <strong>bear</strong> density within the country or whether <strong>bear</strong>s observed in the central and western part of Latvia are<br />
immigrants from the neighbouring countries that have crossed eastern Latvia on the way.<br />
16
<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> population status in Latvia in comparison to the neighbouring countries.<br />
Table 1.<br />
Estonia Latvia Lithuania Pskov Belarus<br />
oblast<br />
Area (km 2 ) 45,227 64,589 65,200 55,300 207,600<br />
Humn population 1,35 2,3 3,5 0,7 9,7<br />
(million)<br />
Forest cover (%) 45 46* 30 >35 34<br />
Bear population<br />
500 10-15 0 1100 50-70<br />
(expert estimates)<br />
Number of <strong>bear</strong>s 20-30 - - 23 -<br />
harvested per year<br />
Hunting season 01.08.-31.10. - - 01.08.-28.02. -<br />
Estimate basis Females with<br />
cubs are<br />
counted<br />
Accidental<br />
observations<br />
- State<br />
monitoring<br />
Expert<br />
opinions<br />
* In 2008, it was 50.2% (according to the Forest Register data)<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008<br />
Fig.7. Bear dynamics in Latvia since 1990 (according to the official statistics of the State Forest Service).<br />
1.4. Species status<br />
Bears have been protected in Latvia since 1977. The status of the brown <strong>bear</strong> in Latvia is still the<br />
same as described in teh Lavian Red Data Book of 1980 (Andrušaitis 1985): Category 2 – rare species<br />
which are not endangered but occur in such low numbers or in such a restrictedand specific area that<br />
they can go extinct rapidly; a special state legilsative protection is necessary. In the new Latvian Red<br />
Data Book (Andrušaitis 2000) the <strong>bear</strong> is included in Category 3 (according to the IUCN system) with the<br />
same definition as in the former Category 2.<br />
Also in the Red Data Book of the Baltic region (Ingelög et al. 1993) the <strong>bear</strong> is included in Category 3 for<br />
Latvia. The Baltic population of the brown <strong>bear</strong> on the whole can be regarded as “of least concern”<br />
17
(Linnell et al. 2008). Also on the global scale, the species is not endangered (Least Concern - The IUCN<br />
Red List of Threatened Species, 2008)<br />
1.5. Current research and monitoring in Latvia and abroad<br />
Bear monitoring in Latvia started in the 1970s, when collecting data for the first issue of the<br />
Latvian Red Data Book (Andrušaitis 1985). The main role here was played by zoologist J. Lipsbergs<br />
(Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003).<br />
The best monitoring traditions and experiences are in the countries that have kept their <strong>bear</strong><br />
populations until nowadays or successfully restored them – Russia, Northern Europe, in the Carpathians<br />
and the Balkans (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999; Zedrosser et al. 2001). On 16-17 May 2002, an international<br />
workshop on monitoring systems on large carnivores was held in Helsinki. Carnivore experts from<br />
Northern Europe – Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltics – participated in the workshop. In<br />
Scandinavia, the following information is used for the <strong>bear</strong> monitoring: attacks on livestock and semidomestic<br />
reindeer, occasional observations, harvested or unintentionally killed individuals, genetic<br />
sample database, hunters’ observations, capture-recapture method and radio-telemetry. In Finland,<br />
additional information comes from the so-called wildlife census triangles. This method is based on<br />
registering all found tracks on a triangular route during snow conditions. Such triangles are located<br />
throughout the country. It is possible to compare track indices (number of tracks per route km) for each<br />
species both between years and regions. Information on the Russian <strong>bear</strong> population and monitoring<br />
methods is summarised in the detailed monograph (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993), while the most recent<br />
information can be found in special periodic issues devoted to the assessment of hunting resources<br />
(Gubarj 2007). For the future work in Latvia, it is important to know that in Russian Karelia, the<br />
following parameters of the front paw’s print (cm) are used for determining the age structure of the<br />
population: sub-adult cubs up to 1 year – 6-9, 1-2 year old cubs – 9.5-11.5, older than 2 years – ≥12. Also<br />
in Estonia, <strong>bear</strong> population structure is determined by the footprints of the front paws. Information about<br />
winter dens is an important part of the <strong>bear</strong> monitoring in Estonia (Lõhmus 2002). In Latvia, scientific<br />
data analysis is not being done apart from one publication on the population status (Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003).<br />
Research and data collection on <strong>bear</strong>s along the northern Latvian border took place in 2003-2005<br />
within a PIN-Matra funded project “Integrated Wetland and Forest Management in the Transborder Area<br />
of North Livonia” (Ozoliņš et al. 2005).<br />
Public opinion on <strong>bear</strong>s was studied and compared to the attitude towards the other two species of<br />
large carnivores – lynx and wolves (Andersone and Ozoliņš 2004).<br />
Lots of useful information is provided by the <strong>bear</strong> research and monitoring experience from<br />
Austria (Proschek 2005, Rauer 2008). This is a country that is by ¼ bigger than Latvia (83,858km 2 ) and<br />
where the <strong>bear</strong> population was also totally eradicated in the 19 th century. Some problems are similar to<br />
those in Latvia. In Austria, no more than 15-20 <strong>bear</strong>s were found in the last few years and they belong to<br />
the so called Alps population (30-50 <strong>bear</strong>s in total). In 2008, the population in Austria collapsed to only<br />
two individuals. The first <strong>bear</strong> immigrated to Austria from Slovenia only in 1972. In the 1990s, WWF-<br />
Austria arranged a re-introduction of 4 animals (from Slovenia and Croatia) of both sexes. These animals<br />
were fitted with radio-collars and were closely monitored. These animals (3 of which were females) had<br />
in total 31 offspring by 2008. Most litters had 3 cubs. Austria has a <strong>bear</strong> conservation plan. The<br />
monitoring is carried out in several directions: registering direct observations and footprints, investigating<br />
conflict situations, telemetry, DNA sampling. All these years, the state and the municipality budgets have<br />
covered the expense of employing a “<strong>bear</strong> manager” Dr. Georgs Rauers. He found out that <strong>bear</strong>s in<br />
18
Austria “disappear” after reaching the age of 1-2 years. There have been some conflict situations during<br />
the research time but only two “problem <strong>bear</strong>s” had to be destroyed. Only one relatively firm case of<br />
poaching was found. Potential motivation reasons for <strong>bear</strong> poaching are the wish to get a trophy, getting<br />
rid of a competitor for ungulate hunting and mistakenly taking <strong>bear</strong> for a wild boar. The interaction<br />
between <strong>bear</strong> conservation and game management interests is a very delicate issue in Austria as mass<br />
media and a part of the society use the problem of <strong>bear</strong> killing as an argument against hunting in general.<br />
In their turn, hunters and foresters are the main reporters that provide information for the monitoring.<br />
Methods of <strong>bear</strong> monitoring are summarised in international publications (Linnell et al. 1998).<br />
The majority of methods are elaborated and tested in North America. The most appropriate method for<br />
Latvia would be registering females with cubs as it is done in Estonia (counting the cubs as well) (P.<br />
Männil, pers.com.). In additions, they collect fresh scats and hairs (from hair traps) in Estonia. This<br />
material is used for the DNA analysis in order to tell apart individual <strong>bear</strong>s.<br />
2. Reasons for changes in the species and its habitat<br />
2.1. Factors affecting the population<br />
IUCN’s Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) has formulated 4 main threats to the European<br />
populations of the brown <strong>bear</strong> (www.lcie.org):<br />
1. Some populations are too small and isolated for a long-term existence;<br />
2. There is some concern that in the countries where <strong>bear</strong> hunting is legal, hunting quotas may be too<br />
high to allow self-sustainable population;<br />
3. Bears cause damage to livestock and conflict mitigation is not ensured;<br />
4. The transport infrastructure fragments <strong>bear</strong> habitats and is an additional mortality factor.<br />
5.<br />
Influencing factors and their significance to Latvia are assessed in Table 2.<br />
19
Brūno lāču populāciju ietekmējošie faktori Eiropā un to aktualitāte Latvijā*<br />
Table 2.<br />
Apdraudējums<br />
Pagātnē<br />
(2008)<br />
1 2 3 4<br />
Biotopu iznīcināšana vai degradēšana cilvēka darbības rezultātā:<br />
Lauksaimniecība<br />
Mežizstrāde<br />
Infrastruktūras attīstība: rūpniecība<br />
X ? X<br />
Infrastruktūras attīstība:<br />
apbūve<br />
Infrastruktūras attīstība:<br />
tūrisms/rekreācija<br />
Infrastruktūras attīstība:<br />
ceļu būve<br />
Ieguve:<br />
Likumīgas medības un ķeršana<br />
Nelikumīga vajāšana:<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Nogalināšana ar šaujamieročiem<br />
Lamatas / cilpas<br />
X X X<br />
Indēšana<br />
Transports:<br />
Sadursmes uz autoceļiem un dzelzceļiem<br />
<strong>Dabas</strong> katastrofas:<br />
Vētras / plūdi<br />
Meža ugunsgrēki<br />
Lavīnas / nogruvumi<br />
Izmaiņas vietējo sugu sastāvā:<br />
Konkurenti<br />
Laupījums / barības bāze<br />
Slimības / parazīti<br />
Iekšpopulāciju procesi:<br />
Ierobežota izplatīšanās spēja<br />
20
Nepietiekama vairošanās/atražošana<br />
1<br />
2. tabulas<br />
turpinājums<br />
2 3 4<br />
Augsta mazuļu mirstība<br />
Inbrīdings<br />
Zems apdzīvotības blīvums<br />
Nepareiza attiecība starp dzimumiem<br />
Lēns pieaugums<br />
X X X<br />
Lielas skaita svārstības<br />
Ierobežots areāls<br />
Tieša traucēšana:<br />
Atpūta / tūrisms<br />
Pētniecība<br />
X<br />
Karš / civilie protesti<br />
Transporta plūsma<br />
Mežsaimniecība<br />
Medības uz citām sugām<br />
Citi iemesli:<br />
Kritiski mazs indivīdu skaits<br />
X<br />
X X X<br />
X X X<br />
ª list of threats offered to the contacts is taken from the IUCN Red List threats authority file<br />
apdraudējumu uzskaitījums un formulējums aizgūts no Pasaules dabas <strong>aizsardzības</strong> savienības Apdraudēto sugu komisijas<br />
dokumentiem (link)<br />
The fact that there are so few <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia and most of them belong to one sex are<br />
probably the main limiting factors that does not allow for an optimisti prognosis for the <strong>bear</strong><br />
population in Latvia. Such a small isolated population of mainly males would be doomed to go<br />
extinct without any drastic re-introduction efforts. However, considering that Latvia is on the<br />
periphery of the Baltic <strong>bear</strong> popualtion of almost 7000 individuals (Linnell et al. 2008) most<br />
relevant are those factors that prevent <strong>bear</strong>s from staying in Latvia after coming here from<br />
elsewhere. Intensive forestry, hunting, transport and building infrastructure are common factors<br />
that threaten the existing <strong>bear</strong> populations in Europe and there is no doubt that these factors will<br />
hinder <strong>bear</strong> population’s restoration in Latvia as well. Particularly worrying is the perspective that<br />
Latvia as a transport transit country will develop its transport infrastructure significantly. It is<br />
difficult to give a clear assessment of the impact of recreation and tourism development. Tourism<br />
21
in Latvia is unlikely to cause habitat degradation or fragmentation as untouched nature and<br />
environmental education are most likely to be the cornerstones of the future tourism in Latvia. A<br />
special attention, however, should be paid when planning motorsport-related recreation sites. In<br />
the future, more relevant could be direct disturbance by humans involved in outdoor sports,<br />
recreation and mushroom- and berry-picking. As the <strong>bear</strong> number increases, it is likely that they<br />
will be more often killed during hunting for other species, and not only due to mistakes but also<br />
using human safety as an argument. Such situations are not uncommon in Estonia (P. Männil pers.<br />
com.). A similar argument was tried recently by hunters in Latvia who tried to thus justify killing<br />
a lynx outside the hunting season, though they received a severe fine.<br />
2.2. Factors affecting the habitat<br />
Already K. Grevė (1909) wrote that the main reason for the rapid decline of <strong>bear</strong>s in the 1860s in<br />
Livonia was not so much direct persecution by humans as introduction of modern forestry. Along with the<br />
active forestry activities, the total forested area also decreased. Before WWII, only 25% of the Latvian<br />
territory was forested (Matīss 1987, Priedītis 1999). Large forest massifs can be regarded as <strong>bear</strong> habitats<br />
in Latvia, as locations of <strong>bear</strong> observations concentrate around the most forested parts of the country.<br />
Both in the 1970s and nowadays, <strong>bear</strong>s have been seen mainly in the east of Latvia. Their distribution is<br />
at least partly related to distribution of continuous forest massifs (see Fig. 4 and 5). Low forest cover can<br />
explain the absence of <strong>bear</strong>s from the central part of Latgale (E Latvia). In Kurzeme (W Latvia) that in<br />
terms of forest cover does not differ from Vidzeme (N Latvia) and Sēlija (left bank of the Rover Daugava<br />
in the south), it was probably one (maximum 2) animals that was observed there during the 1980s. Data<br />
by J. Lipsbergs mention two <strong>bear</strong>s (a bigger one and a smaller one) in Vandzene forestry unit (1983) and<br />
around Babīte (1984). In the early 1990s, these <strong>bear</strong>s either left Kurzeme or died and re-appeared in that<br />
region only in 2006. Therefore, much more important factor than the forest cover is where a particular<br />
area is situated in western or eastern part of the country, i.e., in relation to the distance from the<br />
distribution range core area to the north and east from the Latvian border. Besides, the forested area in<br />
Latvia has been gradually increasing in the last 50 years (Matīss 1987, Priedītis 1999). Modern forestry<br />
techniques ensure forest restoration after clear-cuts, therefore, modern forestry can be regarded as less of<br />
a disturbance factor than clearing forests totally in the late 19 th - early 20 th centuries. Until we have more<br />
precise date on the impact of the Latvian forest quality on <strong>bear</strong> distribution, there is no reason to believe<br />
that <strong>bear</strong> habitats are endangered.<br />
In several cases, <strong>bear</strong> presence was confirmed by the carcasses found in the forest. Carcasses of wild<br />
animals are an important food source for <strong>bear</strong>s in winter (those that were disturbed in the den and did not<br />
hibernate) and spring. In Latvia, there are many animals species that can at least theoretically be <strong>bear</strong><br />
trophic competitors: other carnivores and ravens that also quickly consume carcasses of animals that died<br />
during winter, wild boar that destroys anthills, consumes carrion, acorns and other important <strong>bear</strong> food<br />
(Priednieks et al. 1989, Ozoliņš, Pilāts 1995, official census data of the State Forest Service). An increase<br />
in the number of trophic competitors decreases environmental carrying capacity and can hinder settling of<br />
immigrant <strong>bear</strong>s in Latvia.<br />
22
3. Current conservation of the species and its habitat<br />
3.1. Legislation<br />
National legislation:<br />
In Latvia, according to the Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes (05.04.2000) and<br />
Annex 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations No. 627 Amendments to the Regulations No. 396 “List<br />
of the Specially Protected Species and the Specially Protected Species Whose Use is Limited” (Cabinet of<br />
Ministers, 14.11.2000), <strong>bear</strong> is classified as a specially protected species. According to Clause 4<br />
paragraph 3 of the Species and Habitat Protection Law and paragraph 40.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers’<br />
Regulations No. 281 (24.04.2007.) “Regulations on preventive and reactive measures and the order in<br />
which the damage to the environment is assessed and the costs of preventive, urgent and reactive measure<br />
are calculated”, for killing or injuring a brown <strong>bear</strong>, 40 minimum monthly salaries should be paid for each<br />
individual.<br />
The Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations No. 778 (22.11.2007.) “The order in which land users are<br />
compensated for damages caused by specially protected non-game species and migrating species” ensure<br />
that the damage caused to livestock or beehives by <strong>bear</strong>s should be compensated.<br />
International obligations:<br />
Washington Convention – “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild<br />
Fauna and Flora (CITES)”. The <strong>bear</strong> is listed under Annex 2 as potentially threatened. This means that<br />
international trade with this species is limited and may only occur under strict control.<br />
Bern Convention – “Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats”.<br />
The <strong>bear</strong> is listed under Annex 2. That means that countries that signed it (in Latvia – 01.05.1997) ensure<br />
species protection by banning its exploitation.<br />
EU Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC On conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora<br />
(Species and Habitats Directive). The <strong>bear</strong> is listed under Annex 2 (<strong>bear</strong> habitats have to be designated as<br />
strictly protected areas) and Annex 4 (prohibition of exploitation). In addition, the brown <strong>bear</strong> mentioned<br />
as a priority species. Upon joining the European Union, Latvia has to abide by several decision of the<br />
European Parliament (Swenson et al. 2001).<br />
European Council’s Regula No. Nr. 338/97 “On conservation of wild animal and plant species via<br />
regulating their trade”. The <strong>bear</strong> is included in Annex A, which means that trading limitations are<br />
essential for its conservation, and the regula has a very strict order how <strong>bear</strong>s or their body parts can be<br />
imported/exported to/from the European Community.<br />
In 2008, EC accepted “Guidelines for large carnivore conservation plans at the population level”<br />
(Linnell et al. 2008). It is not a legislative document signed by member states but a document providing<br />
guidance and recommendations for achieving and maintaining favourable status of large carnivore<br />
populations. Adherence to these guidelines will depend on the ability of member states to cooperate at the<br />
international level and their willingness to coordinate their national interests with the species conservation<br />
requirements including <strong>bear</strong> management.<br />
23
3.2. Species and habitat conservation measures<br />
In the 1970s, a nature sanctuary for brown <strong>bear</strong> conservation was established in the Smiltene forestry<br />
unit (Valka district) (Tauriņš 1982, Andrušaitis 1985). Due its small area and isolation, it most liklely did<br />
not provide signifcant input into <strong>bear</strong> habitat conservation. The current legislation does not provide for<br />
special habitat protection measures for the species. In the latest edition of the Red Data Book, there is a<br />
proposal to protect old growth forests (Andrušaitis 2000). However, the implementaiton of this<br />
requirement at the legislative level is not realted to any specific <strong>bear</strong> conservation measures. There is<br />
alsno no reason to state that insufficient habotat protection has had any influence on <strong>bear</strong> survival or<br />
cretaed any direct obstacles to their immigration or settling in Latvia.<br />
In 2001-2002, the inventory of specially protected nature areas was carried out within the so-called<br />
EMERALD project, the aim of which was to find out whether the existing network of protected areas is in<br />
accordance with the NATURA 2000 requirements of the EC Habitat Directive. During that inventory,<br />
<strong>bear</strong> presence (at least temporary) was registered in 3 out of 236 areas. A few more areas reported <strong>bear</strong><br />
observations in the past. Only one of the existing 336 NATURA 2000 areas – Teiči nature reserve<br />
(www.teici.gov.lv) – is big enough (19,649 ha, including about 15,000 ha of peat bogs) to ensure longterm<br />
conservation of a few <strong>bear</strong>s – a relatively undisturbed hibernation and feeding. The current <strong>bear</strong><br />
distribution and the related <strong>bear</strong> conservation aspects are relevant to the administration of the following<br />
protected areas: Slītere National Park, Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve, Teiči un Krustkalni nature<br />
reserves. A successful initiative was started by the administration of the Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve<br />
in cooperation with UNDP – they distributed in their territory and other areas in Ziemeļvidzeme that are<br />
inhabited by <strong>bear</strong>s leaflets for the general public that explain how to behave if one meets a <strong>bear</strong> in the<br />
wild (www.biosfera.gov.lv). Even though the total network of protected areas covers 11.9% of the<br />
Latvian territory (i.e., more than 7000 km 2 ) and it improves the living conditions of <strong>bear</strong>s inhabiting those<br />
protected areas, this alone cannot guarantee a population increase in the future. Favourable conditions for<br />
<strong>bear</strong> conservation should be maintained also outside the protected areas.<br />
3.3. Species conservation plan in relation to other species and habitat conservation plans<br />
Theoretically, brown <strong>bear</strong> conservation in Latvia is facilitated by any conservation measures<br />
towards forest and peat bog habitats that happen on a sufficiently large scale in eastern Latvia. The most<br />
visible projects are as follows: Restoration of the hydrological regime of the Teiči bog (Bergmanis et al.<br />
2002), LIFE project proposal for the North Gauja valley, elaboration of the management plan for the<br />
Gruzdova forests, PIN-Matra project „Integrated Wetland and Forest Management in the Trans-border<br />
Area of North Livonia”, inventory of forest key habitats etc.<br />
IUCN Bear specialist group and the International Bear Association (IBA) are the main<br />
international organisations dealing with <strong>bear</strong> conservation in the world (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Besides,<br />
there is a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). This initiative was started in 1995 in Italy. It is<br />
supported by WWF, its partners and individual experts from European countries. The aim of the initiative<br />
is to create a wide cooperation network for large carnivore conservation, including governments,<br />
international organisations, conventions’ councils, land owners and managers, scientists and general<br />
public. Specifically, LCIE works to achieve co-existence of brown <strong>bear</strong>s, lynx, wolves, wolverines and<br />
humans in Europe nowadays and in the future.<br />
In co-operation with the EC, the above-mentioned organisations have elaborated “<strong>Brown</strong> <strong>bear</strong> action<br />
plan for Europe” (Swenson et al. 2001). This plan also includes measures relevant to Latvia as a result of<br />
24
%<br />
consultations with zoologist Valdis Pilāts. These tasks were taken into account when elaborating the<br />
national species action plan.<br />
Other species action plans that can have an impact on the <strong>bear</strong> conservation in Latvia are the Latvian<br />
capercaillie action plan (Hofmanis, Strazds 2004) and the Latvian black stork action plan (Strazds 2005)<br />
as both these plans include forestry ban in the relevant lek and breeding micro-sanctuaries. In relation to<br />
the brown <strong>bear</strong> conservation, capercaillie conservation has a smaller impact if there are some biotechnical<br />
habitat management measures at lek sites.<br />
3.4. Risk analysis of implementation of the current Species conservation plan<br />
In accordance with the criteria under paragraphs e) - i) of Clause 1 of the EC Habitat Directive<br />
and Clause 7 of the Latvian Law on species and Habitat Protection, the current conservation status of the<br />
brown <strong>bear</strong> in Latvia cannot be considered as favourable. However, this is not related to insufficient legal<br />
protection or the lack of suitable habitats. For almost two hundred years, Latvia has been at the edge of<br />
the species distribution range (Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003). The probability of <strong>bear</strong> increase was foreseen<br />
already in the 1970s-1980s (Tauriņš 1982). Although the most recent information presented in the<br />
previous chapters does not exclude restoration of the <strong>bear</strong> distribution across the whole country, one<br />
should consider that Latvia for a very long time did not have a functional and self-sustainable <strong>bear</strong><br />
population. At the same time, on the Baltic scale, the <strong>bear</strong> population status is assessed as favourable<br />
(Linnell et al. 2008). Therefore, the measures discussed in this action plan are required mainly as a<br />
preparation for the situation if the <strong>bear</strong> distribution range expands naturally. At the same time, it would be<br />
unnecessary to carry out measures in order to artificially improve <strong>bear</strong> living conditions or attract<br />
individuals from the neighbouring territories.<br />
It is possible that restoration of the <strong>bear</strong> population in Latvia will be influenced by the political<br />
relationships with the neighbouring countries. A fence being built in Belarus along the border with Latvia<br />
and Lithuania could have a negative impact on the integrity of the Baltic <strong>bear</strong> population.<br />
In 2001, with the financial support from WWF-Denmark, as study was carried out in Latvia<br />
“Investigation of the public opinion about three large carnivore species in Latvia – brown <strong>bear</strong> (<strong>Ursus</strong><br />
<strong>arctos</strong>), wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx)” (Andersone, Ozoliņš 2004). The majority of<br />
respondents thought that <strong>bear</strong> protection should be continued, 25% were in favour of <strong>bear</strong> control, 1%<br />
supported extermination of <strong>bear</strong>s while 5% did not have an opinion. The inhabitants of Riga and Zemgale<br />
(S Latvia) were most positive towards <strong>bear</strong>s while Vidzeme (N Latvia) and Kurzeme (W Latvia) had the<br />
highest proportion of those who supported <strong>bear</strong> control. Also the majority of the hunters surveyed<br />
(66.2%) (the readers of the hunting magazine MMD) supports <strong>bear</strong> protection. Young people are most<br />
supportive towards <strong>bear</strong> protection (79.6%).<br />
8. att. Ko darīt ar lāčiem Latvijā? (2001. gada aptauja)<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
Rīga Vidzeme Zemgale Latgale Kurzeme MMD lasītāji<br />
Aizsargāt<br />
Regulēt<br />
Iznīcināt<br />
Nezinu<br />
25
%<br />
In 2005, a repeated public opinion survey was carried out (Jaunbirze 2006). The survey showed that<br />
respondents with a higher level of education and young people are more positive towards <strong>bear</strong> protection<br />
(9. att.).<br />
5. att. Atbilde uz jautājumu „Ko darīt ar lāčiem jūsu dzīvesvietas tuvumā?” atkarībā<br />
no aptaujāto izglītības (2005. gada aptauja).<br />
100.0<br />
90.0<br />
80.0<br />
70.0<br />
60.0<br />
50.0<br />
40.0<br />
30.0<br />
20.0<br />
10.0<br />
0.0<br />
Pasākumi nav<br />
nepieciešami<br />
Lācis<br />
Jāpārvieto uz citu<br />
vietu<br />
Nezinu Jāaizbaida prom Jānošauj<br />
Pamatskola<br />
Vidusskola<br />
Arodskola<br />
Bakalaurs<br />
Maģ./Dr<br />
Despite a relatively high public support, the choice of <strong>bear</strong> conservation startegy and tasks in<br />
Latvia is related to the following problems:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The lack of hard evidence of why the <strong>bear</strong> population in Latvia is not establishing. The amount<br />
of evidence depends on the number of <strong>bear</strong>s – as the <strong>bear</strong> number increases, the level of<br />
knowledge would increase as well.<br />
If the <strong>bear</strong> number increases, economic losses and fear-caused conflicts will become an<br />
inevitable problem.<br />
Bear living conditions can be improved only by radical measures that would be related to<br />
unpopular measures with significant restrictions and in some cases a total ban of economic<br />
(forestry) activities in large areas of forests.<br />
At present, any conservation measures are of theoretical or experimental nature and there is no<br />
guarantee that it will result in an increased <strong>bear</strong> number in Latvia.<br />
In case if the <strong>bear</strong> population grows, it would be necessary to include any relevant issues in the<br />
hunting legislation. Users of hunting rights are most closely related to the species monitoring,<br />
implementation of species and habitat conservation as well as conflict solving.<br />
There is a certain risk that due to the <strong>bear</strong> conservation issues in Latvia, a conflict between<br />
hunting supporters and anti-hunting campaigners can increase.<br />
The general public can become more intolerant towards species protection if the education level<br />
decreases and the average age of people increases.<br />
4. Goals and tasks of the species conservation plan<br />
The goal of the <strong>bear</strong> action plan is to ensure natural processes within the joint brown <strong>bear</strong> population<br />
shared by the Baltic States and the western part of Russia, at the same time not setting any specific<br />
deadlines to increase the <strong>bear</strong> distribution range in Latvia or to etsablish a self-sustainable local <strong>bear</strong><br />
26
population. In other words, Latvia should not become an obstacle for brown <strong>bear</strong> dispersal or fluctuations<br />
of the distribution range related to the population dynamics within the Baltic <strong>bear</strong> population.<br />
To achieve the above-mentioned goal, it is necessary to implement the following tasks:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To inform politicians, legislative bodies, scientists and other crucial stakeholders about the most<br />
important brown <strong>bear</strong>’s habitat requirements. To emphasise the importance of hibernation<br />
conditions for attracting resident <strong>bear</strong>s.<br />
To timely disperse objective information on <strong>bear</strong>s and <strong>bear</strong>-related events in mass media,<br />
preventing rumours and exaggerations.<br />
To follow trends in the public opinion in relation to the brown <strong>bear</strong> population status and the<br />
frequency of interest conflicts.<br />
To establish and maintain a system for registering and centralised analysis of the facts in order to<br />
monitor the <strong>bear</strong> population status and obtain information for the necessary conservation<br />
measures.<br />
To elaborate and stick to a certain action protocol in those cases when conflict risk reduction is<br />
required.<br />
The following criteria can be used to monitor the achievement of the goal:<br />
The Baltic brown <strong>bear</strong> population’s distribution range is not being fragmented or reduced;<br />
The areas without <strong>bear</strong> presence are decreasing;<br />
There are no areas with regular <strong>bear</strong>-caused conflicts;<br />
The public appreciates the presence of <strong>bear</strong>s in the wild, does not regard the <strong>bear</strong> as an unwanted<br />
competitor, threat or obstacle for economic activities, is positive towards a chance to see the evidence of<br />
<strong>bear</strong> presence and interested to receive information on the <strong>bear</strong> lifestyle and population status;<br />
The <strong>bear</strong>’s function in the ecosystem (feeding, choice of hibernation sites, dispersal possibilities) as as<br />
natural as possible.<br />
5. Species and habitat conservation measures<br />
5.1. Legislation and nature conservation policy<br />
The legislative status up to date ensures species conservation requirements. No suggestions.<br />
5.2. Species conservation measures<br />
Summarising the available data on species biology and ecology, we can conclude that the <strong>bear</strong><br />
conservation status in Latvia could be improved by the following measures (keeping in mind that these<br />
are only recommendations that do not aim to initiate legislative changes at this stage):<br />
5.2.1 To decrease direct disturbance in the period when <strong>bear</strong>s are looking for a den as well as during<br />
the hibernation period (1 October – 31 March). This can be achieved if drive hunts are not organised.<br />
Also, there should be a minimum distance between sites where forestry activities are taking place<br />
simultaneously and timber transportation should be banned during the night. These measures would be<br />
useful in forestry units along the border with Estonia, Russia and Belarus starting with <strong>bear</strong> observation<br />
27
sites and later in the whole border area. Introduction of these measures should be done based on an<br />
agreement with holders of hunting rights and forest owners.<br />
5.2.2. In the areas of <strong>bear</strong> occurrence, the State Forest Service, when issuing wild boar licences for<br />
individual hunts, should warn hunters about the chance of encountering a <strong>bear</strong> as well as to increase<br />
control in these hunting grounds doing random checks in places where hunters gather.<br />
5.2.3. As <strong>bear</strong> hunting is legal in the neighbouring countries (Russia and Estonia), an increased<br />
control is recommended over the legitimacy of hunting trophies’ import from these countries. Hunters<br />
should have a possibility within a certain timeframe to declare <strong>bear</strong> trophies they possess from the past,<br />
indicating trophy’s origin and obtaining an appropriate permit.<br />
5.2.4. An efficient system for eliminating dangerous <strong>bear</strong>s should be established. The decision on the<br />
level of threat posed by an individual animal should be taken by the same specialist group or an<br />
individual expert regardless of the site and nature of the conflict. These specialists should be ready to take<br />
full responsibility for their decision in front of the government institutions and the general public.<br />
5.3. Habitat conservation measures<br />
The brown <strong>bear</strong> is a very appropriate species whose environmental requirments can be used when<br />
planning at the landscape level and the so called green corridors (crossing points) when reconstructing<br />
road infrastructure. Latvan experts can find lots of theoretical and practical examples from Southern and<br />
Central Europe which can be critically asssessed as to their suitability for the Latvian conditions (Hlaváč,<br />
Andĕl 2002, Kryštufek et al. 2003, Jedrzejewski et al. 2004). The first Latvian experience comes from<br />
elaboration of the landscape ecological plan of Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve in 2007 (see<br />
www.biosfera.gov.lv), which should be continued in the rest of Latvia. When organising seminars and<br />
discussions on large carnivore conservation issues, the Latvian large carnivore experts should invite<br />
representatives from the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government and other relevant<br />
planning institutions.<br />
5.4. Species research and monitoring<br />
Database on <strong>bear</strong> occurrence.<br />
Genetic studies in cooperation with Estonia.<br />
Continuing public opinion surveys using the questionnaire method.<br />
5.5. Awareness-raising and education<br />
To continue involving hunters into large carnivore (wolf, lynx) monitoring which will improve<br />
contacts and information exchange with the large carnivore experts also on brown <strong>bear</strong> conservation<br />
issues.<br />
Livestock owners and bee-keepers should be informed about preventive measures against <strong>bear</strong> attacks<br />
as well as about the risks increasing the probability of such attacks.<br />
Information on <strong>bear</strong>s should be spread among schoolchildren.<br />
28
5.6. Review of the implementation table<br />
Measure (in the order of<br />
priority)<br />
1. Population status<br />
monitoring.<br />
2. To promote experience from<br />
other countries regarding<br />
prevention of <strong>bear</strong> attacks on<br />
beehives and livestock<br />
3. Education events for<br />
schoolchildren regarding<br />
brown <strong>bear</strong>s and their<br />
conservation in Latvia<br />
4. Anonymous survey of<br />
hunters about bar numbers and<br />
unregistered cases of <strong>bear</strong><br />
mortality<br />
5. Seminars (for experts and<br />
representatives of relevant<br />
fields) on <strong>bear</strong> conservation<br />
news in Latvia<br />
6. Spreading research results<br />
and public education work<br />
7. To agree on the procedure<br />
how to solve situations in<br />
relation to “problem <strong>bear</strong>s” and<br />
<strong>bear</strong>s that are killed or injured<br />
illegally<br />
Who is responsible<br />
Implemen<br />
tation<br />
time<br />
LSFRI „Silava”? 10<br />
workdays<br />
every year<br />
Latvian Natural History<br />
Museum, administration of<br />
specially protected areas<br />
Latvian Natural History<br />
Museum, State Forest<br />
Service<br />
LSFRI „Silava”?<br />
MSc thesis in the<br />
University of Latvia or the<br />
Latvian Agricultural<br />
University<br />
Latvian Theriological<br />
Society<br />
Latvian Hunters<br />
Association,<br />
State Forest Service,<br />
Latvian Theriological<br />
Society<br />
Latvian Natural History<br />
Museum<br />
Continuou<br />
sly<br />
Cost<br />
estimate<br />
s LVL<br />
500 per<br />
year<br />
2009. - -<br />
2012. 3000 ?<br />
Once a<br />
year<br />
during the<br />
general<br />
meeting of<br />
the LTS<br />
Continuou<br />
sly,<br />
During the<br />
Annul<br />
Forest<br />
Days<br />
events<br />
Potential<br />
funding<br />
source<br />
Funds for<br />
scientific<br />
research<br />
- Checking<br />
damage<br />
locations, mass<br />
media.<br />
- -<br />
- Mass media<br />
Nature Protection Board 2010. - -<br />
29
8. Telemetry project with the<br />
aim to find out the size of the<br />
home range and its use by<br />
Latvian <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
LSFRI „Silava”,<br />
University of Latvia<br />
? Within<br />
universit<br />
y and<br />
research<br />
projects.<br />
Science<br />
Council’s<br />
grants<br />
The plan’s implementation analysis and task updating to be done in 2014.<br />
6. Implementation of the species conservation plan<br />
In order to implement measures prescribed by this plan, there is no need to establish or to reorganise<br />
any of the existing institutions. The current system should be supported and continued where<br />
several governmental and non-governmental organisations cooperate such as:<br />
Forest Resource Department of the Ministry of Agriculture;<br />
State Forest Service;<br />
Department of Nature Protection of the Ministry of Environment;<br />
Nature Protection Board;<br />
State Environmental Service;<br />
Latvian State Forestry Research Institute „Silava”;<br />
University of Latvia;<br />
Administrations of Gauja National Park, Ķemeri National Park, Slītere National Park, Rāzna National<br />
Park, Teiči Nature Reserve and North Vidzeme Biosphere reserve;<br />
Stock company „Latvian State Forests”<br />
Latvian Natural History Museum;<br />
Latvian Hunters Association;<br />
Latvian Theriological Society;<br />
Latvian Fund for Nature;<br />
WWF Latvia<br />
Etc.<br />
Several measures planned in 2003 are not implemented or only partly implemented (3. tab.).<br />
30
The results of the implementation of measures planned in 2003<br />
Table 3.<br />
Measure<br />
A group of <strong>bear</strong> experts established<br />
Amendments to the Cabinet of<br />
Ministers’ Regulations on damage<br />
compensation<br />
Elaboration and implementation of the<br />
monitoring system (establishment of a<br />
centralised database)<br />
Who is<br />
responsible<br />
National<br />
representative in<br />
the IUCN <strong>bear</strong><br />
specialist group<br />
Ministry of<br />
Environment<br />
Experts (to be<br />
clarified during<br />
the plan’s<br />
implementation<br />
discussions)<br />
Cost<br />
estimates<br />
(Ls)<br />
500<br />
(costs of a<br />
seminar)<br />
Potential funding<br />
source<br />
Environmental<br />
Fund<br />
Implementa<br />
tion<br />
partly, in the<br />
territory of<br />
the Ziemeļ -<br />
vidzeme<br />
Biosphere<br />
reserve<br />
- - Done<br />
1000<br />
Per year<br />
? partly, only<br />
within<br />
Natura 2000<br />
monitoring<br />
Publicity in mass media Experts - - Done<br />
To renew cooperation with the border<br />
guards regarding information on <strong>bear</strong>s<br />
crossing the border<br />
Experts - - Partly<br />
To warn hunting leaders about <strong>bear</strong><br />
presence in their hunting grounds<br />
Cooperation with hunters and forest<br />
owners in the areas where <strong>bear</strong> occur<br />
regularly.<br />
To translate into Latvian and publish a<br />
book by H. Kruuk (2002)<br />
State Forest<br />
Service<br />
- - Partly<br />
Experts - - Partly, only<br />
in case of<br />
conflicts or<br />
offences<br />
? 10 000? Environmental<br />
Fund<br />
Not done<br />
due to the<br />
lack of<br />
funding<br />
To carry out a sociological study on<br />
whether the society is ready to limit<br />
forest-related management for <strong>bear</strong><br />
conservation.<br />
To Review plan’s goals and tasks after 5<br />
years<br />
Experts 3000 ? Not done,<br />
due to the<br />
lack of<br />
funding and<br />
lack of<br />
interested<br />
contractors<br />
Experts 1000 Nature Protection Done<br />
Board<br />
31
7. References<br />
Andersone Ž., Ozoliņš J. 2004. Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia. – <strong>Ursus</strong>, 15(2): 181-187.<br />
Andersone-Lilley, Z., Ozolins, J. 2005. Game mammals in Latvia: Present status and future prospects. – Scottish Forestry,<br />
59(3):13-18.<br />
Andrušaitis G. (red.) 1985. Latvijas PSR Sarkanā grāmata: retās un iznīkstošās dzīvnieku un augu sugas. Rīga: Zinātne. 526<br />
lpp.<br />
Andrušaitis G. (red.) 2000. Latvijas Sarkanā grāmata: retās un apdraudētās augu un dzīvnieku sugas, 6. sējums, putni un<br />
zīdītāji. Rīga: Terras Media. 274 lpp.<br />
Bergmanis U., Brehm K., Matthes J. 2002. Dabiskā hidroloģiskā režīma atjaunošana augstajos un pārejas purvos. Grām.:<br />
Opermanis O. (red.) Aktuāli savvaļas sugu un biotopu apsaimniekošanas piemēri Latvijā. Rīga: ULMA. 49.-56. lpp.<br />
Clevenger A.P. 1994. Sign surveys as an important tool in carnivore conservation, research and management programmes. –<br />
Environmental encounters 17: 44-55.<br />
Danilov P.I. 2005. Game animals of Karelia: ecology, resources, management, protection. Moscow: Nauka. 338 pp. (in<br />
Russian)<br />
Dečak D., Frkovič A., Grubešič M. et al. 2005. <strong>Brown</strong> Bear Management Plan for The Republic of Croatia. Zagreb: Ministry<br />
of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Culture. 90 pp.<br />
Floyd T. 1999. Bear-inflicted human injury and fatality. – Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 10: 75-87.<br />
Friebe A., Swenson J.E., Sandegren F. 2001. Denning chronology of female brown <strong>bear</strong>s in central Sweden. – <strong>Ursus</strong>, 12: 37-<br />
46.<br />
Grevė K. 1909. Säugetiere Kur-, Liv-, Estlands. Riga: W. Mellin u. Co. 183 pp.<br />
Gubarj Yu. P. (ed.) 2007. Status of resources game animals in Russian Federation 2003-2007: Information & analytical<br />
materials. Game Animals of Russia, Issue 8. Moscow: FGU Centrokhotkontrol, 164 pp. (in Russian)<br />
Hilderbrand G., Schwartz C.C., Robbins C.T., Jacoby M.E., Hanley T.A., Arthur S.M., Servheen C. 1999. The importance of<br />
meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown <strong>bear</strong>s. – Can. J.<br />
Zool. 77: 132-138.<br />
Hissa R. 1997. Phisiology of the European brown <strong>bear</strong> (<strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> <strong>arctos</strong>). – Ann. Zool. Fennici 34: 267-287.<br />
Hlaváč V., Andĕl P. 2002. On the permeability of roads for wildlife. A handbook. Liberec: Agency for Nature Conservation<br />
and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic and EVERNIA s.r.o., 58 pp.<br />
Hofmanis H., Strazds M. 2004. Medņa Tetrao urogallus L. <strong>aizsardzības</strong> plāns Latvijā. Rīga: LOB, 55 lpp.<br />
Ingelög T., Andersson R., Tjernberg M. (Eds.) 1993. Red Data Book of the Baltic Region. Part 1. Södertälje: Fingraf ab. 95 pp.<br />
Iregren E., Ahlström T. 1999. Geographical variation in the contemporaneous populations of brown <strong>bear</strong> (<strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong>) in<br />
Fennoscandia and the problem of its immigration. In: N. Benecke (ed.) Archäologie in Eurasien , Band 6, Rahden/Westf.:<br />
Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh., S. 237-246.<br />
Iregren E., Bergström M.-R., Isberg P.-E. 2001. The influence of age on metric values in the brown <strong>bear</strong> cranium (<strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong><br />
L.). – Animals and Man in the Past, ARC-Publicatie 41, the Netherlands: 21-32.<br />
IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. < http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23.02.2009<br />
32
Jaunbirze S. 2006. Eirāzijas lūsis Lynx lynx – sabiedriskais viedoklis – drauds Latvijas lūšu populācijai? Maģistra darbs. Rīga:<br />
LU.<br />
Jedrzejewska, B., Jedrzejewski, W. 1998. Predation in Vertebrate Communities. The Bialowieza Primeval Forest as a Case<br />
Study. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 450 pp.<br />
Jędrzejewski W., Nowak S., Kurek R., Mysłajek R.W., Stachura K. 2004. Zwierzęta a drogi: Metody ograniczania<br />
negatywnego wpływy dróg na populacje dzikich zwierząt. Białowieža: Zakład Badania Ssaków Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 84<br />
pp. (poļu val.)<br />
Kaczensky P., Knauer F. 2001. Wiederkehr des Braunbären in die Alpen – Erfahrung mit einem anspruchsvollen Groβräuber.<br />
– Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, Bd.26: 67-75.<br />
Kalniņš A. 1943. Medniecība. Rīga: Latvju Grāmata. 704 lpp.<br />
Kojola I., Laitala H.-M. 2000. Changes in the structure of an increasing brown <strong>bear</strong> population with distance from core areas:<br />
another example of presaturation female dispersal? – Ann. Zool. Fennici 37: 59-64.<br />
Kojola I., Laitala H.-M. 2001. Body size variation of brown <strong>bear</strong> in Finland. – Ann. Zool. Fennici 38: 173-178.<br />
Kruuk H. 2002. Hunter and hunted: relationships between carnivores and people. Cambridge: University Press. 246 pp.<br />
Kryštufek B., Flajšman B., Griffiths H.I. (eds.) 2003. Living with Bears: a Large European Carnivore in a Shrinking World.<br />
Ljubljana: Ecological Forum of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia in cooperation with the Liberal Academy. 367 pp.<br />
Lange W. L. 1970. Wild und Jagd in Lettland. Hannover-Döhren: Harro von Hirscheydt Vrlg. 280 S.<br />
Linnell J., Salvatori V., Boitani L. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A<br />
LCIE report prepared for the European Commission (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2)<br />
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E., Landa, A., Kvam, T. 1998. Methods for monitoring European large carnivores – a worldwide<br />
review of relevant experience. NINA Oppdragsmelding, 549, 38 pp.<br />
Lõhmus A. 2002. Management of Large Carnivores in Estonia. – Estonian Game No. 8a. 71 pp.<br />
Matīss J. 1987. Latvijas mežainums. – Latvijas meži, Bušs M., Vanags J. Rīga: Avots, 83-95.<br />
Männil P. 2006. Large carnivores and LC management strategy in Estonia. – Environmental encounters, No. 60: 49-51.<br />
McLellan B.N., Hovey F.W. 2001. Natal dispersal of grizzly <strong>bear</strong>s. – Can. J. Zool. 79: 838-844.<br />
Mitchell-Jones A.J., Amori G., Bogdanowicz W., Kryštufek B., Reijnders P.J.H., Spitzenberger F., Stubbe M., Thissen J.B.M.,<br />
Vohralik V., Zima J. 1999. The Atlas of European Mammals. London, San Diego: Academic Press. 484 pp.<br />
Mugurēvičš Ē., Mugurēvičs A. 1999. Meža dzīvnieki Latvijā. – Latvijas mežu vēsture līdz 1940. gadam. Rīga: WWF –<br />
Pasaules <strong>Dabas</strong> Fonds, 207-247.<br />
Mysterud I., Mysterud I. 1994. Viewpoint: The logic of using tracks and signs in predation incidents where <strong>bear</strong>s are<br />
suspected. – J. Range Manage. 47: 112-113.<br />
Ozoliņš J. 2005. Brūnā lāča <strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> ziemošanas pierādījumi Latvijas ziemeļaustrumos. – Ziemeļaustrumlatvijas daba un<br />
cilvēki reģionālā skatījumā. Latvijas Ģeogrāfijas biedrības reģionālā konference. Alūksne, 2005. gada 22.-24. jūlijs. (sast.<br />
Grīne I., Laiviņa S.), Rīga: Latvijas Ģeogrāfijas biedrība, 125.-127. lpp.<br />
Ozoliņš J., Laanetu N., Vilbaste E. 2005. Prospects of integrated game management in the trans-border area of North Livonia.<br />
Final report (manuscript).<br />
Ozoliņš J., Pilāts V. 1995. Distribution and status of small and medium-sized carnivores in Latvia. – Ann. Zool. Fennici 32:<br />
21-29.<br />
33
Oetjen R., Ader K. 2000 (unpubl.). Final report on internationally important species in Estonia. Tartu: Estonian Fund for<br />
Nature. 23 pp.<br />
Persson I.- L., Wikan S., Swenson J.E., Mysterud I. 2001. The diet of the brown <strong>bear</strong> <strong>Ursus</strong> <strong>arctos</strong> in the Pasvik Valley,<br />
northeastern Norway. – Wildl. Biol. 7: 27-37.<br />
Pilāts V., Ozoliņš J. 2003. Status of brown <strong>bear</strong> in Latvia. – Acta Zoologica Lituanica Vol. 13, No. 1: 65-71.<br />
Priedītis N. 1999. Latvijas mežs: daba un daudzveidība. Rīga: WWF. 209 lpp.<br />
Priednieks J., Strazds M., Strazds A., Petriņš A. 1989. Latvijas ligzdojošo putnu atlants 1980-1984. Rīga: Zinātne. 350 lpp.<br />
Promberger Ch. 2001. The Integrated Management Approach in Wildlife Conservation Field Projects. HACO International<br />
Publishing. 32 pp.<br />
Proschek M. 2005. 15 Jahre Bären in Österreich. – Der Anblick, 2: 38-40.<br />
Prūsaite J., Mažeikyte R., Pauža D., Paužiene N., Baleišis R., Juškaitis R., Mickus A., Grušas A., Skeiveris R., Bluzma P.,<br />
Bielova O., Baranauskas K., Mačionis A., Balčiauskas L., Janulaitis Z. 1988. Lietuvos fauna: žinduoliai. Vilnius: Mokslas.<br />
295 lpp.<br />
Rauer G. 2008. Bären in Österreich – Bären für Österreich? – Der Anblick, 10: 34-37.<br />
Strazds M. 2005. Melnā stārķa (Ciconia nigra) <strong>aizsardzības</strong> pasākumu plāns Latvijā. Rīga: Ķemeru Nacionālā parka<br />
administrācija, 70 lpp.<br />
Swenson J.E., Dahle B., Sandegren F. 2001. Intraspecific predation in Scandinavian brown <strong>bear</strong> older than cubs-of-the-year. –<br />
<strong>Ursus</strong> 12: 81-92.<br />
Swenson J.E., Gerstl N., Dahle B., Zedrosser A. 2001. Action Plan for the Conservation of the <strong>Brown</strong> Bear in Europe (<strong>Ursus</strong><br />
<strong>arctos</strong>). – Nature and environment 114. 69 pp.<br />
Swenson J.E., Jansson A., Riig R., Sandegren F. 1999. Bears and ants: myrmecophagy by brown <strong>bear</strong>s in central Scandinavia.<br />
– Can. J. Zool. 77: 551-561.<br />
Swenson J.E., Sandegren F., Brunberg S., Segerström P. 2001. Factors associated with loss of brown <strong>bear</strong> cubs in Sweden. –<br />
<strong>Ursus</strong>, 12: 69-80.<br />
Swenson J.E., Sandegren F., Söderberg A. 1998. Geographic expansion of an increasing brown <strong>bear</strong> population: evidence for<br />
presaturation dispersal. – Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 819-826.<br />
Tauriņš E. 1982. Latvijas zīdītājdzīvnieki. Rīga: Zinātne. 256 lpp.<br />
Vaisfeld M.A., Chestin I.E. (eds.) 1993. Bears: brown <strong>bear</strong>, polar <strong>bear</strong>, Asian black <strong>bear</strong>; distribution, ecology, use and<br />
protection. Moscow: Nauka. 519 pp.<br />
Valdmann H. 2001. The brown <strong>bear</strong> population in Estonia: current status and requirements for management. – <strong>Ursus</strong>, 12: 31-<br />
36.<br />
Wielgus R.B. 2002. Minimum viable population and reserve sizes for naturally regulated grizzly <strong>bear</strong>s in British Columbia. –<br />
Biological Conservation 106: 381-388.<br />
Zedrosser A., Dahle B., Swenson J.E., Gerstl N. 2001. Status and management of the brown <strong>bear</strong> in Europe. – <strong>Ursus</strong>, 12: 9-20.<br />
Данилов, И. И., Русаков, О. С., Туманов, И. Л. 1979. Хищные звери Северо-Запада СССР. Ленинград: Наука, 162 с.<br />
Гептнер В.Г., Наумов Н.П., Юргенсон П.Б., Слудский А.А., Чиркова А.Ф., Банников А.Г. 1967. Млекопитающие<br />
Советсково Союза, т. 2: морские коровы и хищные . Москва: Высшая школа. 1004 с.<br />
Корытин C.A. 1986. Повадки диких зверей. Москва: Агропромиздат. 318 c.<br />
34
Новиков Г.А. 1956. Хищные млекопитающие фауны СССР. Москва, Ленинград: Изд. АН СССР. 293 с.<br />
Сабанеев Л.П. 1988. Медведь и медвежий промысел на Урале. - B кн.: Охотничьи звери. Москва: “Физкультура и<br />
спорт”: c. 238-267.<br />
Соколов, В. Е. 1979. Систематика млекопитающих. Отряды: китообразных, хищных, ластоногих, трубкозубых,<br />
хоботных, даманов, сирен, парнокопытных, мозоленогих, непарнокопытных. Москва: «Высшая школа», 527 с.<br />
Appendices<br />
Terminu skaidrojums<br />
areāls – sugas izplatības rajons<br />
biotops – šajā tekstā lietots gan kā lāčiem nepieciešamo apstākļu kopums teritorijā, gan kā<br />
sinonīms vārdam ekosistēma<br />
boreālie meži – pēcledus laikmetā veidojušies meži, kuru sastāvā dominē skuju koki<br />
dzimuma dimorfisms – raksturīgas atšķirības starp vienas sugas vienāda vecuma indivīdiem<br />
IUCN – Pasaules dabas un dabas resursu <strong>aizsardzības</strong> organizācija<br />
LCIE – Eiropas lielo plēsēju <strong>aizsardzības</strong> iniciatīva (ekspertu grupa IUCN SSC sastāvā)<br />
lielie plēsēji – Latvijā vilki, lūši, brūnie lāči, Eiropā arī tiņi jeb āmrijas, dažkārt lielajiem plēsējiem<br />
pieskaita arī ūdrus<br />
monitorings – atkārtoti regulāri novērojumi vai pētījumi pēc noteiktas metodikas ar mērķi<br />
noskaidrot procesus dabā<br />
populācija – šajā tekstā indivīdu kopums attiecīgajā teritorijā<br />
SSC – Sugu izdzīvošanas komisija (Pasaules <strong>aizsardzības</strong> savienības IUCN struktūrvienība)<br />
telemetrija – datu par dzīvnieka dabisko uzvedību pārraidīšana un uztveršana no attāluma<br />
35