View PDF - International Association for Bear Research

LARGECARNIVOREDEPREDATION
ON LIVESTOCKIN EUROPE
MunichWildlifeSociety,Linderhof
PETRAKACZENSKY,
2, D-82488 Ettal,Germany,email:[email protected]
Abstract: One of the most importantfactorsnegatively influencingpublic attitudestowardbrownbears(Ursus arctos) and otherlargecarnivoresis
depredationon livestock.This is especiallytruein Norway,wherea smallpopulationof 25-55 bearskill about2,000 sheep annually.In otherEuropean
countriesthe re-establishmentof largecarnivoresis plannedor underway,andsimilarproblemsmay arise.As a basis for futurelargecarnivoremanagementin Europe,I compareddepredationamong 13 Europeancountrieshaving small, medium,or largebear,lynx (Lynxlynx),andwolf (Canis lupus)
populations.I calculatedannualpercapitalosses of livestock(ACLL)as the averageannualloss of livestockdividedby the estimatedpredatorpopulation
in the areaof concern.In Norway,theratesof livestocklosses frombears,lynx andwolves wereamongthehighestobservedin Europe.Assumingpredator
populationestimatesarecorrect,eachbearkills an averageof 82 sheepannually,each wolf 41, andeach lynx 9. Generally,in Europe,lynx werethe least
importantpredatoron livestock. In all butone area(CantabrianMountains,Spain),sheep andgoats were the livestock most often takenby all 3 of the
largecarnivores.Depredationlevels were not relatedto the size of the bearpopulationnor to the numberof sheep available,butto differencesin local
husbandrytraditions.Most attacksseemedto occurat night,andsheepwerethemost exposedon forestedrange.The highpredationlevel in Norwaycan
be explainedby the largenumberof untendedsheepthatstayday andnighton forestedrange.Thereis no examplein Europeof extensivesheepfarming
with low losses andviablepopulationsof bearsandwolves on the samerange.
Ursus 11:59-72
Key words: brownbear,Canislupus,Eurasianlynx, Europe,largecarnivores,livestockdepredation,livestockhusbandry,Lynxlynx,Ursusarctos,wolf
Conservationof large carnivores depends greatly on
public perceptionof the species. One of the main factors
contributingto a negative attitudeis livestock depredation (Linnell et al. 1996). In Norway, depredationon
sheep by bears and lynx has resulted in an intense discussion on the futuremanagementof carnivores(Aanes
et al. 1996, Sag0r et al. 1997). In other Europeancountries where largecarnivoresarerecovering,similarproblems arise (Kaczensky 1996).
In former times livestock depredationwas a serious
problem, often threateningthe welfare of whole families. Therefore,people were forced to develop efficient
guarding techniques. Today, economic, social, and political reasons have altered these traditions.Whereasin
the UnitedStatesthe efficiencyof livestockguardingtechniqueshas been testedsystematically(Wick 1995, Linnell
et al. 1996), their efficiency remains scientifically untested in CentralEurope.
One should expect that with an increased standardof
living, tolerance of livestock losses to large predators
would also increase, especially when livestock owners
arecompensatedby the government.Furthermore,a large
portionof livestock keepers,especially sheep owners,are
subsidized and often keep livestock as an additional
source of income (Marty 1996). Yet toleranceis low, especially in areaswherethe traditionof living closely with
bears, lynx, and wolves has been lost (Boitani 1992).
All countrieswith establishedor recoveringcarnivore
populationsexperience some degree of livestock depredationand are tryingto cope with the problemin various
ways. Compiling data on livestock breedingtechniques
and livestock damages gives insight into the complexity
of the problem and should help to develop strategiesto
minimize large carivore-livestock conflicts.
METHODS
Depredation
I selected 13 Europeancountrieswith large carnivore
populationsfor a comparativeevaluationof large carnivore-livestock conflicts (Fig. 1, Table 1). The focus was
on bears,but for comparisonI includeddamagescaused
by lynx and wolves.
I obtained data on depredationby lynx, wolves, and
bears from the literatureor unpublisheddata, which I
used with the courtesyof the collector.Only depredation
on sheep, goats, cattle, and horses (including donkeys
and mules) was considered. Predation on pigs, dogs,
chicken,geese, rabbitsandotherdomesticanimalsplayed
a marginalrole in some papers.
Annualper CapitaLoss of Livestock
(ACLL)
A comparisonof absolutenumbersof livestock killed
is difficult to interpretbecause the size of the predator
population and the monitoringperiods differed greatly
among countries. Therefore,I calculatedlivestock loss,
expressedas the annualper capitaloss (ACL), causedby
each predator.I also calculated ACLs for all livestock
losses (ACLL) and for sheep and goat losses (ACLS):
ACLL= livestock killed by lynx, wolves or bears/year
lynx, wolf or bear populationestimate
I averaged predatorpopulation size in the area from
the populationranges in the literature.If populationestimates changed during the monitoring period, I used
mean populationestimates.
60
Ursus 11:1999
Fig. 1. Countrieschosen for evaluation of carnivoredepredationon livestock and distributionof bears, wolves, and lynx in these
countries. Countries include Austria (A), Bulgaria (BG), Czech Republic (CZ),France (F), Italy(I), Norway(N), Poland (PL),
Romania(RO),Slovakia (SK),Slovenia (SLO),Spain (E), Switzerland(CH),and Sweden(S).
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Limitsof Interpretation
Comparisonof depredationfromdifferentcountriesand
species can best be done descriptively, comparing the
rough magnitudeof damage,because of variationin the
quality of data.
DifferentCompensationsystems.-Carnivore-livestock
problemsare systematicallymonitoredin countrieswith
compensationsystems (Table2). The qualityof the depredationdatahighly dependson the experienceof people
evaluating the claims. In addition, it is almost impossible to distinguish between kills made by a wolf or a
dog; therefore,wolf damage might be greatly overestimated in areas with large feral dog populations(Boitani
1982).
When compensationis paid differentlyfor lynx, wolf,
and bear depredation,people tend to blame all livestock
losses on the predatorfor which payment is highest or
easiest to obtain. For example, in Spain, Poland, and
Slovakia, bear damage is readily compensated, but no
money is paid for livestock killed by wolves. The real
amountof bear damagemight be considerablyless than
the reportedbear damage.
In addition,livestock owners might not claim damage
if the compensationevaluationprocedureis complicated
or reimbursementis minimal, as is presentlythe case in
Romania.How well a compensationsystem works also
dependson the attitudesof the local people. In some areas cheatingis much more socially acceptedthanin others. In the beginning of wolf conservationin Italy, some
shepherdstried to claim sheep they had slaughteredas
wolf kills (Zimen 1988).
SamplingUnits.-Damage data are recordedin different units as numberof killed animals,attacks,or claims,
whichtypicallyarenot equivalent.Duringan attack,more
IN EUROPE *
DEPREDATION
LARGECARNIVORE
Kaczensky 61
of countrieschosenforevaluationof livestockdepredation,1996.
Table1. Characteristics
Country
Austria
Bulgaria
CzechRepublic
France
Italy
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
83,850
110,000
79,000
550,000
301,000
323,877
312,700
237,500
49,025
200,256
505,000
Humans/
kmt
90
81
130
101
187
13
116
100
102
100
76
449,964
41,300
20
160
Area (km)
Sweden
Switzerland
Urbanization(%)
56
71
65
73
67
73
65
55
59
64
76
Forest
cover (%)
45
30
32
27
27
30
28
27
43
52
21
83
61
56
27
Populationestimates
bears
wolves
0
20 30
900
250
0
8
6 8
12
50 100
300
25 55
5 10
70 80
850
6,300
2,500
500 600
450 500
300 400
10 20
50 70
1,500
2,000
40
1,000
1,000
0
1
100 120
lynx
<10
0
100 150
70
<15
500
200
1,750
500
75
0
Livestock
husbandry
unguarded
guarded
unguarded
unguarded
mostlyguarded
unguarded
mostlyguarded
guarded
mostlyguarded
unguarded
guardedand
unguarded
unguarded
unguarded
Table2. Compensationsystems forlivestockdepredationin Europe,1996.
Country
Beara
Wolf
Lynx
Austria
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
France
marketpricepaidby NGOs
not quitemarketpricepaidby GO insurance
no bearspresent
marketpriceplus additionalfee paidby GO
no wolves present
same as for bears
no wolves present
sameas bears
Italy
Norway
marketpricepaid by GO
100-200%marketpricepaidby GO, lost animalsare
paidfor if predationwas previouslyverifiedthatyear
marketpricepaidby GO
due to inflationvery low compensationpaidby GO
markedpricepaid by GO
marketpricepaidby GO
marketpriceandan additionalfee paidby GO;
animalshave to have tags
marketpricepaidby GO
samefor bears
same as bears
no lynx present
no compensation
marketpriceplus fee paidby NGO
with GO support
so far no depredationproblems
samefor bears
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
a NGO =
no compensation
samefor bears
no compensation
samefor bears
marketpricepaid by GO,
but only in some
communities
samefor bears
same as Norway,but farmersare requiredto have
attemptedto preventdamageto obtaincompensation
no bearspresent
no wolves present
no compensation
samefor bears
no compensation
samefor bears
no lynx present
samefor bears
marketpricepaidby GO
non-governmentalorganization;GO = governmentalorganization
than 1 animalcan be killed, andif the livestock belonged
to different owners, more than 1 claim might be processed.
To allow for more consistentcomparisonamongcountries, I used numbersof animalskilled. When data were
given only as claims or attacks,I recalculatedthe datato
the numberof animals killed, by multiplying the number of claims or attacksby the average numberof animals killed in 1 attack (for Cantabrian Mountains:
Garcia-Gaonaand Roy 1993, Garcia-Gaona1997; for
Abruzzo: Fico et al. 1993; for French Jura:Office National de la Chasse (ONC), 1989, Bilan de la predation
du lynx sur le cheptel domestiquedans le Massif du Jura
en 1989, Jura, France; Vandel et al. 1992; Vandel and
Stahl 1993).
Anothermethodicalproblemwas how to comparepredation on sheep and goats with predationon cattle and
horses. It takes several sheep to equal the biomass and
value of a cow or a horse.Conversely,predatorsarerarely
allowed to completely consume a large carcass,because
people will more easily find and remove it.
SamplingPeriods and SmallPopulations.-Short sampling periodsmight resultin unusuallyhigh or low damage data. Especially with bears, the failure of hard or
soft mast in a year might result in high damage statistics
(Garshelis 1989). In small populations, single problem
animals might easily double average damage in certain
years, as occurredwith 1 bear in 1991 in the Pyrenees
(Camerraet al. 1995), 2 bears in 1994 in Austria, and
possibly a few lynx in 1989 in the French JuraMountains (ONC, 1989, Bilan de la predationdu lynx sur le
cheptel domestiquedans le Massif du Juraen 1989, Jura,
France).
Predator Population Estimates.-Any populationestimate of wide-ranging, forest-dwelling and secretive
animalsis difficult (Kendallet al. 1992, Clevenger 1993,
62
Ursus 11:1999
Camerra1995). Foraccuratepopulationestimates,skilled
people have to be regularlypresentin the field. Examples
of exaggerated estimates are numerous:a few lynx in
Austria gave the impression of an established population (Huber and Kaczensky 1998), a single bear in
Vassfaret,south-centralNorway, made people believe a
small bearpopulationexisted (Boekkenet al. 1994), and
bear numbersin all of Norway except FinmarkCounty
were estimatedto be 130-194 in 1978-86 insteadof the
roughly 14 actually present (Swenson et al. 1995). It is
importantto rememberthatpopulationestimatesareonly
the best guess at the given time.
Qualityof Data AvailableforLivestock.-Data on livestockavailableto predatorsarevery heterogeneous.Livestock might be well registeredin countrieswhere sheep
are subsidized, such as Austria, France, Italy, Norway,
Spain, and Switzerland.In other areas it is can be advantageousto misrepresentthe numberof livestock for
tax or grazing right purposes. In addition,livestock are
often registeredon a large scale, by country or county;
therefore,not all of these animalsare actuallywithin the
range of the predator.
LivestockHusbandryPractices
ThroughoutEurope,livestockhusbandrypracticesvary
with local predators,livestock type, and terrain.This has
resulted in a wide range of practices, many of which
changed dramaticallywith the decline of predators.In
order to understandpossible differences in the amount
of damagescausedby largecarnivores,some basic information on livestock rearingis given for each country.
Austria.-With the eradicationof lynx, wolves, and
bears,the traditionof guardinglivestock was lost. Today
sheep graze untendedon open range or on fenced pastures. The use of shepherdsand dogs has been almost
completely abandoned.Electric fences are used to discourage bears from breakinginto beehives. In one case
an electricfence stoppeda bearfrombreakinginto a sheep
barn.
Bulgaria.-Sheep areguardedby shepherdswith dogs.
Normally 1 shepherdcollects sheep from a whole village
and moves them to the summerrange. Flock size is 50100 sheep/shepherd,and control of the flock is moderate. Shepherdsspend the night in small cabins, but the
sheep normallystay outside, with the livestock guarding
dogs. In winter time sheep stay in barns in or near the
village, and damages are rare (a predatorhas to break
into the barn).Cattleand horses are not herdedandroam
free from springto late fall.
In some areas of Bulgaria the traditionaluse of livestock guarding dogs has been lost. There are plans to
breedanddistributelivestockguardingdogs to local shep-
herdsto encouragetheiruse again (E. Tzingarska,Green
Balkans [NGO], Sofia, Bulgaria, personal communication, 1996). Electric fencing to protectlivestock or beehives is rarelyused.
Czech Republic.-Traditionally, the Bohemian forest
has neverbeen a sheep-rearingarea.Today<2,000 sheep
arepresent.Most arekeptin smallflocks on fencedmeadows. No special care is takento preventlosses to lynx or
otherpredatorslike straydogs or foxes (Vulpesvulpes)(J.
Cerveney,Czech Ministryof Environment,Praha,Czech
Republic, personal communication,1995).
France.-In formertimes, shepherdsstayedwith their
herdsfor the entiresummer.Many grazingareasarenow
reachedby car, and sheep are left alone or with livestock
guardingdogs and are checked 2-3 times a week. In addition, the numberof milk sheep is decreasingin favor
of meat sheep. Milk sheep are tended twice a day from
spring to late summerand are penned at night; they are
much less vulnerableto bear predationthan free-ranging meat sheep (Bouvier and Arthur1995).
Today, traditionalmethods of livestock grazing are
rarely used. In the Jura Mountains, sheep are kept in
parks (open meadows intermingledwith forest), and in
largepartsof the FrenchAlps sheep grazefreely all summer. Only in the Pyrenees,where sheep milk production
is important,is the herding of sheep still occasionally
practiced.
In the MercantourNationalPark,flocks arelarge,usually around 1,000-2,000 sheep, and sometimes >3,000
sheep. Few are attendedby guard dogs, and almost all
remain alone duringthe night or sometimes for several
days (B. Lequette, MercantourNational Park, France,
personalcommunication,1996). Sheep are kept only for
meat and are heavily subsidized (up to 60-70% of the
overall income).
Electricfences areused to some extentto protectsheep
in areaswith depredationproblems.In addition,toxic as
well as protectivecollars(thickleathercollars)have been
testedon sheepto reducelynx predationin the JuraMountains (Vandeland Stahl 1993).
Italy.-Traditionally in the Abruzzoregion, sheep are
guarded by shepherds with dogs and are brought into
pens at night. Flocks do not exceed 300 sheep and are
always guardedby a minimum of 2 livestock guarding
dogs. Sheep are not allowed out at night or duringfoggy
weather (Boitani 1992). According to the sanitarylaw,
all deadsheephave to be buriedby the shepherds(Boitani
1992).
Outside traditional wolf range livestock graze untended.Lambs,calves, and foals are born on the pasture
(Meriggi et al. 1991). Even if sheep flocks are guarded,
guardingis poor. Inexperiencedshepherdswith an inad-
LARGECARNIVORE
DEPREDATION
IN EUROPE *
equate numberof dogs look after flocks of 1,000-2,000
sheep (Boitani 1992). In the Abruzzo region, fruit trees
have been plantedand supplementaryfood is used to provide bearswith high-energyfood alternativeto livestock
(Boscagli 1995).
Norway.-Norway's official policy is to maintainand
supportsettlementsin ruralareas. Sheep farmingis encouraged and heavily subsidized (over 2/3 of a sheep's
monetaryvalue), even thoughmost sheep farmingis not
a full-time occupation for livestock owners. About 2.2
million sheep graze untended on forest and mountain
range.
Sheep farming is intensive during winter and extensive during summer. In winter, sheep are confined indoors because of climate. Lambingoccurs indoorsat the
end of April to early May. During May, sheep and newborn lambs are kept in fields close to the farm, and in
earlyJunethey arereleasedonto forestor mountainrange.
They are generally left untended,except for occasional
visits, until September.Several breeds do not flock, and
sheep owners normallypatroltheirrangeonce or twice a
week; however,because of the large rangeand dispersed
natureof the sheep, many are never checked. The use of
herding dogs is not common, and livestock guard dogs
have never been used.
To reduce the high depredationlevel in Norway, different protection measures are being tested, including
protectioncollars, taste or smell aversion collars, monitoring,livestock guarddogs (Directoratefor NatureManagement 1996), shortened grazing seasons, aversive
conditioning or translocationof bears (Wabakkenand
Maartmann1994), and shootingof problembears(Sag0r
et al. 1997). Some farmershave received economic incentives to change to milk or beef production(J. Linnell,
Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, Trondheim,
Norway, personal communication,1996).
Poland.-Traditionally livestock has been and still is
guardedby shepherdswith dogs. At night, sheep are often kept in enclosures or inside barns (H. Okarma,Polish Academy of Science, Bialowieza, Poland, personal
communication, 1996).
Romania.-Sheep and cattle are guarded by herders
with livestock guardingdogs. The size of sheep flocks
varies from 100 to 1,000 animals. At night sheep are
brought together on open pastures with the dogs running free and the shepherdssleeping next to the flock.
Duringdaytimefences are not used, as by law any fence
has to be moved every thirdday to avoid overgrazing.In
the few cases where fences were used, they seemed to be
quite effective (C. Promberger,MunichWildlife Society
(NGO), Linderhof,Germany,personal communication,
1996).
Kaczensky 63
Slovakia.-Traditionally, sheep are guardedby shepherds with dogs. At night sheep are brought to large,
open pastures and shepherds sleep in cabins nearby.
Guarddogs, usually Slovakiancuvac dogs, stay permanently with the sheep (F. Knauerand A. Lampe,Munich
Wildlife Society, Linderhof,Germany,personalcommunication, 1996). This method of sheep grazing is still
practicedin the WesternCarpathians(Hell 1993). Preliminarydata from a wolf telemetryproject in the Low
TatraMountainssuggests that traditionallytrainedlivestock guarding dogs are effective in preventing sheep
losses (G. Bloch, 1994, Renovation of livestock guarding dog managementin Slovakia and the use of livestock guarding dogs as defenders against wolves in
southern Poland, Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Wolfe
[NGO], Bad Miinstereifel,Germany).
Unfortunately,in many areas the use of traditionally
trainedguard dogs has been lost. Today dogs are often
chainedto avoid confrontationswith touristsor theirpet
dogs. Chained dogs do not bond with their herd as required for a reliable livestock guard dog, and if turned
loose they may even attack sheep. They are fairly aggressive towardpeople and are not effective in protecting the flocks. Apartfrom barkingto alertthe shepherds,
theirdefensive behavioris restrictedby the length of the
chain (Wick 1995).
Electric fencing has been successfully used to protect
beehives,butnotto protectsheep.Sheepneedto be moved
and people are slow to accept the additional work of
moving the fence. In addition,for small-scale bee keepers and sheep breeders,the costs of an electric fence are
high (Hell 1995).
Slovenia.-Traditional methods of livestock grazing
are no longer used. Untendedgrazingis practiced,especially in the pre-alpine and alpine regions in the north
andnorthwest,or sheep areheld in small pens. An analysis of damages showed greater losses when a bear attacked sheep in small enclosures compared to those
ranging free (Adamic 1997). In at least 1 instance a
greater number of sheep were killed during an attack
because sheep could not escape from the fenced area.
In some areas electric fencing is used; however, the
success depends on its correctinstallation(M. Adamic,
University of Ljubljana,Ljubljana,Slovenia, personal
communication, 1995). Shortening of the grazing season was suggestedbecause the peak damageoccurredin
spring and autumn.The Ministryof Agricultureoffered
to cover the additionalcosts for hay, but the offer was
refused by the local farmers(M. Adamic, University of
Ljubljana,Ljubljana,Slovenia,personalcommunication,
1995). In the bear core area, supplementaryfeeding is
64
Ursus 11:1999
provided to keep bears away from livestock and other
human property.
Spain.-Traditional methods included guarding of
sheep by shepherdswith guard dogs (Spanish mastiff)
and takingherds into the village or other shelterat night
(Vila et al. 1993). These practiceshave been abandoned
in many areas.To encouragelivestock guarding,professional livestock owners are provided with puppies of
guarddogs upon request.These dogs are providedfree
of charge, but are not trained,nor is the use and effectiveness monitored afterwards(J. Naves, IndurotUniversity of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain, personal
communication, 1996).
Switzerland.-Traditionally,livestock was guardedby
shepherds with guard and herding dogs. But with the
eradicationof the largepredators,sheepfarmersno longer
guardsheep. Most sheep roam freely on alpine pastures
during the entire grazing period and are checked only
once or twice a week. In the JuraMountainssheep are
often held in small enclosuresor fields with a small open
shed. Most of this farming is done for supplementary
income (Marty 1996).
Sweden.-Swedish ruralareas and sheep farmingare
not subsidized as heavily as they are in Norway. Much
farmlandhas been replantedto forest, and mechanizationhas reducedemploymentin the forestindustry.Therefore, the humanpopulationdensityin ruralareasis much
lower thanin Norway.The 500,000 sheep arekept within
fenced pasturesand usually nearhumanhabitation.Only
a small portion of the total sheep population is within
predatorrange, and compensation is provided for loss
only if the farmerhas used acceptedmethodsto prevent
or reduce loss (Swenson et al. 1998).
Magnitudeand Compositionof Livestock
Killed
Bear predationrates, expressed as annual per capita
losses of livestock(ACLL)andsheep(ACLS),wererather
low in all countriesor regions with the exception of Norway. There, bears had a livestock depredationrate 24
times higher than bears in the French Pyrenees, which
had the second highest depredationrate (82.2 versus 3.4;
Fig. 2, Table3). The ACLL due to bears in Norway was
by farthe highestpercapitadepredationrateof anypredator in any countrystudied.
When comparingequal periods, ACLL due to wolves
was 19 times higher than that due to bears in Bulgaria
(8.0 versus 0.4), 12 times higher in Abruzzo (17.1 versus 1.4), and 1.5 times higher in Poland (1.3 versus 0.9)
(Table3). ACLL due to bears in Poland and Spain were
probablyoverestimatedbecause of insufficient damage
compensationfor wolves. To get compensation,livestock
ownerssometimesclaim wolf kills as bearkills. The only
countrywhere ACLL due to wolves was lower than for
bearswas Norway.On average,a Norwegianbearcauses
twice as much damageas each wolf, but wolves are sporadic visitors.
Values for ACLL and ACLS were almost the same in
most countries(Table3), as sheep were the most important domestic animalprey for all 3 large predators(Fig.
3). Adjustingthese figures to a weight or value basis (10
sheep = 1 cow or horse), would only slightly change the
damage patterns(Fig. 2, Table 3).
Bear predation was primarily directed at sheep and
goats, but in some areas cattle and horses also were attacked frequentlyand might be locally important(Fig.
3, Genov and Wanev 1992). This was also true for the
bearpopulationin partsof the DinaricMountainRange.
Whereas predationon cattle was minor in Slovenia in
1995, Croatiaand Bosnia in 1987 reported709 cases of
livestock depredation,of which 619 (87%) concerned
cattle (Huberand Moric 1989). Additionaldamage statistics fromCroatiain 1989 showed 13 cases of livestock
depredation,involving cattle in 10 cases and sheep in 3
(Huberand Frkovic 1993).
In Bulgariabears attackedonly cattle and horses that
were separatedfrom the herd(Genov and Gancev 1987).
In Austria,only calves were attacked(Rauerand Gutleb
1997), but historical data from Switzerland mentions
attackson adultcattle as well as on calves (Metz 1990).
In Spain, where predationon cattle and horses was by
far the most intensive, cattle rearingwas the most importantlivestockactivityin the area(Garcia-Gaona1997).
Adult and yearling cows, and horses were taken about
equally in 87 attacksevaluated(Clevengeret al. 1994).
ACLLdue to wolves were amongthe highestobserved
for the 3 predatorsbut variedbetween 0.4 - 41.4 (Fig. 2,
Table 3). The highest rates were from Norway and
MercantourNational Park, 41.4 and 21.0, respectively,
wherethe traditionof livestock guardingwas mostly lost.
In the Abruzzo region, reported predation was even
higher at 43.0 in the period 1974-1978 (Table 2), but
Boitani(1982) statedthatprobablyup to 50%of the damage was caused by dogs. From 1980-88 ACLL declined
to < 50% of the 1974-78 value (17.1), even though the
number of wolves increased. The decrease could have
indicated an improvement of herding techniques or a
more restrictivedamageevaluation.The extent to which
straydogs may accountfor high ACLLof wolves in other
countriesor regions is not known.
Wolfpredationwas aimedprimarilyat sheepandgoats,
but some cattle and horses were taken and were locally
important(Fig. 3, Genov and Kostava 1993). Data were
not usuallyavailableon the age of animalskilled. In Italy,
Table 3. Magnitude of large carnivore depredation on livestock in Central Europe, 1968-96.
Estimated Annual
range
Livestockavailableon predator
predator loss of
Horses
Cattle
Period population livestock ACLLa ACLSb Sheepandgoats
Country/region
Bear
2.0
2.1
35
1990-95
Austria
(7-28)' 17
0.4
0.4
1.2
3.2
1.2
0.7
72
1.0
0.9
62
0.1
0.1
2,055
82.2
82.2
115
75
50
11
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
415,000
0.01
Brei
-2,000
0.55
J. Ce
ONC
1984-92
40
123
3.1
3.1
<74,000
>0.17
1995
1993-95
1992-95
75
1,000
500
67
48
0.9
0.1
0.9
0.1
Van
Min
andA
4,731
9.5
9.5
1984-88
250
2,001
8.0
7.8
1987
1,750
6,818
3.9
3.0
1993-95
1988
1974-78
1980-88
1993-95
1988-92
2-12c
15
35
70
25
350
36-408e
45
21.0
1.7
39.4
20,000
1,000
1,490
21.0
3.0
43.0
1,200
17.1
13.1
11
461
0.4
1.3
0.4
1.3
700,000
173,000
370,000
1995
1993-95
1992-95
15
40
5
4.5
Italy- Abruzzso
900
65
6
(35-9)C 20
50
PolishCarpathians
1987-91
100
Slovenia- outsidecorearea
Sweden
Norway
1995
70
1993-95
1992-95
1,000
(15-35)c 25
CzechRepublic- BohemianForest
1984-94
1993-94
FrenchyJuraMountains
Slovenia
Sweden
FrenchPyrenees
379
57
8
68
71
87
15,435
47,750
700,000
4,767
12,500
120,000
370,000
524,000
270
1,000
30,000
Norway
0.04
0.11
0.01
0.01
Purr
Nede
Fico
Bobe
Mini
andF
J. Sw
0.09 of totalstock J. Li
2,200,000
Lynx
Switzerland
B. G
Gen
Gar
0.4
0.9
1.3
3.4
1.4
0.9
1984-88
1973-90
1974-84
1968-91
1980-88
Bulgaria
Spain - Cantabria
Spain - RNC Riano
Available
livestock
killed(%)
J. Sw
0.22 of totalstock J. Li
2,200,000
Wolf
Bulgaria
Spain - southwest
France- Merkantour
Northern
Italy
Italy- Abruzzo
Italy- Abruzzo
Poland- West
PolishCarpathians
Slovenia-- South
Sweden
- -- I.-.1
Norway
67
4.5
36
0.9
0.9
207
41.4
41.4
Gen
Blan
0.65 forCantabria Fern
Gro
0.18-2.04
1,455
203
120,000
30,000
524,000
2,200,000
'ACLL=annualper capita loss of livestock bACLS=annualper capita loss of sheep. CIncreaseof decrease of populationduring period
dBecauseof the dramaticincreaseof the wolf populationand the livestock killed, ACLL and ACLS were calculated for each year and averaged for the whole period.
eB. Gutleb and G. Rauer,WWF Austria,Vienna, Austria, personalcommunication 1996.
fMinistryof Agricultureand Forestry,1995 annuallivestock damage statistics, Ljubljana,Slovenia.
sJ. Swenson, Norwegian Instituteof Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim,Norway, personal communication 1996.
hJ.Linnell, Norwegian Instituteof NatureResearch (NINA), Trondheim,Norway, personal communication 1996.
iJ. Cerveney,Czech Ministryof Environment,Praha,Czech Republic, and L. Bufka, Susava National Park, KasperskeHory, Czech Republic, personal communication 1995.
JOfficeNationalde la Chasse (ONC), 1989, Bilan de la preationdu lynx sur le cheptel domestique dans le Massif du Juraen 1989, Jura,France.
Leq
1.67
Mer
Boit
0.14
Fico
0.01
0.12
Prom
Bob
Min
andF
J. Sw
0.01 of totalstock J. Li
66
Ursus 11:1999
predationon cattle andhorses was almostexclusively on
calves and foals (Meriggi et al. 1991, Fico et al. 1993,
Cozza et al. 1996). In Bulgariawolves preyed on cattle
and horses by separatingindividualsfrom the herd and
chasingthem off cliffs; mules anddonkeyswere attacked
while attachedto trees with ropes (Genov and Kostava
1993).
Except in Norway,ACLL were generallylow for lynx,
rangingfrom 0.15-3.1 (Table3), an expected patternfor
cats (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Informationon lynx
predation was primarily available from countries and
regions where lynx was the only large predatorpresent
(Switzerland,Czech Republic, FrenchJuraMountains),
and where wolf and bearnumberswere small within the
sheep range. In these areas lynx is the largest predator,
andpeople arevery sensitive to any kind of loss. In addition, the absenceof wolves andbearshas allowedto abandon intensive herding techniques without risking high
losses.
Predationby lynx is the greatestin Norway,where it is
3 times higher than in the FrenchJuraMountains.Two
factorsmightencouragelynx predationon sheep:(1) most
sheep graze untendedin the forest and thereforeare easily available,(2) the density of small ungulates(only roe
deer (Capreolus capreolus), few red deer (Cervus
elaphus], no chamois [Rupicaprarupicapra]) is lower
than in most centraland easternEuropeancountries, so
naturalprey numbersare limited.
In Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, where there are
largepopulationsof wolves or bearsin the same rangeas
lynx, lynx predation is generally considered minimal.
Annuallivestocklosses due to bearsandwolves aremuch
higher,and few livestock owners complain about losses
caused by lynx (personalcommunications:0. Ionescu,
Romanian Forest Research and ManagementInstitute,
Brashov,Romania,1996; S. Findo, SlovakianForestResearchInstitute,Zvolen, Slovakia, 1996;H. Okarma,Polish Academy of Science, Krakow, Poland, 1996). In
addition,guardingof livestock againstbears and wolves
seems to minimizethe chance of a lynx killing livestock.
Lynx can not fight off dogs as bears do. Similarly,because they aresolitaryhunters,they can not confusedogs,
the way a pack of attackingwolves do.
Lynxpreyalmostexclusively on sheepandgoats;small
calves or foals were rarely taken. Preferencefor lambs
was noted in Norway (Aanes et al. 1996), but not in
France or Slovenia (ONC, 1989, Bilan de la predation
du lynx sur le cheptel domestiquedans le Massif du Jura
en 1989, Jura,France;Ministryof Agricultureand Forestry, 1995, Annual Livestock Damage Statistics,
Ljubljana,Slovenia).
RelationshipbetweenDepredationRate
and BearPopulation
Bear populationsize and livestock damageis not necessarily correlated(Fig. 4). The few bearsin Norway kill
farmoresheepthando the - 1,000 bearsin Sweden (Table
3). Though sheep are the most importantdomestic prey
for bears in areas where more sheep are available/bear,
moresheeparenot necessarilykilled/bear.In the Abruzzo
region, Fico et al. (1993) did not observe a significant
correlation between numbers of livestock present and
numbers of livestock taken by bears when comparing
differentyears. Similarly,Sag0ret al. (1997) did not find
a significantcorrelationbetween ewes presentand ewes
lost to bears in Norway. From the predatorpopulation
size or the numberof sheep alone, it is not possible to
predictexpecteddamagelevels. Herdingtechniques,species of livestock, type of range (forested or open), and
alternativeprey base all have to be taken into account.
Guardedversus UnguardedLivestock
No Europeancountrywith largepopulationsof wolves
and bears (>50) has sheep and goats grazing untended
in the forest (Table 1). Untended grazing of sheep and
goats occurs only in areas where there are dwindling
populations (bears in the Pyrenees) or where predators
are making a recent comeback (bears:Austria,Slovenia
outside core area, Norway; wolves: Slovenia, western
Poland, northernItaly, Mercantourarea of France).The
only exceptions seem to be the core areaof Slovenia, but
so far very few sheep graze within the rangeof the large
predators.
Data from the CantabrianMountainsand Abruzzoregion showed that properly guarded livestock suffered
muchlower losses (Blancoet al. 1992, BoitaniandCiucci
1993). These successes aremaskedwhen combinedwith
areaswhere guardingtechniquesare poor or appliedinappropriately.
Timingand Locationof Predation
Bears and wolves attack livestock primarilyat night
or during fog, heavy rain, or storms (bear: Genov and
Wanev 1992, Nedelec et al. 1995; wolf: Boitani 1992, G.
Bloch, 1994, Renovationof livestock guardingdog management in Slovakia and the use of livestock guarding
dogs as defenders against wolves in southern Poland,
Gesellschaft zum Schutz der Wolfe [NGO], Bad
Miinstereifel, Germany,C. Promberger,Munich Wildlife Society, Linderhof,Germany,personalcommunication, 1996). Sheep that were locked into barnsor corrals
at night were usually safe against wolf and lynx predation but could still sufferbearpredation.This seemed to
IN EUROPE * Kaczensky
DEPREDATION
LARGECARNIVORE
67
90
80 70 --
.
60--50
_
--
40
30
30
-"
2 -r
X
.
10
10--)
0
W
c
c
>.
,' wolf
bear
u. 0E
c
-
E
e-
0
o
Fig. 2. Annual per capita damage to sheep (ACLS)done by bears, wolves, and lynx in different European regions 1968-95.
be rare,but if bears succeeded in breakinginto barnsor
corrals,they often caused considerabledamage because
the sheeppanickedandsuffocatedfromcrowding(Genov
andWanev 1992). The samehas been reportedfor wolves
breakinginto barns or corrals (Boitani 1992) and bears
breakinginto enclosures (Adamic 1997).
Today, the distributionof lynx, wolves, and bears in
Europeis tightly linked to forest cover, and all 3 predators are rarely present in open country where they are
vulnerable to human persecution. Therefore, livestock
aremost vulnerablein or nearthe forest(Nass et al. 1984).
In Switzerland,lynx predationon sheep was restricted
to forested areas; above timberlinefew losses were reported(U. Breitenmoser,Swiss LynxProject,Muri,Switzerland,personal communication, 1996). In the French
Jura Mountains,the mix of sheep pastures and forests
could be one reason for the high predationratesby lynx.
A shepherdin Romania who experienced elevated predation by bears and wolves had just a small clearing in
the forest available for grazing sheep (S. Klenzendorf,
MunichWildlife Society, Linderhof,Germany,personal
communication,1996). Even historical reportsmention
that forests were cut down to drive away predatorsand
obtain safe grazing grounds (Eiberle 1972). In Norway,
losses of sheep to bears were significantlyhigher in for-
ested than alpine range (Wabakken and Maartmann
1994).
Economic Loss
The proportional loss any predator species caused
among the livestock was very small. In most areas<1%
of the overallstock was taken(Table3), butlocally, losses
sometimes were significant.
In the Alps, naturallosses - not attributedto predators
- were estimatedat 3-5% for untendedsheep. In many
areaspredationby loose andferaldogs is probablymuch
higher than predationby large carnivores.For example,
in 1983 loose dogs killed 667 sheep in the Haute-Savoie,
France, while in that year bears killed only 66 sheep in
the FrenchPyrenees (Bouvier and Arthur1995).
IMPLICATIONS
MANAGEMENT
In Norway,per capitalosses of livestock due to bears,
wolves and lynx are the highest observed in Europe.
Untended sheep grazing on forested range are responsible for providing this depredation situation. As the
amountof damageand bear numbersseem to be closely
correlated(Sag0ret al. 1997), losses will furtherincrease
as the Swedish bear population spreads into Norway.
68
Ursus 11:1999
100 'i
mHorses
OCattle
00
?
8Sheep
70
60ara
40
1
1
20
Spain
Spain
Switzerland
Cantabria RNCRiano
1973-90
(n = 1,017)
-
-
1974-84
(n = 87)
Poland
1854-1901
(n = 159)
- - ---
--
Slovenia
Carpathiansouaidecore
Grison
-
1987-91
(n = 433)
area 1995
(n = 72)
Italy
Abruzzo
1980-88
(n = 605)
Bulgaria
1975-83
(n = 1,213)
France
Pyrenees
1958-91
(n = 3,414)
Austria
1990-95
(n = 208)
Slovakia
1986
(n = 660)
- - -
Fig. 3. Composition of livestock killedby bears by region withineach country or region (Spain: Purroyet al. 1988, Garcia-Gaona
1997; Switzerland:Metz1990; Poland: Bobek et al. 1993; Slovenia: Ministryof Agricultureand Forestry, 1995, annual livestock
damage statistics, Ljubljana,Slovenia; Italy:Fico et al. 1993; Bulgaria:Genov and Wanev1992; France:Bouvierand Arthur1995;
Austria:Rauerand Gutleb 1997; Slovakia: Helland Bevilaqua 1988).
Presently,absolutenumbersof livestock losses causedby
wolves are small. But with an increasing wolf population, damages have to be expected to be at least as high
as losses by bears.
Lynxareminorpredatorson livestock,includingsheep.
Inexpensiveprotectionmeasuresagainst lynx should be
furthertested (e.g. protectioncollars, deterringcollars).
All other countriesthat plan to re-establishbear or wolf
populationsshould learn from the Norwegian situation:
if lynx are causing serious damage to livestock already,
problemswill greatly increasewith the re-establishment
of bears or wolves. There is no example in Europe of
extensive sheepfarmingwith low losses andviable populations of bears and wolves on the same range.
Experiencesfrom countrieswith thrivingpopulations
of large carnivores show that livestock grazing is possible on predatorrangegiven thatefficient guardingtechniques are applied. Some losses will occur, however. In
Norway conditions for re-establishmentof large predators are actuallygood: humanpopulationdensity is very
low comparedto other Europeancountries,forest cover
is about average (Table 1), and the naturalprey base is
moderatefor lynx and high for wolves and bears.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was administeredby the Norwegian Institute of NatureResearch(NINA) and fundedby the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management and the
Norwegian Departmentof Agriculture.I would like to
thankJ. Linnell, J. Swenson, and E Knauerfor the many
discussions and for valuable comments concerning the
manuscript,I. StorchandJ. Swenson for correctingsome
of the worst English mistakes,C. Stanisafor translating
and editing the damagedatafor Slovenia, and especially
the many cooperativecolleagues that providedvaluable
information: M. Adamic, K. Bevanger, U. and C.
Breitenmoser,L. Bufka, S. Capt, J. Cerveney,S. Findo,
R. Gula, B. Gutleb, D. Huber,T. Huber,O. Ionescu, S.
Klenzendorf,F. Knauer,B. Krze,A. Lampe,B. Lequette,
J. Linnell, P. Molinari, J. Naves, H. Okarma, C.
Promberger,G. Rauer,H. Roth, A. Simonic, J. Swenson,
E. Tzingarska, J.M. Vandel, and P. Wabakken.I also
thank J. Swenson, H. Reynolds, and an anonymousreferee for reviewing this paper.
LITERATURE
CITED
ANDJ.D. LINNELL.1996. Carnivores
AANES,R., J.E. SWENSON,
and sheep farmingin Norway. 1. Loss of sheep due to large
carnivoredepredation;a presentationof the magnitudeof
loss based on informationfrom sheep farmers.Norwegian
Instituteof NatureResearch,Oppdragsmelding,434:1-46.
M. 1997.Expandingbrownbearpopulationof Slovenia
ADAMIC,
andcurrentproblemsof its management.Journalof Wildlife
Research 1:297-300.
BLANCO,J.C., S. REIG, AND L. CUESTA. 1992. Distribution,status
andconservationproblemsof the wolf Canis lupusin Spain.
Biological Conservation60:73-80.
Z. KWIATKOWSKI,
A. LESNIAK,AND
BOBEK, B., K. PERZANOWSKI,
B. SEREMET.
1993. Economic aspectof brownbearand wolf
predation in southeastern Poland. Pages 373-375 in
Proceedings of the International Wildlife Management
Congress, San Jose, Costa Rica. The Wildlife Society,
Bethesda, Maryland,USA.
LARGECARNIVORE
DEPREDATION
INEUROPE* Kaczensky
69
2500 --
Norway
2000 -|
1500o
o 1000E3
500 .
Sweden
oi
0
r
. .
200
400
600
800
*
1000
1200
Estimated bear population
Fig. 4. Correlationof estimated bear population and number of livestock (sheep) killed annually in Europe, 1973-95.
1995. Monitoring techniques of small bear
populations:application in the Pyrenees mountains. Pages
571-581 in F. Bourliere, V. Barre, J.J. Camerra, V.
Herrenschmidt,F. Moutou,C. Servheen,S. Stuart,andM.C.
Saint Girons, scientific committee. Proceedings on the
management and restoration of small and relictual bear
populations.French Museum of NaturalHistory, Grenoble
and Ministry of Environment,Paris, France.
AND P. WABAKKEN.1994. The
BOEKKEN,B.T., K. ELGMORK,
CAMERRA, J.J.
Vassfaretbrown bear population central-south Norway no
longerdetectable.InternationalConferenceof BearResearch
and Management9(1):179-186.
L. 1982. Wolf managementin intensively used areas
BOITANI,
of Italy.Pages 158-172 in EH. Harringtonand P.C.Paquet,
editors.Wolves of the world.Noyes Publication,ParkRidge,
New Jersey,USA.
. 1992. Wolf research and conservation in Italy.
Biological Conservation61:125-132.
1993. Wolves in Italy: critical issues for
, ANDP. CIUCCI.
their conservation. Pages 75-90 in C. Prombergerand W.
Schr6der,editors. Proceedings of a workshop on wolves in
Europe.EuropeanWolf Network, Linderhof,Germany.
G. 1995. The centralItalybearpopulation:An outline
BOSCAGLI,
of interventionsto save them.Pages 532-539 in E Bourliere,
V. Barre, J.J. Camerra,V. Herrenschmidt,F. Moutou, C.
Servheen, S. Stuart and M.C. Saint Girons, scientific
committee.Proceedingson the managementand restoration
of small and relictualbear populations.French Museum of
Natural History, Grenoble and Ministry of Environment,
Paris, France.
Bilan d'intervention sur un ours a probleme dans les
Pyrenees Atlantiques. Pages 132-145 in F. Bourliere, V.
Barre, J.J. Camerra, V. Herrenschmidt, F. Moutou, C.
Servheen, S. Stuart, and M.C. Saint Girons, scientific
committee.Proceedingson the managementand restoration
of small and relictual bear populations.French Museum of
Natural History, Grenoble and Ministry of Environment,
Paris, France. (In French.)
CLEVENGER,A.P. 1993. Sign surveys as an important tool in
carnivoreconservationresearchandmanagementprograms.
Pages 36-46 in Proceedings of a Seminar on management
of small populations of threatened mammals. Council of
Europe, Sofia, Bulgaria.
BOUVIER,M. ANDC.P. ARTHUR.1995. Protection et indemnisation
des degats d'ours aux troupeaux domestiques dans les
Pyrenees occidentales: fonctionnement, importance
economique et role dans la protectionde l'ours. Pages 510521 in F. Bourliere, V. Barre, J.J. Camerra, V.
Herrenschmidt,F Moutou,C. Servheen,S. Stuart,andM.C.
Saint Girons, scientific committee. Proceedings on the
management and restoration of small and relictual bear
populations.French Museum of NaturalHistory, Grenoble
and Ministry of Environment,Paris, France. (In French.)
BREITENMOSER,U., C. BREITENMOSER-WORSTEN,AND S. CAPT.
1998. Re-introductionand present status of the lynx (Lynx
lynx) in Switzerland.Hysterix 10:17-30.
, R. SALINAS, J.P. LARRAS,P. MIGOT,ANDP. STAHL.1995.
ANDA. HARTASANCHEZ.
1994. Brown bear
, M.A. CAMPOS
Ursus arctos predation on livestock in the Cantabrian
Mountains, Spain. Acta Theriologica 39:267-278.
1996. Wildlife predation
COZZA,K., R. FIco, ANDL. BATTISTINI.
on domestic livestock in central Italy: A management
perspective. Journalof Wildlife Research 1(3):260-262.
DIRECTORATE
FORNATUREMANAGEMENT.
1996. Forebyggende
tiltak mot rovviltskaderi landbruket.Internal report 1-60
of the Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim,
Norway. (In Norwegian.)
EIBERLE,K. 1972. Lebensweise und Bedeutung des Luchses in
der Kulturlandschaft. Paul Parey, Hamburg and Berlin,
Germany.(In German.)
70
Ursus 11:1999
FERNANDEZ,
A., J.M. FERNANDEZ,ANDG. PALOMERO.1990. El lobo
en Cantabria.Pages 33-43 in J.C. Blanco, L. Cuesta, and
S. Reig, editors.El lobo en Espana.Colecion Tecnica,Scona
Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish.)
ANDA. GIOVANNINI.1993. The impact of
FIco, R., G. MOROSETTI
predatorson livestock in the Abruzzoregion of Italy.Revue
scientifique et techniquedes Epizooties 12:39-50.
Wildlife Society, Linderhof,Germany.
ANDB.M. STEELE.
KENDALL,K.C., L.H. METZGAR,D.A. PATTERSON,
1992. Power of sign surveys to monitorpopulationtrends.
Ecological Applications2:422430.
LEQUETTE,
B., M.L. POULLE,T. DAHIER, AND T. HOUARD. 1996.
The wolf comes back to France!MercantourNationalPark,
France.
GARCiA-GAONA,J. 1997. Damages attributed to the brown bear
LINNELL,J.D.C., M.E. SMITH, J. ODDEN, AND J. SWENSON. 1996.
in Spain:The case of Asturias.InternationalConferenceof
Bear Research and Management9(2):97-105
ANDE. RoY. 1993. Danos del oso en la cordillera
cantabrica.Pages 289-307 in J. Naves and G. Palomero,
editors. El oso pardo en Espana.InstitutoNational para la
Conservationde la Naturaleza,Madrid,Spain. (In Spanish).
GARSHELIS,D.L. 1989. Nuisance bear activity and management
in Minnesota.Pages 169-180 in P.A.GrayandP.L.Clarkson,
technical coordinators.Bear-people conflicts. Proceedings
of a symposium on management strategies. Northwest
Territories Department of Renewable Resources,
Yellowknife, Canada.
Strategiesfor the reductionof carnivore-livestockconflicts:
a review. Norwegian Institute of Nature Research
Oppdragsmelding443:1-118.
MARTY, P. 1996. Kleinviehaltung in der SchweizSituationsanalyse im Hinblick auf die Rtickkehr von
GroBraubtieren.
WWF Switzerland,Morges, Switzerland.
(In German.)
A. BRANGI,AND
C. MATrEUCCI.
1991.Habitat
MERIGGI,
A., P.ROSA,
use and diet of the wolf in northernItaly.Acta Theriologica
36:141-151.
METZ,C. 1990. Der Bar in Graubiinden.Dissentina Verlag,
Dissentis, Switzerland.(In German.)
NASS, R.D., G. LYNCH, AND J. THEADE. 1984. Circumstances
associatedwith predationrates on sheep and goats. Journal
of Range Management37:423-426.
NEDELEC,L., C.P. ARTHUR, AND D. CHAUMEIL.1995. Evolution
spatio-temporelleet caracteristiquesecoethologiques des
attaques d'ours sur betail domestique dans les Pyrenees
occidentales francais de 1968-1991. Pages 338-363 in F.
Bourliere, V. Barre, J.J. Camerra, V. Herrenschmidt,F.
Moutou, C. Servheen, S. Stuart, and M.C. Saint Girons,
scientific committee. Proceedingson the managementand
restorationof small and relictualbear populations.French
Museum of Natural History, Grenoble and Ministry of
Environment,Paris, France. (In French.)
1987. Der Braunbar (Ursus arctos
GENOV,P.W., ANDR. GANCEV.
L. 1758) in Bulgarien-Verbreitung, Anzahl, Schaden.
Zeitschriftfur Jagdwissenschaft33:145-153. (In German.)
AND V. KOSTAVA. 1993. Untersuchungen zur
zahlenmai3igenStarke des Wolfes und seiner Einwirkung
auf die Haustierbestande in Bulgarien. Zeitschrift fir
Jagdwissenschaft39:217-223. (In German.)
, AND J.I. WANEV. 1992. Berichte iiber Angriffe des
Braunbaren (Ursus arctos L.) auf Haustiere und
Bienenvolkerin Bulgarien.Zeitschriftfir Jagdwissenschaft
38:1-9. (In German.)
HELL,P. 1993. Currentsituationand perspectives of the wolf
in Czechoslovakia.Pages 37-42 in C. Prombergerand W.
Schr6der,editors.Proceedingsof a workshopon wolves in
Europe.EuropeanWolf Network, Linderhof,Germany.
1995. BiometrieundBewirtschaftungderPopulationen
des Braunbarenim Slowakischen Teil der Westkarpaten.
Pages 143-153 in F. Bourliere,V. Barre, J. J. Camerra,V.
Herrenschmidt,F. Moutou,C. Servheen,S. Stuart,andM.C.
Saint Girons, scientific committee. Proceedings on the
management and restoration of small and relictual bear
populations.FrenchMuseum of NaturalHistory,Grenoble
and Ministryof Environment,Paris, France. (In German.)
AND F. BEVILAQUA. 1988. Das Zusammenleben
des
Menschen mit dem Braunbaren (Ursus arctos) in den
Westkarpaten.Zeitschriftfir Jagdwissenschaft34:153-163.
(In German.)
HUBER, D., AND A. FRKOVIC.1993. Brown bear managementin
Croatia. Pages 287-291 in Proceedings of the XXI
InternationalUnion of GameBiologists. InternationalUnion
of Game Biologists (IUGB), Halifax, Canada.
ANDS. MORIC. 1989. Brown bear damage in Yugoslavia.
Pages 197-202 in S. Valentincic,editor.Zbornikradova,3.
Simpozijuma"Savremenipravci uzgoja divljaci",Zagreb,
Croatia.(In Croatianwith English abstract.)
NOWELL, K., AND P. JACKSON. 1996. Wild cats-status
survey
and conservation action plan. InternationalUnion for the
Conservationof Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland.
PROMBERGER,
C., AND D. HOFER. 1994. Ein Managementplan fur
Wolfe in Brandenburg. Report for the Ministerium fur
Umwelt, NaturundRaumordnungdes LandesBrandenburg,
MunichWildlifeSociety,Linderhof,Germany.(In German.)
ANDM.S. BURUAGA.1988.
L. COSTA
PURROY,
FJ., A.P. CLEVENGER,
Demografiade los grandesmamiferos(jabali,corzo, lobo y
oso) de la Reserva National de Caza de Riano: Analisis de
la predacione incidencia en la ganaderia.Pages 375-387
in Biologia Ambiental, Il Congreso Mundial Vasco. (In
Spanish.)
RAUER, G., AND B. GUTLEB. 1997. Der Braunbir in Osterreich.
Monographie88, Umweltbundesamt,Vienna, Austria. (In
German.)
1997. Is it possible
ANDE. ROSKRAFT.
J.T.,J.E. SWENSON,
SAGOR,
to reestablish a reproducing brown bear population in
Norway and concurrentlylimit the losses of free-ranging
sheep? Biological Conservation81:91-95.
1998.
ANDP. WABAKKEN.
SWENSON,
J.E., F. SANDEGREN,A. JARVALL,
HUBER, T., AND P. KACZENSKY.1998. The situation of the lynx
Living with success:Researchneedsfor an expandingbrown
bear population.Ursus 10:17-23
(Lynxlynx) in Austria. Hysterix 10:43-54.
P. 1996.Largecarnivore-livestockconflicts.Munich
KACZENSKY,
, P. WABAKKEN,F. SANDEGREN,A. BJARVALL,R. FRANZEN,
AND A. SODERBERG.1995. The near extinction and recovery
LARGECARNIVORE
DEPREDATION
INEUROPE* Kaczensky
of brown bear in Scandinavia in relation to the bear
management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife
Biology 1:11-25
VANDEL, J.M., AND P. STAHL. 1993. Predation du lynx sur le
cheptel domestiquedans le Massif du Jura.Pages 76-78 in
proceedings of the seminar: Management of small
populations of threatenedmammals, Council of Europe,
Sofia, Bulgaria. (In French.)
ANDP. MIGOT.1992. Predation du lynx sur le
, P. STAHL,
cheptel domestiquedans le massif du Jura.Bilan de l'anne
1990 et analysedes mesuresde preventiondes degats.Office
National de la Chasse, Bulletin Mensuel 166:28-34. (In
French.)
AND V. URIOS. 1993. The Iberianwolf
VILA, C., J. CASTROVIEJO,
in Spain.Pages 104-109 in C. PrombergerandW. Schroder,
editors. Proceedings of a workshop on wolves in Europe.
71
EuropeanWolf Network, Linderhof,Germany.
WABAKKEN,P., AND E. MAARTMANN.1994. Final report from the
brown bear-domestic sheep project in Hedmark County
1990-93. Norwegian Institute of Nature Research, report
58:1-49. (In Norwegian with English summary.)
WICK,P. 1995.Minimizingbear-sheepconflictsthroughherding
techniques. Pages 367-373 in F. Bourliere, V. Barre, J.J.
Camerra,V. Herrenschmidt,F. Moutou, C. Servheen, S.
Stuart, and M.C. Saint Girons, scientific commitee.
Proceedings on the managementand restorationof small
and relictualbear populations.FrenchMuseum of Natural
History, Grenoble and Ministry of Environment, Paris,
France.
ZIMEN,E. 1988. Der Wolf. Verein zum Schutz der Bergwelt
53:115-149. (In German.)