Factors affecting brown bear habituation to humans: a GPS

University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Vena pot 83, SI-1000 Ljubljana

FACTORS AFFECTING BROWN BEAR HABITUATION

TO HUMANS: A GPS TELEMETRY STUDY

FINAL REPORT summary for users

Klemen JERINA, Miha KROFEL, Matija STERGAR, Uro VIDEMEK

Ljubljana, April 2012

Title: Factors affecting brown bear habituation to humans: a GPS telemetry study: inal report summary for users.Funder: The Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, the Slovenian Environment Agency, Vojkova 1b, 1000 Ljubljana, Project no.: 2523-08-100547Authors: Klemen Jerina, Miha Krofel, Matija Stergar, Uro Videmek Page design: Klemen JerinaPhotographs: Miha KrofelPublisher: University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources Print: Birograika BORI d.o.o., Linhartova 1, LjubljanaCopies: 300

CIP - Kataloni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjinica, Ljubljana

599.742.21(497.4)

FACTORS affecting brown bear habituation to humans : a GPS telemetry study : inal report - summary for users / Klemen Jerina ... [et al.] ; [photographs Miha Krofel]. - Ljubljana : Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, 2012

ISBN 978-961-6020-63-3 1. Jerina, Klemen 261506816

UniversityofLjubljana,BiotechnicalFaculty,DepartmentofForestryandRenewableForestResources,Venapot83,SI1000Ljubljana,Slovenia

KlemenJERINA,MihaKROFEL,MatijaSTERGAR,UroVIDEMEK

FACTORSAFFECTINGBROWNBEARHABITUATIONTOHUMANS:AGPSTELEMETRYSTUDY

FINALREPORTsummaryforusers

Fundingforresearchprovidedby:

TheRepublicofSlovenia,MinistryoftheEnvironmentandSpatialPlanning,theSlovenianEnvironmentAgency,Vojkova1b,1000Ljubljana,Slovenia

Ljubljana,April2012

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Wewould like toexpressour sinceregratitude to several colleaguesand institutionswithoutwhosecooperationandhelpthisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible:MarkoJonozovi,AntonMarini,AljoaBeljan,Tamaraehovin,DanijelBorkovi,KlaraJarni,Irena Kavi, Janja Matii, Nadja Medveek, Alja Rijavec, Matija pacapan andmembersofseveralhuntingclubsandprofessionalhuntersofSloveniaForestService:LDBegunje, LD Igavas, LDKozlek, LDKrka, LDLokaprirnomlju, LDMartinKrpanNovavas,LDRakitna,LDRibnica,LDSenoee,LDStaritrgLo,LDTaborZagorje,LDTokoelo,LDVelikeLae,LPNJelen,LPNLjubljanskivrh,LPNMedved,LPNSnenikKoevskaReka,andLPNitnagora.WearealsogratefultoJanNagelforimprovingtheEnglishinthissummary.

FinancialsupportforthisstudywasprovidedbytheSlovenianEnvironmentAgencyattheMinistryoftheEnvironmentandSpatialPlanning(contractno.252308100547).

Authors Ljubljana,April2012

F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g b r ow n b e a r h a b i t u a t i o n t o h um a n s : a G P S t e l em e t r y s t u d y

1

This summary presents the main results of the research project entitled Factorsaffectingbrownbearhabituationtohumans:aGPStelemetrystudyandkeypointsofthemanagement recommendations prepared on the basis of these results and otherstudiesinSloveniaandabroad.Detailedmanagementrecommendationstogetherwithallresultsandtheirinterpretation,adescriptionofthemethodsused,andanextensivereviewofpreviousstudiesonhumanbearconflictsandpossiblesolutionscanbefoundin the full version of the final report,which is available in the Slovenian language atwww.medvedi.si.

INTRODUCTIONANDRESEARCHGOALS

Large carnivores are characterized by their large body size and the large spatialrequirements needed to satisfy their energetic needs. Consequently, in humandominated landscapes, such as in Slovenia, large carnivores frequently come intocontact with the people with whom they are forced to coexist. In such areas themanagementoflargecarnivoresisachallengingandcomplextask.Forspecieslikethebrown bear (Ursus arctos), which causes frequent property damage, competes withpeople for natural resources, and, in rare cases, even threatens human life,conservationinlargepartdependsonthetoleranceofpeople.

Thewilloflocalpeopletotoleratebearshasagreatdealtodowiththebehaviourofthebears with which they coexist. Often just a few negative experiences with a singleanimalcanconsiderablydeterioratepeoplesattitudetowardsbears.Forthisreason,itis importanttohaveagoodunderstandingofthebehaviouralcharacteristicsofbearslivinginhumandominatedlandscapesandfactorsthataffectthisbehaviour,especiallyfactors affecting habituation to people. Understanding the causes of humanbearconflictsisthefirstandcrucialsteptotheirresolution.Onlywithagoodunderstandingofthefactorsthataffecttheoccurrenceofconflictsisitpossibletoproposeguidelinesforsoundmanagementthatwilleffectivelypreventfurtherconflicts.Thisisoneofthemaingoalsofthisstudyandoneoftheprioritiesforfuturebearconservation.

Using GPS telemetry and field inspections of bear GPS locations, we were able tocomprehensively study the space use of the Slovenian brown bear.We gave specialattention to the factors that could be important for the occurrence of humanbearconflicts.Weattemptedtodeterminewhy,when,andhowfrequentlybearsapproachhumansettlementsandhowthisisaffectedbylandscapecharacteristics(e.g.distanceof a settlement to thenearest forest edge).We studied the effects of thepresenceof


2

feedingsitesandotherintentionalaswellasunintentionalanthropogenicfoodsourceson the space use of bears.We also attempted to document individual differences inbearbehaviour,e.g.cansomeofthebearsinSloveniabedesignatedasproblembearsoristhebehaviourofdifferentbearsmoreorlesssimilar?Thisquestionisespeciallyrelevantregardingtheuseofmanagementremovalsasaconflictmitigationmeasure.

Theresultsof thisstudywerethenused incombinationwithexperiences fromothercountries to prepare guidelines andmanagement recommendations for the effectivepreventionofhumanbearconflictsinSlovenia.

DATACOLLECTION

BEARCAPTURE

Between13.10.2008and4.5.2009,we capturedbearswith theuseofAldrich snaresand the freeranging technique. An additional three bears were later capturedcoincidentally inotherprojectsthat intendedtocaptureEurasian lynxandwildboar.ThebearcaptureplanwasdesignedsothatbearswereequippedwithGPStelemetrycollarsinallregionswithapermanentbearpresenceandthenumberofcollaredbearsinagivenregioncorrespondedtotherelativebeardensitiesinthatregion.BearswerecapturedthroughouttheirdistributionrangeinSlovenia,includingareaswithhighandlowratesofreportedhumanbearconflicts.Thus,wewereabletoobtaindatafromallcombinations of areas with high and low conflict rates throughout the bear densitygradient. This was important for the representativeness of the results and thestatisticalpoweroftheanalyses.

During this project we captured 26 bears in 20 localities. Twentyone bears wereequippedwithtelemetrycollars(fiveweretooyoungforcollaring).Amongthese,ninewerecapturedwiththeuseofAldrichsnares(capturesuccessrateofonebearper17nights)and11bythefreerangingtechnique(onebearpereightnights).Onebearwascapturedinaboxtrapforlynxandtwoinaboxtrapforwildboar.ThreebearswerecapturedduringinterventionbytheSlovenianBearEmergencyTeam.

Weadditionally included telemetrydata from12bears captured inprevious studies,which took place in Slovenia between 2005 and 2008 and were carried out by theForest Conservation and Wildlife Ecology Research Group at the Department of


3

ForestryandRenewableForestResourcesat theBiotechnicalFaculty.Thus,a totalof33bearswereincludedintheanalyses(Fig.1).

Figure 1: Locations where bears were captured in this project (red) and previousprojects(yellow).BluearrowsrepresenttranslocationsofcollaredbearscarriedoutbytheSlovenianBearEmergencyTeam.

PROGRAMMINGOFTELEMETRYCOLLARS

Telemetry collarswere scheduled to receive aGPS fix everyhour (24 locations/day)continuously throughout the year. For someof the bears fromprevious projects, theinterval between fix attemptswas different for some of the time duringmonitoring.Four collars didnot dropoff after one year, as theywere supposed to, andwere rescheduledafterwardstoreceiveaGPSfixonceevery23hours.Iftherewasnorecordedactivity formore than24hours, the collar sent amortality signal indicating that thecollarhaddroppedoffortheanimalhaddied.GPSdatawasregularly(4timesperday,if the GSM network was available) sent as text messages via the GSM network to aterminalatouroffice.Dataonbearactivityandtemperatureswasperiodically(every13months)downloadedremotelyinthefieldviaVHForUHFsignalordirectlyfromthecollarsaftertheywererecovered.


4

CAPTUREDBEARS

Wemonitored14 femalesand19males.Elevenof the femaleswereaccompaniedbyoffspringduringatleastpartofthemonitoring.Onewasnotaccompaniedbycubs,andwe were not able to confirm whether cubs were present for the other two. Wemonitoredtenyoungermales(4years).Themeanestimatedageofthebearsinthisstudywas6.6years(median:4.5years;range2.520years). Sex and age structure was comparable with that of the bear population inSlovenia (excluding cubs, which we did not monitor), thus the bears in this studycomprisedarepresentativesample.

Figure2:GPS locationsobtained from33bearsequippedwith telemetrycollars.Eachcollarcorrespondstoadifferentbear.

TELEMETRYDATA

Using telemetry we collected a total of 93,733 GPS locations of bears. Among them,15,617were collected in previous studies and 78,116were collected in this project(Fig. 2).MeanGPS fix success ratewas74.6%.Because someof the collarswerenotrecoveredaftertheydroppedoff,wewereabletoobtainactivityandtemperaturedataforonly22bears.Intotalweobtained1,806,350activityrecordsandthesamenumberof temperature records.Eachbearwasmonitored for anaverage of257days (range201040days).Thebearsmovedatotalof37,205kmduringthemonitoringperiod.


5

Usinglogicalfiltersandvisualcontrol,wescannedalllocationsandremovedthosewithobvious errors. An additional 10,950 locations were added to the original set tocompensate for those that were missed because collars went into hibernation andrecordingstoppedwhenabeardidnotmoveformorethanfourhours. Insuchcasesthe new locations had the same coordinates as the last known location,which in allcases indicated the location of a resting bear. The total set was thus enlarged to104,683locations.SeveralfactorscanaffecttheGPSfixsuccessrate,e.g.environmentalcharacteristics, animal activity (and associatedposition of theGPS receiver), and thetypeofcollar.WeusedlogisticregressionandGIStoolsandappliedinversevaluesofthe estimated probabilities of GPS fix success to remove systematic errors and biasfromrecordedGPSlocations.Afterbiaswasremovedusingthisprocedure,thedatasetwasdecreasedtoapproximately85,000GPSlocationsthatwerethenusedinallfurtheranalyses.

DATACOLLECTEDDURINGFIELDINSPECTIONS

In order to determine the microhabitat selection of bears, and the effects ofanthropogenicfoodonbearhabitatuseinparticular,wecarriedoutfieldinspectionsat450oftheGPSlocationsofmonitoredbears(severalmicrohabitatcharacteristicsthatcould not be gained from the GIS data were recorded, including the presence ofdifferent food sources, and cover availability). In the same area, we also randomlyselected450control locations inwhichbearsmayormaynothavebeenpresentandsurveyedthemwith thesameprocedureas thatusedatbear locations.Both typesoflocations were selected inside the same GIS strata that were predetermined withrespect to three environmental factors indicating a certain level of habituation topeople: distance to the nearest house, presence of forest cover, and distance to thenearestmajorroad.

RESULTS

The large amountof data collected through telemetryof 33bears and inspectionsofGPSlocationsinthefieldenabledustocarryoutadetailedanalysisofseveralaspectsof the biology and ecology of brown bears in Slovenia, resulting in a betterunderstandingofhumanbearconflictsinthisregion.


6

BEARMOVEMENT

Data on bearmovement is useful for identifying the potential contact area betweenbears and people, for understanding humanbear conflicts, and consequently, forproposing suitable management recommendations. Mean distance that bears movedperhourwas248m(range09783m).This corresponds toameandailymovementdistanceof5,975m(sumofmeanhourdistances).Amongmonitoredbears,thehighestmovementratewasobservedforRonik,ayoungmalethatmovedanaverageof15kmperday(Fig.3).Incontrast,someoftheotherbearsmovedlessthan1kmperdayonaverage.

Weobserved twopeaks indailymovement.The firstoccurredbetween4and5a.m.,andthesecondwasbetween7and8p.m.(bothpeakswerelinkedtolightconditions,so the exact time changed somewhat between the seasons). Bears moved the leastduringmidday(Fig.4),mostlikelytoavoidhumancontact(negativesynchronizationoftheiractivitywithactivityperiodsofhumans).Bearmovementdifferedthroughouttheseasons.Thehighestmovementratewasobserved in Juneandthe lowest in January.Onaverage,malesmovedmore (6.8km/day) than females (3.5km/day).The lowestmovementrateswereobserved in femaleswithcubsof theyear: 199m/hcomparedwith248m/h,theaverageforallmonitoredbears.Wealsonoticedhighermovementratesamongproblematicbears;however,thiscouldbepartlyexplainedbythefactthattheyweremonitoredaftertranslocation.

BEARACTIVITY

Bearswereactive35%ofthetimeonaverage.Mostbearsweremainlyactiveatnightand at dusk, i.e. periods during which the probability of encountering humans waslowest.Supportthatthispatternislikelylinkedtohumanactivitycomesfromdataonbears thathad lost their fearofhumans(e.g.Ronik).Thesebearswereconsiderablymore diurnal than other bears. Similar tomovement rates, the two peaks in activitycorresponded to sunrise (5 a.m. on average) and sunset (7 p.m. on average), withhigher values for the evening peak in activity. The lowest activity was recorded atmidday (1p.m.onaverage).Bearsweremost active in springand summerand leastactiveinwinter.Wealsonoticedconsiderabledifferencesamongindividualbears,e.g.the most active bear (male Bohinjc) was 19timesmore active than the least activeindividual(femaleiva).Onaverage,maleswere30%moreactivethanfemales,whichismainlyduetotheirhigheractivityinwintertime(shorterdenningperiod).


7

Figure3:ThemovementofRonik,amalewhocovered649kmduring1.5monthsofmonitoring,beforebeingpoachedinAustria.

Figure4:Changesinbearactivityduringtheday.


8

HOMERANGESIZE

Thehomerangesizeofindividualbearsisabasicbiologicalparameterthatenablesusto understand the life strategy of the species. It is also important for managementbecause conflictmitigationmeasures vary considerably depending onwhether homerangesize isrelativelysmallcomparedto thesizeofavailable forestpatcheswithnohumansettlementsorwhethereachindividualcoversanarealargeenoughtoincludeareaswithregularhumanpresenceaswasobservedinourcase.

Mean bear home range size in Sloveniawas estimated at 350 km2 (using the 100%minimal convexpolygonmethod),which is comparablewith thehomerange sizesofbearsfromotherpopulationsexistinginsimilarenvironments.Onaverage,malehomerangesizewas4timeslargerthanthatoffemales.Thelargesthomerangeof3,144km2wasobserved for themaleRonik.Ourdata indicated that from theperspective of abear even the largest forest patches in Slovenia are relatively small (e.g., the largestSlovenianforestcomplexontheSnenikplateauandJavnornikicoversapproximately500km2,which iseven less than thehomerangeof somebears).Therefore, it isnotsurprising that the home ranges of almost all monitored bears also included somehumansettlements.Thisisoneofthekeyfactsforbearmanagement,asitshowsthatinSloveniawedonothaveregionsavailablewherebearscanliveinisolationfrompeople.BrownbearswillsurviveinSloveniaonlyifpeoplearewilling(andunderstandhow)tocoexistwiththem.

Monthlyhomeranges(apartfromwinter)rangedfrom37km2inOctoberto84km2inMay on average. Home range size also depended on bear category (sex, age,reproduction status) and correlated negatively with local bear densities. Anotherimportantparameterwasdistancetothefeedingsiteinareaswithahigherdensityoffeedingsites,bearshadsmallerhomeranges.

AlmosthalfofallbearscapturedinSloveniaalsocrossedintoCroatia.Thisindicatestheimportanceof transboundary cooperation inbrownbearmanagement in this region.Large home range sizes and the long distances bears can travel in a relatively shortperiod of time also show that careful consideration is needed when prescribingmanagementremovalsofpotentialproblembearsandwiththe interpretationofdatafrombearmonitoring.Becauseindividualbearscanmoveaconsiderabledistanceinashorttime,twokindsofproblemscanoccur.First,thesamebearcancauseconflictsatlocations that are far apart, which can lead to the wrong impression that severalproblem bears are present at the same time. A good example of this was Ronik, a


9

problembear that caused conflicts in areas throughout Slovenia, includingKoevska,Bloke, Raktina, Grosuplje, Zasavje, Vransko, and Koroka. If this bear had not beenequippedwith a telemetry collar, the conclusionwould likely havebeen that severalproblembearswerepresent at the same time.This couldhave led to the removalofseveralbears,mostofwhichwouldnothavebeenproblembears.Second,brownbearsarenot territorial and several individuals typically share the samearea.At the sametime, bears cover large areas in a short time (large monthly home ranges). It isthereforequestionablewhether the rightbear is always removedwhenmanagementremovalsareperformedawayfromthelocationoftheconflicts(e.g.atnearbyfeedingsites).

A goodunderstandingof the factors thatdeterminebearhome range sizes and theirseasonalmovements is also crucial for the correct interpretationofmonitoringdata,especially when monitoring takes place in a relatively small area and local densitymeasurementsareextrapolatedtoalargerarea.Locallyandtemporallyabundantfoodresourcescan,duringcertainperiods,attracta largenumberofbears fromthewiderarea.Asaconsequence,localbeardensitiescanincreasedramaticallyinsmallareaforashort time.Whenlocalobservationsarethengeneralizedtothe largerarea,wecancometotheerroneousconclusionthatbearnumberssuddenlyincreasedenormously.Careisneededevenwhenmonitoringisperformedatthenationallevel,sincealargepart of the population is shared with Croatia and changes in bear densities in onecountry can occur due to the seasonal movements of bears across administrativeborders.

USEOFFEEDINGSITESBYBEARS

Artificial feeding of bears is a very controversial practice that is forbidden in manycountries.However,insomecountriesitisintensivelyusedforthepurposesofhunting,ecotourism,populationmonitoring, or conflict resolution.Despitea long traditionofbearfeedinginseveralcountries,includingSlovenia,thepositiveandnegativeeffectsofthispracticearepoorlyunderstood.

Inourstudy,6.8%ofallbearlocationswererecordedonfeedingsites.Feedingsiteusedependedonseveralfactors:thetimeofday,theindividualbear,themonthoftheyear,and bear category (age, sex, reproductive status). Bears visited feeding sites mostfrequentlyintheevening(peakwasrecordedat9p.m.with16.5%ofbearlocationsatfeedingsites)andinAprilandleastoftenduringthedayandinDecember.Wenoticed


10

considerable differences between bears, with some bears present at feeding sites aslittleas1%ofthetimeandothersupto20%.Feedingsiteswereusedmostoftenbyyoungmalesandleastoftenbyfemaleswithcubsoftheyear.Onaverage,thefirstbearsto arrive at feeding sites in the evening were females with cubs, followed by lonefemalesandyoungmales,while largermalestendedtoarrivethe latestatnight.Thispattern ismost likelyaconsequenceofacombinationof theavoidanceofpeopleandthe presence of dominant bears bears prefer to visit feeding sites at night, whenpeoplearelessactive,andsubordinatebears(femalesandyoungerbears)visitfeedingsites earlier to avoid dominant bears (large males). On average, an individual bearvisitedafeedingsiteon11.8%ofallnights.Asinglebearcouldvisituptosixdifferentfeedingsitesinasinglenight;however,bearstypicallyvisitedonlyonefeedingsitepernight. On average, bears visited 4.1 feeding sites per month and used 39% of thefeedingsiteswithintheirhomeranges(range:863%).

Whenannualbear countingwas takingplaceatpermanent countingsitesat selectedfeeding sites (three times per year, between 6 p.m. and midnight), individual bearsvisitedatleastonecountingsiteon9%ofdays(toincreasesamplesizeweincluded+3daystoeachcountday).Thisrepresentsaconservativeestimateoftheprobabilitythatabearwouldberecordedduringagivencountday.Toobtainamoreaccurateestimate(whichwouldhaveprobablybeenhigher),itwouldhavebeennecessarytoincreasethefrequencyofGPSfixes.This isbecausesomeof thebearsstayedata feedingsite lessthan one hour and may not have been recorded. In contrast to the general use offeeding sites, counting sites were visitedmore frequently by females than bymalesduring the monitoring period. This is most probably because males often visitedfeedingsiteslateratnight,aftermonitoringfinished(atmidnight).

Theseresultsindicatethatcareisneededwheninterpretingmonitoringdatafrombearcounting at feeding sites, especially when attempting to estimate the absolutepopulation size and the absolute proportions of different bear categories in thepopulation. For example, such monitoring data can overestimate the proportion offemaleswithcubsinthepopulation.Wethereforerecommendthatfuturedataonbearcounting at feeding sites should be used only for monitoring relative trends in thepopulationsizeandstructureovertimeandnotforestimatingabsolutevaluesatanygiventime.

ContrarytospeculativeopinioninSlovenia,comparisonofdatafromtheperiodwhenintensivediversionary feedingofbearswith carrionwas takingplacewithdata from


11

theperiod followingthisdidnotsupport theexpectationthat bearswould ingeneralpreferfeedingsiteswithcarriontofeedingsiteswherenonanimalfeedwasavailable.Wealsodidnotdetectanyrelationshipbetweentheuseoffeedingsitesandproblembears at the level of individual bears, the month, or the week, thus it appears thatfeedingsitesarenotrelatedtotheoccurrenceofproblembears.

Our analysis of the effects of diversionary feeding showed that feeding sites have astrong influence on the space use of bears (e.g. Fig. 5). However, telemetry dataindicated that diversionary feeding did not prevent bears from approaching humansettlements.ThisisalsosupportedbythefactthatthereareahighnumberofhumanbearconflictsinSloveniadespitetheveryintensivefeedingpracticeshere.Analysisofdata from the carrion feeding period also did not show any relationship betweenfeedingwith carrion and livestock depredation. It therefore seems that diversionaryfeedingisnoteffectiveasaconflictmitigationmeasureandmayalsohaveundesirableconsequences.

Figure 5: The presence of feeding sites can considerably change bear movementpatterns. The figure shows such an examplewith locations of the female Pepca (redpoints), hermovement (blue lines), and the locations of the two feeding sites in herhomerange(yellowasterisks).


12

BEARSAPPROACHINGHUMANSETTLEMENTS

Themajority of humanbear conflicts in Slovenia refer to bears approaching humansettlements.Telemetrydataenablesustogainabetterunderstandingofthepatternsassociated with bears coming into contact with people. In general, we noticed thatbears clearly avoided human settlements, as the space use of bears considerablyincreasedwith distance to the nearest house up to about 500m. Bears approachedhouses most often around midnight (between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m.) and least oftenbetween 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Therefore, bears also tried to avoid human contactwhentheyapproachedsettlements.

We observed large differences between individual bears. The majority of bearsapproachedsettlementsveryrarelyornever,whileafewindividualscamewithinthevicinity of houses relatively frequently (Fig. 6). For example, the male Ronikapproached human settlements 12 times more often than other bears. When wecomparedtelemetrydatafromRonikscollarwithreportsofhumanbearconflicts, itbecame evident that duringmonitoring this single bearwas the cause of 40% of allreported conflicts in Slovenia (and asmuch as 71%of all reported conflicts in April2009).OurdataclearlyshowedthatintheSlovenianbearpopulationjustafewbearscause the majority of all humanbear conflicts and most of the other bears causeconflicts extremely rarely or never. We also observed that settlements wereapproached more often by bears that were at least partly habituated to humanpresence(e.g.maleRonikandfemaleBora).

Figure 6: Proportion of GPS locations located at different intervals of distance to the nearesthouseforindividualbears.


13

HABITATMODELFORBROWNBEARINSLOVENIA

Figure 7: Habitat model potential bear densities in Slovenia according toenvironmentalfactors(above)andcurrentbeardensitiesinSlovenia(below).


14

Habitat modelling was used to study environmental factors that affect the spatialdistributionofbearsandtoidentifyandmapareasthataresuitableforbearsbasedonthesefactors.Suchmapscanbeusedforpredictingthefuturedynamicsinthespatialdistribution of the species. We used binary logistic regression and included severalenvironmentalfactorsthatcouldinfluencehabitatsuitability,suchastheamountandavailability of food, cover availability, and human disturbance. The final modelpredictedthathabitatsuitabilityincreaseswithgreaterforestcoveronthelargerscale,smallerdistancetothenearestfeedingsite,greaterdistance tothenearesthouse,thepresence of the forest at the location, smaller distance to the forest edge (fromnonforestareastowardstheforest),greatersizeoftheforestpatch,andgreaterdistancetothe closestmain road. Comparisonbetweenpotentially suitable bear habitat and thecurrentbearrange inSlovenia(Fig.7) indicates thatmostof thesuitableunoccupiedareas are located in the northern part of the country (Pohorje, Karavanke, KamnikSavinjaAlps,andJulianAlps).

EFFECTSOFANTHROPOGENICFOODSOURCESONBEARPRESENCE

Studies fromothercountries indicate thatanthropogenic foodsourcesareamongthemost important causes of humanbear conflicts. We set out to determine theimportanceofsuchfoodsourcesforbearsinSlovenia.Theresultsfromthissectionarebasedonfieldinspectionsof450GPSbearlocationsand450randomlyselectedcontrollocations in the same areas. We found anthropogenic food sources in 37% of bearlocations, significantly more than that found in the control locations. The largestdifferencebetweenbearandcontrollocationswasobservedinthepresenceoffeedingsites and scattered garbage. Anthropogenic food sources found at bear locationsoutsidefeedingsitesincludedcarrion(slaughterremains),garbagebins,garbagedumpsites,scatteredgarbage,compost,andfoodleftoversatpicnicsites(Figs.8and10).

Using logistic regression, we also tested whether bear presence is influenced byinteractions between the presence of anthropogenic food andpresence of forest, thepresence of amain road, or the distance to a house. Themodel predicted that bearpresenceismorelikelywhereanthropogenicfoodispresentandthatit isaffectedbythe interaction between the presence of anthropogenic food and the distance to thenearest house. Analysis showed that in general bears avoid houses except in caseswhen there is accessible anthropogenic food near them. This is important for thepreparationofmanagementrecommendations,asithasbeenshownthatconflictsareoftencausedby theactionsofpeople.Compared tootherhabitats,bears foundmore


15

anthropogenic foodnearhousesandoutside the forest,while theeffectof roadswasnegligible.Resultsshowthatthepresenceofaccessibleanthropogenicfoodsourcesinthe vicinity of settlements is an important factor in bears approaching humansettlementsinSlovenia.Thisisinaccordancewithpreviousstudiesinothercountries.

After abear repeatedly acquires foodnearhuman settlements, it begins tomake theconnection between humans and anthropogenic food. Such rewards in the form offood further promote visits to human settlements, especially to thosewhere food isoften available. This can cause the bear to eventually lose its fear of people (bearbecomes habituated to human presence). In the final stage, such a bear becomes aproblem bear and begins approaching settlements during the daytime. This createsanxietyamongthelocalpeopleandleadstorepeatedconflicts.

Figure8:An illegal garbagedumpwith slaughter remains (partsof adeadhorseandwildboar)thatattractedGoranka,afemalebearandhercub,tothevicinityofavillageatthefootofMt.Nanosforseveraldays(seealsomaponFig.9).


16

Figure 9: GPS locations of female Goranka at the foot of Mt. Nanos. The blue arrowindicates the locationof the illegalgarbagedumpwith slaughter remainsnearoneofthevillages(seeFig.8).Theyellowlinesconnectconsecutivelocations.

Figure 10: Foodwaste on compost behind a house that was regularly visited be thefemaleBora.


17

MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS

The successful management and prevention of humanbear conflicts is a necessarycondition for the coexistence of local people and brown bears. Many years ofexperiencewithbearmanagement inSloveniahasenabledus tosuccessfullymanagethe bear population size. The removal of individual bears will likely remain animportant management measure, especially when dealing with problem bears.However, bear removals alonewill notbe enough to effectively decrease the currentlargenumberofhumanbearconflictstoanacceptablelevel.

Another measure that has been used to prevent conflicts is diversionary feeding,includingfeedingwithcarrion.Althoughstudiesontheeffectsofbearfeedingarestillongoing,preliminaryresultssuggestthatthismeasureisnoteffectiveforhumanbearconflictmitigation.Supportingthisisthelargenumberofconflictsthattakeplaceeveryyear in Slovenia despite intensive feeding practices. Therefore, new, more effectiveconflictmitigationmeasures,whichhavealreadyprovedsuccessfulinothercountries,willhavetobeusedinthefutureinordertodecreasethenumberofconflicts.

After reviewing reports on humanbear conflicts throughout the world, examiningexperienceswith different conflictmitigationmeasures, and analyzing the results ofthisstudy,itisclearthatthecauseofthemajorityofconflictsistheavailabilityofeasilyaccessible sources of anthropogenic food in the vicinity of human settlements.Consequently, preventing access to anthropogenic food, especially near humansettlements, is the key management measure to effectively reduce the number ofhumanbearconflictsandisonethatisbeingusedinseveralothercountrieswithbearpopulations.

Based on the results of this study and experiences from other countries, we havepreparedasetofrecommendationsforprioritymanagementmeasures,whichcould,inouropinion,considerablyimprovehumanbearconflictresolutioninSlovenia:

1)replaceexistinggarbagebinswithbearproofgarbagecontainersatconflicthotspots

2)carryoutswiftandharshprosecutionofthosewhoillegallydumpanimalslaughterremainsinthevicinityofhumansettlements

3) protect compost, beehives, small livestock, orchards, and other food sources thatattract bears to settlementswith the use of an electric fence of appropriate size and


18

electric charge during periods when these food sources are attractive to bears (e.g.duringthefruitingseason)

4)promotetheraisingofcattleandhorsesinsteadofsmalllivestock(sheepandgoats)inthebrownbearcoreareaifenvironmentalfactorsallowforsuchatransition

5) prohibit people from feeding bears (including cubs) directly and threaten harshprosecutionforoffenders

6) design and implement a broad educational campaign for local people in the beardistributionrangeregardingtheappropriatebehaviourofpeopleforthepreventionofhumanbear conflictswith a clearmessage about the importance of preventing bearaccesstoanthropogenicfoodsources.

InadditiontothesenewconflictmitigationmeasuresforSlovenia,werecommendthecontinuedremovalofproblembearsthatshowclearhabituationtohumanpresence.

AsDr.MihaAdamisaid:Themost importanttool forthepreventionofhumanbearconflicts isourknowledge.Wenowhaveagoodunderstandingofbears inSlovenia.The next step is to apply this knowledge in the field. In some foreign countriesmanagersbeganusingeffectivemeasurestopreventbearaccesstoanthropogenicfoodsourcesonlyafterseverallethalattacksonhumanshadalreadyoccurred.InSlovenia,wehopewewilllearnfromothersmistakesratherthanourown.

Preuevan je de javn ikov hab i tuac i j e medveda na loveka s pomo jo GPS te lemetr i j e

19

naslovnica ANGL.pdf1.pdfbrosura final.pdfnaslovne strani _2_ eng.pdf

2.pdfbrosura final.pdfBinder3.pdfnaslovne strani _2_ eng.pdf

3.pdf4.pdf5.pdf6.pdf7.pdf8.pdf9.pdf10.pdf11.pdf12.pdf13.pdf14.pdf15.pdf16.pdf17.pdf18.pdf19.pdf20.pdf21.pdfbrosura final.pdfBinder3.pdfBinder2.pdfBinder1.pdfPovzetek_za_uporabnike-KONCNA_jedro_angl1.pdf

22.pdfsredina.pdf

23.pdf

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice


















































/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false

Documents

Factors affecting brown bear habituation to humans: a GPS