| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Brown Bear - Ursus arctos | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 08:00 PM (28,284 Views) | |
| Canadianwildlife | Apr 10 2014, 01:31 PM Post #61 |
Apex Predator
  ![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)
|
Could you read my last post on the page before this one? |
 |
 
|
| Taipan | Apr 18 2014, 09:47 PM Post #62 |
Administrator
|
Can World's Rarest Bear Be Saved? Fewer than three dozen Gobi bears survive in one of the harshest places on Earth.  A female Gobi bear warily eyes the scientists who minutes before immobilized her, checked her physical condition, and attached a GPS radio collar and ear tag—all in hopes of improving her chances of survival. Douglas Chadwick Photographs and videos by Joe Riis PUBLISHED APRIL 17, 2014 The Gobi is Earth’s fifth largest desert, sprawling across half a million square miles of southern Mongolia and northern China. It sees temperatures of minus 40°F in winter and 120 in summer, and gets just two to eight inches of annual rainfall. Some years parts of the region receive no rain at all. Windstorms sweep through day and night, with gusts strong enough to send a tent sailing away over the horizon. When winds are calm, the Gobi’s immense silence can feel as overwhelming as the heat. Signs of life come as a surprise in this sun-blasted, wind-scoured landscape. Peering through binoculars, I at first see just barren rock rising in ranks of mountains. The only things that move are dust devils and the shimmering heat. The Gobi’s stark landscape appears devoid of life, but its wildlife community is surprisingly rich. Slowly, as I discover where to look, animal forms emerge: A lizard rests in the thin shade of a saxaul shrub. A saker falcon lifts off from a distant cliffside. Gerbils poke their heads from burrows. But many days pass before I finally lay eyes on the animal I crossed half a world to see: a Gobi bear, among the rarest and least known large mammals on Earth. There are perhaps no more than two or three dozen left in the wild, and none live in captivity anywhere. This male stops at an oasis to sip water, then rests nearby. Elated by our good luck and mesmerized by the sight, my companions and I watch the bear for two hours, from late afternoon to nightfall. Most bears become active toward day’s end, but this one remains oddly still. When he finally attempts to walk, his gait seems pained and slow. He must have traveled a great distance to reach water, I tell myself, and the journey might have left him exhausted and temporarily lame. In reality, the bear is dying. A week later a ranger finds his body near the same oasis. The old male had likely emerged from hibernation in poor condition at a time when food plants were just starting to grow. For those working to bolster the Gobi bear’s alarmingly low numbers, the death of even one individual underscores the urgency of their task. So too do the clear signs that boom times are at hand in Mongolia. Vast deposits of minerals, precious metals, and fossil fuels are being uncovered in the country, especially in its desert. Nearly a third of the nation’s income may soon come from a massive new copper and gold mine in the Gobi. What may one day rank as the world’s largest coal mine is under development in the desert as well. The suspected mineral wealth here is so great that industry players have taken to calling this land “Minegolia.” While storm clouds darken the Gobi bear’s horizon, there are flickers of hope. The Mongolian government declared 2013 the “Year of Protecting the Gobi Bear,” with a promise of more money for conserving the species. The Mongolian public has embraced the beleaguered bear as a national treasure, all the more precious for its rarity. Not long ago a gold-mining company sought access to protected land crucial to the bear’s survival. The government turned down the request, at least for now. The starchy, underground tuber of wild rhubarb is a staple of the Gobi bears’ diet. They also eat golden buttons, which appear after a rare rain. The people of southwestern Mongolia have long known of the mysterious animal they called mazaalai, but credible reports were mixed with tall tales of a shaggy, humanlike creature roaming the wildest reaches of the desert. Not until 1943 did a Russian scientist-explorer confirm for the outside world that Gobi bears actually exist. Although they belong to the species Ursus arctos, commonly known as the brown bear or grizzly, their coats are often more bronze than brown and show blazes of white on the forequarters and neck. They also tend to be smaller than most North American grizzlies, whose living conditions are plush by comparison. One genetic study suggests that the Gobi lineage is an ancient one, closer than any other to the ancestral brown bear, which first arose in Asia. Experts originally considered Gobi bears a distinct subspecies, gobiensis. However, they may turn out to be an isolated group of the subspecies isabellinus, still found in China’s Tien Shan mountains and the Himalaya. For Harry Reynolds, a wildlife biologist and an authority on Gobi bears, Latin labels aren’t what count. “No matter how they end up being classified, Gobi bears are unique,” he says. “They’re the only bear of any kind that dwells exclusively in desert habitat. By adaptation and learning, they’ve found a way to live in one of the most extreme environments on the planet.” Reynolds has been a student and admirer of bears since his teens, when he apprenticed with brothers John and Frank Craighead, the godfathers of grizzly studies. He went on to spend 33 years working for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, capturing close to 1,800 grizzlies for research and management. In recent years Reynolds and Frank Craighead’s son, Derek, director of the science and education nonprofit Craighead Beringia South, have been teaming up with Mongolian researchers to answer some basic but urgent questions about Gobi bears: How many are left? What areas are critical to their survival? Are their numbers so depleted that they should be rounded up and bred in captivity? A misguided effort to expand livestock herding in southern Mongolia during the middle of the 20th century, when the country was still part of the Soviet Union, brought more people to the Gobi, and with them more guns. Hunting and overgrazing of the desert’s marginal vegetation took a heavy toll on wildlife, and by 1980 Gobi bears had lost much of their former range and population. One positive legacy of the Soviet era is the Great Gobi Strictly Protected Area (GGSPA), a sprawling nature preserve established in 1976 and declared a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO in 1990. Today the reserve is the Gobi bear’s sole refuge. Access is allowed only by permission. Invited to lead a study here in 2005, Reynolds and a team of GGSPA rangers, along with field biologists from the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, began capturing Gobi bears and fitting them with GPS radio collars. Over the next five years the team managed to collar and track ten different animals, some of them more than once. (The collars are designed to fall off after about a year.) One unit of the GGSPA, an area labeled Gobi A, spans some 17,000 square miles. But Reynolds confirmed that most of the bears’ movements were closely bound to three minor ranges of the Altay Mountains, which make up just a quarter of Gobi A. The reason was obvious: Each of those highland areas, though separated by 40 to 60 miles of desolate desert floor, harbors several natural oases. Some of the watering holes resemble a desert wanderer’s dream—emerald havens of papyrus and poplar shading clear, spring-fed pools and streams. Others are little more than algae-clotted seeps. But even these offer enough water for a thirsty bear to drink its fill.  Map of the Gobi bear's range Spring days were gradually warming, but nights were still cold enough to freeze my water bottle when I joined Reynolds on my first expedition to Gobi A. Mornings began with hot tea followed by the roar of motorcycles as rangers left for the oases, where steel box traps had been set in hopes of capturing bears. Day after day the scouts returned with a shrug: No luck. Although the elusive bears remained invisible, we frequently came across signs of their presence—and clues to the secret of their survival. Fresh holes revealed where bears had dug up thick, starchy roots of wild rhubarb, a staple of their diet. Still-moist dung piles contained sprouts of wild onion and bunchgrass, along with a few early wildflower blossoms. Bear droppings occasionally included bits of bone and fur from unlucky gerbils and hamsters. More commonly the dung held remnants of beetles and plump wingless grasshoppers. A picture began to form of how a grizzly might carve out a niche here at the outer edge of life’s possibilities. Amgalan Luvsandambaa, at the time assistant director of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, showed me nitre bushes, currant bushes, and other shrubs that would bear berries by summer—“if,” he said, “storms bring enough rain.” “If” is the operative word when it comes to rain in the Gobi. A long, withering drought gripped the desert from 1993 to 2007, and during those years Mongolian authorities put out livestock grain at oases to supplement the bears’ dwindling food supply. The drought finally relented, but rangers continue providing the extra nourishment, though grain has sometimes been in short supply due to lack of funds. “Bears are a kind of umbrella species. You save them, you save big chunks of habitat.”—HARRY REYNOLDS, GOBI BEAR EXPERT Though at first it seemed impossible to me that any animal larger than a hamster could survive in the Gobi’s parched and pitiless landscape, I soon realized just how wrong I was. Following bear tracks, I often crossed those of foxes and wolves. Automatic cameras set up at the oases to identify bears also captured images of lynx and even snow leopards, one of the planet’s rarest cats. We met goitered gazelles on the flats most every day. Argali sheep roamed the hills, and ibex traversed canyon cliffs. Often described as a wasteland, the Gobi actually serves as a stronghold for wild species pushed to the margins by people. The majority of Mongolia’s khulan, or wild asses, inhabit nature reserves in the desert. The same is true for virtually all of Asia’s last wild, double-humped Bactrian camels. Protecting land to save Gobi bears—or any type of bear, Reynolds says—has a multiplier effect. “Bears are a kind of umbrella species. You save them, you save big chunks of habitat that benefit the rest of the wild community.”  A female called Borte, after Genghis Khan’s queen, investigates an automatic camera. When first captured in 2006, Borte weighed a healthy 165 pounds. Now she has dropped to 125, probably because of the rigors of raising cubs. At last came news that a bear had been caught in one of the box traps. Drivers fired up their Russian-made vans, and everyone, including the camp cook, piled in to jolt through canyons and over passes to the oasis. The team drugged the bear and carried it into the open. It was a male weighing 220 pounds, small as grizzlies go, but respectable for a mazaalai. Short, dark hairs ringed the bear’s eyes. The rest of his outer coat was shaggy and of a hue that earned him the name Altan, Mongolian for “golden.” Altan’s fine underfur was brilliant white and remarkably thick. “Winters are long here, and temperatures sink far below zero,” explained Mike Proctor, a Canadian bear expert assisting with the project. “Without deep soil to tunnel into for a den, these bears have little choice but to find a shallow cave and go to sleep partly exposed.” Lean compared with bears in more generous settings, Gobi bears likely rely on the extra underfur for insulation in lieu of body fat. Instead of the sharp, three-inch claws depicted in many a grizzy tale, Altan’s claws had been worn short and blunt by his rocky habitat. An ordinary bear with teeth as worn as his would be judged 20 years old, but Gobi bears can’t avoid grinding sand and gravel along with their meals. Other tooth characteristics revealed Altan to be only five to seven years old. Though his was clearly a hardscrabble life, he was still a healthy young animal. We silently cheered as he woke and powered away into the hills, wearing a collar linked to a spacecraft. That moment of celebration was followed by a long, disheartening stretch of days checking empty traps. Finally we caught another bear, a female called Borte, named after Genghis Khan’s queen. When first captured in 2006, Borte tipped the scale at 165 pounds. Now she was down to 125. Her teats held milk, which meant that she’d been transferring some of her weight to a nursing cub or possibly twins. But where was her offspring? Borte’s drug dose wore off faster than expected and suddenly she was standing on all fours, growling, whirling, and swiping while people scattered. Though grizzlies are seldom as ferocious as popular stories portray them to be, those coming out of a drugged sleep tend to rush at the first thing they hear or see. Borte settled for destroying two pricey automatic cameras set up to record her exit. Sophisticated gadgetry like digital cameras and GPS radio collars have revolutionized wildlife research. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the value of simple, low-tech tools. Take barbed wire, for instance. Proctor and a young Mongolian geneticist named Odbayar Tumendemberel strung the stuff around each bait station and tacked it onto oasis trees the bears liked to rub against. The barbs snagged more than 900 hair samples for DNA analysis, which in turn yielded a trove of information. The fur turned out to be from eight individual females and 14 males. That told the scientists that the total Gobi bear population was most likely between 22 and 31. The Gobi A mountain complex stretches 180 miles from end to end. Given the long, thirsty gaps separating the three highland areas with oases, biologists had feared the population might have divided into subgroups that no longer mixed. This would have left each enclave more susceptible to inbreeding—and to outright collapse if its last mature female died or became infertile. Together with locations from the GPS collars and photos from remote cameras, the hair samples revealed that bears still moved between the different ranges often enough for genetic exchange to continue. The scientists could also tell from the ages of captured bears that 11 cubs born since 1999 had survived to maturity. Young Altan had bumped that number to 12. The conclusion: Neither an extremely low population density nor a limited gene pool was preventing Gobi grizzlies from reproducing. This was crucial to know, since the alternative would be to take bears in from the wild for captive breeding. Bears might multiply in an artificial setting, but how would those born and reared there know where to find widely scattered sources of water and food when released back into the uncompromising Gobi?  A young male charges an automatic camera set to record his departure from a tagging site. Seeing distant lights from camp one night, the rangers busted a group of men who had slipped into the reserve at dark to prospect for gold. GGSPA personnel call such intruders ninja miners. “Six years ago we had almost no ninjas,” said ranger Purevdorj Narangerel, who often patrols 600 rugged miles a week alone on his motorcycle. “Last year I arrested a hundred.” Besides occasional poaching, trespassers camp at oases, which discourages animals from coming in for water. But the threats posed by ninja miners pale in comparison with the potential harm posed by industrial-scale mining. In addition to spawning major new transportation routes through the Gobi, mine operations will require tremendous amounts of water. No one can predict how that might affect this dry land’s aquifers, which store mainly fossil water—the precipitation from bygone centuries. Present-day Mongolia is a proud, young democracy with 12 percent of its land in nature reserves, unprecedented new business opportunities, and billions of dollars committed to digging up treasure from the desert. Where Gobi bears will ultimately stand in this balance is impossible to say. Though perilously low, mazaalai numbers seem to have stayed fairly stable since the end of the 1970s. There’s a faint trace of reassurance in that, but what would it take to turn the trend upward? Better funding for the Great Gobi Special Protected Area won’t answer overarching concerns about the potential impact of climate change on this part of the globe. However, a modest sum could go a long way toward improving the amount and quality of supplemental bear food at this critical period as well as purchase fuel for more frequent ranger patrols. These are soul-searching times for conservationists. So many creatures are slipping away in so many places that people who care deeply about all wildlife find themselves arguing over which ones to try to save and which to let go. Do you spread your efforts among imperiled creatures that have a fair opportunity to recover, or funnel whatever money and manpower you have toward a few species teetering on the brink of extinction, knowing they might not make it anyway? How much should you devote to a subspecies? An unusual population? I’m not sure. What I do know is that the Gobi is one of the last grand untamed expanses in Earth’s temperate zone, and the bears’ range within it holds a world-class array of other fauna. I also know this: You can’t turn your back on a great creature in great need after getting to know it. Which is why I rejoined the Gobi bear field team in 2012 and again the following spring. Although we caught only a single new one in 2013, it was a young male weighing more than 350 pounds, by far the heaviest of the 15 individuals radio-collared to date. The fact that a bear could grow this big and fat here at a relatively early age seemed a promising sign. Ten days later a remote camera captured an image of a female with two brand-new cubs, the first ever photographed—tiny, furry, indisputable proof of ongoing reproduction in the wild. And then a camera at another oasis recorded a different female, also with two cubs scampering behind. We also heard rumors of Gobi bears along a ridge north of the mountain complex. One walked by a village near an oasis 60 miles east of the GGSPA. A hunter told of watching another mazaalai in a mountain range still farther away. For bears tough enough to survive in the Gobi, maybe nothing’s implausible, and that includes one day thriving again not only in their present home but in their former territory as well. “Look, Gobi bears might not make it,” Reynolds once told me. “But you can’t think like that. To see a problem and not want to work to fix it, not try while these bears still have a chance, well… ” Douglas Chadwick has traveled to some of the world’s most remote corners to report stories for National Geographic. Both he and photographer Joe Riis are trained wildlife biologists.  This large male was documented visiting all three oases in the Gobi A preserve, evidence that the bears are still breeding across their range. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/04/140417-rarest-bears-world-mongolia-gobi/# Edited by Taipan, Oct 24 2017, 11:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 23 2014, 02:34 AM Post #63 |
Ultimate Predator
|
Kamchatka brown bear Population and Distribution: Brown bears are one of the most widely distributed large carnivores in the world. The Kamchatka peninsula was once entirely populated with brown bears, and in remote protected areas is still home to the highest recorded density of brown bears on Earth. Increasing human access, through road development to expand mining and mineral exploration, is fragmenting the once continuous bear population, and Kamchatka brown bears are now becoming rare in some regions close to human settlements. Population estimates for the entire Kamchatka peninsula range from 10,000-14,000 bears in an area about the size of California. Population counts for the region are based largely on the casual observations of hunters and forest workers and are scientifically questionable. More than a decade has passed since the last aerial survey of the region, and there is a desperate need to redefine survey methods to monitor the long term trends in the bear population. Physical Description: Male Kamchatka brown bears can reach a weight of 700 kilograms, and are among the largest bears in the world. Their large physical size is a result of their access to rich food sources like salmon, pine nuts and berries. Maintaining body weight is crucial to survive the long period that bears spend sleeping in their winter dens (up to 6 months on Kamchatka). Reproduction and Life Span: Female brown bears in Kamchatka can begin to reproduce as early as 4 years of age and typically have litters of 2-3 cubs. WCS research has shown that some female bears with cubs do not approach salmon streams, to avoid risking their cubs being killed by another bear. By staying away from the salmon streams the females reduce the risk of cub mortality, but are also forced to survive on less rich food sources. Gaining enough weight to survive the winter is critical for female brown bears and their offspring. Cubs are born in the dead of winter in dens where the female is hibernating. Pregnant female bears that enter the den poorly nourished will often not be able to support their offspring, and the pregnancy will end before the birth of the cubs. The size of male brown bears is related to their social status and access to food and mates. Female bears must be induced into estrus, which means a male bear may have to follow a female bear for weeks until she is receptive to mating. During this time the male bears must fight off other male suitors. Females can produce offspring from different males in a single litter. Home Range: The area that a bear requires to fulfill all of its life requirements varies depending on habitat type and food sources available. In areas very rich in salmon, WCS research has shown that bears will maintain a home range as small as 12 sq km over the entire year. In areas where salmon and other food sources are scarce, however, home ranges can be as large as 1100 sq km. Data from GPS-collared bears showed that bears made movements of up to 65 km and crossed Kamchatka's central mountain range to access different salmon runs, crossing into different hunting leases and even leaving protected areas. Habitat: Kamchatka has some of the best brown bear habitat in the world. The highest concentrations of bears occur along streams during salmon spawning. Dense dwarf Siberian pine swales as well as expansive berry tundras can be rich feeding grounds for bears. Coastal sedge meadows and lush vegetation fed by heavy rainfalls are a bear “salad bar” when less rich food sources are available. In the fall bears in Kamchatka will usually excavate dens at higher elevations on south-facing slopes. Food sources: Salmon including: Pink, Sockeye, Coho, Chum, King, Cherry as well as char. Dwarf Siberian pine nuts, blue berries, crow berries, cranberries, mountain ash berries and others. Bears also feed on a wide variety of vegetation usually in the early summer. In some regions bear will hunt sea otters or be fortunate enough to find dead sea mammals like seals and even whales along the shore. http://www.wcsrussia.org/en-us/wildlife/kamchatkabrownbears/ecology.aspx |
|
|
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 23 2014, 02:35 AM Post #64 |
|
Ultimate Predator
|
Kamchatka Brown Bears: Conservation Threats The main threats to Kamchatka brown bears include poaching, overharvest and habitat loss. Poaching Poaching for bears is common and driven by the demand for bear parts in China and other parts of Asia. Estimates for the number of brown bears poached in Kamchatka range from 500-1500 annually. Rampant salmon poaching and increasing commercial fishing are also significantly decreasing the supply of a main food source for brown bears. Local rangers are under-paid and ill equipped to combat the multi-million dollar bear and salmon poaching industry. Overharvest Hunting for brown bears is permitted under a quota system, which unfortunately is poorly enforced. Current trophy hunting practices target large dominant male bears, which changes the social dynamics of the bear population, and remove as many as 300 bears a year from the Kamchatka Peninsula. While a potential source of income for conservation, trophy hunting is largely uncontrolled, and most profits leave the region. Local hunters also often target bears as a source of meat for dog food or as a recreational hunting species. Habitat Loss Unmonitored oil, gas and mineral exploration and development are also increasingly threatening wildlife habitat on Kamchatka. Moreover, exploitation of Kamchatka’s mineral resources is allowing poachers to access previously inaccessible areas of the peninsula, leaving in their wake streams devoid of salmon and therefore bears as well. Finally, protected areas, which encompass a significant portion of bear habitat, are poorly funded and under increasing pressure from hunting, poaching and uncontrolled tourism. http://www.wcsrussia.org/Species/KamchatkaBrownBears/ConservationThreats/tabid/1472/Default.aspx |
|
|
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 23 2014, 02:36 AM Post #65 |
|
Ultimate Predator
|
SIZE AND WEIGHT OF KAMCHATKA BROWN BEARS "The bigger of the two was about 10 feet tall and weighed about 1,050 pounds. The smaller one stood 9 feet tall and weighed about 950 pounds."  15 March 2008 - By John Gunther theworldlink.com/sports/outdoors/bears-provide-fun-challenge-for-taxidermist/article_cc8f9f59-b7e4-5b0b-8334-0022fba96248.html#ixzz1mdG4FFDI Mean mass, 1000 lbs. Sample size (n=2). "Size and mass of Kamchatka subtype of brown bear (U a. piscator of Pucheran, 1855) one of the largest ground-based bear predators and under optimal conditions the maximum fixed weight of a male of Kamchatka bear registers 600 kg, the average weight 350-450 kg are confirmed data and before the autumn period the weight of record specimens have exceeded 700 kg." (Gordienko, 2005). Mean mass 400 kg (882 lbs). Sample size, unknown. "The dimensions of this bear exceed the dimensions of usual brown. Its length frequently reaches 250 cm, with the height before the arms 140 cm. the weight of the old male before the bedding before the den frequently reaches 400 kg, but there are the cases of the acquisition of bears before 425 kg. Fat in this colossus sometimes can weigh up to 150 kg." (N.A. Baikov) Similar to Gordienko, Baikov also suggests a mean spring/summer mass 400 kg (882 lbs). The first source isn't really a study, so I'd take the other two as prime examples of evidence to support that Kamchatka Brown Bear average about 400 kg. Back in the 1940's their mean weight was much smaller;  Excessive hunting caused a sharp decline in the size of the animal. The bigger were weeded out, and the smaller were left to breed. Today the Kamchatka brown bear is still recovering. Edited by Vodmeister, Apr 24 2014, 04:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 23 2014, 02:37 AM Post #66 |
|
Ultimate Predator
|
HEAVIEST KAMCHATKA BEAR ON RECORD According to this source (Novikov 1969) Kamchatka's have reached 685 kg before;  Excessive hunting caused a sharp decline in the size of the animal. The bigger were weeded out, and the smaller were left to breed. Today the Kamchatka brown bear is still recovering. Also interesting;  Baturin's largest bear shot was a 653 kg specimen. According to Gordienko, 2005 - Kamchatka's have reached 600 and even 700 kg in the past (see the quote in the post above). The heaviest Kamchatka brown bear is a matter of controversy. There isn't nearly as much data available on this animal as we have on brown bears in North America. Edited by Vodmeister, Apr 24 2014, 04:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 23 2014, 02:38 AM Post #67 |
|
Ultimate Predator
|
BROWN BEAR MANAGEMENT IN KAMCHATKA: Kamchatka is well-known for its brown bears as Kamchatka’s brown bear population has one of the highest densities in the world. Kamchatka brown bears are competing in size with the giant bears of Southern Alaska and Kodiak Island. The weigh of the heaviest Kamchatka bear was above 600 kg. The bear population on Kamchatka peninsula was estimated at 20,000 animals in the early 1960s (Ostroumov, 1968), but since the late 1970s till 1990s estimates varied between 8,000-10,000 bears. Kamchatka brown bear was and still is one of the major objects of commercial, sport and trophy hunting among large terrestrial mammals. In more recent times, since 1993-1994, the international conservation community and the general public have raised great concern about the status of the Kamchatka brown bear population. This was due to the high level of illegal hunting of bears for their gall bladders and recently - for paws, highly valued in traditional oriental medicine and cookery. Bears are caught with lassoes, killed from helicopters, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. Another cause of concern is foreign hunting for trophy with selective shooting of the largest individuals, particularly in the spring. At the same time, some of the facts were either misinterpreted or simply were not true. For example, The Time magazine (USA) has published an article by Eugene Linden (Tortured Land, 04.09.1995), which stated that recently the bear population in Kamchatka has cut in half and then stabilized at 5,000 individuals. In fact, the reason why the estimated number has “dropped two-fold” is because since 1993 population estimates for Kamchatka region did not include those for the Koryak Autonomous Okrug, which is inhabited by roughly a half of the total peninsula’s bear population. A preliminary survey carried out in 1994 has shown that the situation with Kamchatka brown bears was far not being as bad and uncontrolled as some rumors would have it. However, although there is management in place apparently it still leaves to be desired. Annual aerial surveys of the bear population conducted since 1991 have never covered the total harvest area, while extrapolations were not sufficiently justified. The potential selectivity of trophy hunting has never been assessed. No economic mechanisms exist to ensure that part of the revenue generated by trophy hunting tourism is used to provide adequate protection and monitoring. Thus, although the brown bear population was not found to be in a desperate situation, management and protection apparently needed significant improvement. Currently Kamchatka includes two administrative subjects of the Russian Federation (Kamchatka region and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug, KAO), and we will further consider the Kamchatka peninsula as a whole and two districts (Oliutorsky and Penzhinsky). The following are presently the main problems in Kamchatka: - high level of illegal harvest (poaching). - extremely selective harvest of brown bears during trophy hunting and as a result decrease in brown bear size. - limited funding, insufficient to provide adequate protection and continuous monitoring of brown bear populations. Our main concern is to secure adequate funding that will help ensure brown bears conservation and monitoring. Main informational gaps - Brown bear population size and their spatial distribution in Kamchatka. Large-scale population surveys implemented in 1996-1997 with the financial support of WWF revealed that the population size amounted to 11,600 brown bears, including 6,100 bears in the Kamchatka Oblast and 5,500 brown bears in the Koryak Okrug. In 2001-2002, a regularly scheduled aerial survey was conducted with our own funds and with the financial support provided by WCS and CEF. Since 1997, no brown bear population surveys were conducted in the KAO due to the lack of funds. According to the 2002 survey results, the brown bear population has increased in Kamchatka and amounts to at least 7,000 individuals, and the total number of brown bears in Kamchatka including the KAO is estimated at no less than 12,500. Currently, the main issues are conducting aerial survey in the KAO, developing survey techniques and particularly methods of taking census and data extrapolation. - One of the informational gaps is the volume of poaching. According to the 1996 questionnaire survey with hunters, it was estimated that poaching amounts to about 100% of the official harvest. The last questionnaire was conducted in 2002. Collected data is being analyzed and will be made public in October 2002. - Control of sex and age composition and reproduction rates of the population is based on the data obtained during aerial and land surveys, analyses of brown bear harvest and results of the questionnaires. The share of females in the brown bear population amounts to at least 40%. Table 1 shows age composition of the adult population, determined on the basis of the animal’s size.  During 2000-2002 we continued collecting data on sex and age structure of the population and the data will be analyzed by December 2002. According to the survey of bear families, the share of females with cubs of different age reaches 20-22% (n = 1,109) of the adult population, and the share of cubs of all ages was 25.4%. The average number of newborn cubs per female was 2.3, the average number of yearlings per female was 2.0 and the average number of cubs older than two years per one female was 1.8. Thus, the annual population growth is no less than 15.5%. 87% of newborn cubs survive till 1.5 years; and 78% - till 2.5 years (Chestin et.al., 1996). Lately experts could not come to an agreement regarding the number of brown bear populations in Kamchatka. Most of them suggest that the peninsula was inhabited by one brown bear population with high level of panmixia. In order to clarify this issue in 2000 -2001 we collected 326 tissue samples for genetic analysis. The samples were examined at the North Carolina University. The following data is considered when setting an annual harvest quota: population size, actual population growth, hunting success (percentage of actually harvested bears compared with the quota), expected level of illegal harvest, possible negative impact of living conditions on the population (availability of food resources, diseases, changes in habitat size and quality etc.). Under the Russian regulations, bear harvest should not exceed 10% of the population size. Thus, the maximum quota for the whole Kamchatka region is set at 1,250 animals. Actual annual quota is 650-750 bears, including 450-500 in the Kamchatka region and 200-250 in the KAO. The total harvest volume, including legal and illegal harvest is in line with the population size and reproduction rates, yet overharvest of brown bears was recorded in some areas and low rates of hunting occurs in others. The total area of protected territories in the Kamchatka Oblast (excluding maritime zones) amounts to 48,820 sq. km, and 8,399 sq. km in the Koryak Autonomous Okrug. Brown bear habitats represent 17,414 sq. km in the Kamchatka region and 3, 3320 sq. km in the KAO and are under special protection. It was proposed to set aside 9 additional refuges including 5 in the Kamchatka Oblast and 4 in the KAO is order to conserve key habitats (foraging grounds, wintering and breeding sites, sites of seasonal concentration and etc). Extremely selective harvest of large animals, particularly during spring and trophy hunting by foreign hunters leads to a decrease in the brown bears size. Harvest selectivity is the most pronounced according to the sex (irrespective of age). Males are subjected to selective harvest and as a result the share of males in spring and autumn hunting seasons amounts to 80%. Males are subjected to selective harvest during all seasons, however in the spring, the volume of selective harvest is much higher. Percentage of large males harvested during the fall was 10% less than in spring (75.5% and 85.5%, respectively). Comparison of hunting selectiveness towards brown bears of various sizes (small-medium-large) among foreign and local hunters showed that selectivity of harvest among foreign hunters was much higher towards large animals (14.5% more) and considerably less (3.3 times lower) towards small animals (Table 2).  The Hunting Management Department is now considering the introduction of measures aimed at reducing and regulating spring hunting season, including an option to completely close spring hunting. Monitoring of Brown Bear Habitat Brown bear habitats in Kamchatka occupy 463.2 sq. km or 98% of the whole area of the Kamchatka Oblast and the KAO. Major brown bear habitats threats include dredging works associated with mining, industries, oil fields and power supply development, and associated facilities (mines, gas pipelines, power lines, roads, hydropower stations etc). Habitat quality is graded (maximum 5 grades) according to the quality of shelter, availability of food resources, availability of denning sites, human disturbance. Dwarf pine and alder represent the best habitat (3.7-5 grades); the second best habitat - birch and spruce forests (3.7-2.7 grades). Habitats in woodless mountain areas are graded as below the average quality (2.3 grades). Burn zones, clearcuts and mountainous tundra are considered to be disadvantaged habitats (2.0 grades). Plain tundra is considered to be the worst habitat (1.7 grades). It is crucial to continue work on a more precise evaluation of brown bears habitat quality. In 2002 it is planned to conduct mapping of brown bear habitats in Kamchatka using GIS. The following information and resources are needed for successful management of brown bear population: - sustainable funding in the amount of 20,000 – 25,000 USD per year to implement- - conservation measures and monitoring; - data on actual illegal harvest of brown bears; - efficient protection of key habitats within hunting grounds (in addition to existing protected territories). Currently only federal hunting regulation agencies and environmental protection agencies are involved in the actual conservation of brown bears. The USA can provide assistance in the form of exchange of information and expertise in the field of brown bears conservation in Alaska as well as financial support in the form of grants and joint implementation of environmental programs. Other sources of financial support include: - financial support to hunting enterprises to implement brown bear population monitoring; - implementation of a Russian-American program on brown bear conservation in Kamchatka jointly with the WCS Foundation The authors of this presentation have the following responsibilities: - A.S. Valentsev: coordination of work on brown bear monitoring and research, scientific analysis of collected information; - V. U. Voropanov and V. N. Gordienko: federal control of conservation, regulation of brown bear resources use and monitoring. Acknowledgements The authors express their great gratitude to the Northern Forum, Organizational Committee of the Workshop Brown Bear Management in the North and personally to the Project Coordinator Ms. Asida Ivanova and the Executive Director Priscilla Wohl as well as all sponsors of the Northern Forum for support and organization of this Workshop. Conclusions Currently brown bear population size, population structure and reproduction rates in Kamchatka are satisfactory. Total harvest volume, including legal and illegal harvest is in line with the population size and reproduction rates. Extremely selective harvest of large brown bear males, particularly during spring and foreign trophy hunting leads to an increase of the number of young animals in the population and a decrease in the bears’ size. High level of brown bears poaching leads to a decrease of the brown bear population size within local areas. The main problems in the sphere of brown bear population conservation and management are: - development and realization of strategies for sustainable use and conservation of brown bear resources; - finding sustainable funding for conservation and monitoring activities in the amount of 20,000 – 25,000 USD per year; - obtaining data on actual poaching levels. References Ostroumov A. G. 1968. Aerial censuses of brown bear population in Kamchatka and some results of observations of their behavior. Bulletin Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytateley Prirody, Otdel Biologii, 73(2): 35-49. Eugene Linden. Tortured Land. Time magazine. 04.09.1995. Chestin I.E., Gordienko T. A., Gordienko V. N., Nikanorov A. P., Nikolaenko V. A., Ostroumov A. G., Radnaeva E. A., Revenko I. A., Valentsev A. S. 1995-1996. Fundamentals of conservation and management of brown bear population in Kamchatka. WWF Project Report. 91 pp. Edited by Vodmeister, Apr 23 2014, 02:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
| maker | Nov 30 2014, 05:16 PM Post #68 |
Apex Predator
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197341 |
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Dec 8 2014, 03:40 AM Post #69 |
|
Herbivore
|
 *Greatest length of the skull with lower jaw New World record skull size Kamchatka Brown Bear at 30 11/16 inches Greatest length of skull 18 13/16"=47,78 cm Greatest width of skull =11 14/16"=30,16 cm Source www.scirecordbook.org  *Greatest length of the skull with lower jaw Edited by Warsaw2014, Dec 8 2014, 03:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
| maker | Dec 8 2014, 09:51 AM Post #70 |
|
Apex Predator
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2862809/Tracking-data-shows-Ethyl-grizzly-bear-s-incredible-2-800-mile-trek-backyards-main-streets-highways.html |
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Dec 12 2014, 10:41 PM Post #71 |
|
Herbivore
|
The Syrian brown bear (Ursus arctos syriacus) is a relatively small subspecies of brown bear native to Eurasia. Skull size of the Syrian brown bear  Allometric growth pattern in male skull. Vertical lines shows inflexion points of each characteristics in growth process. All of the samples were analyzed without two groups of mature and immature separated, until the gender growth pattern represented during the test http://nobel.gen.tr/Makaleler/JABS-Issue%203-c3e2402a06cf4b419b297afdd275f56b.pdf ...In male, the frontal has a positive allometric growth pattern with increasing age and this phenomena can help protecting its brain during male- male competition . Similar pattern was reported in American black bear (Ursus americanus and Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus Male-male competion is severly occured during mating season to access females ..." Edited by Warsaw2014, Dec 12 2014, 10:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
| maker | Dec 27 2014, 09:27 PM Post #72 |
|
Apex Predator
|
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/grizzly-bears-go-down-for-a-long-winters-nap |
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Dec 27 2014, 11:59 PM Post #73 |
|
Herbivore
|
LIVESTOCK INJURY AND MORTALITY INVESTIGATIONS "...Bears may chase prey for short distances then use size and strength to their advantage which may result in a struggle of relatively short duration..." "...Below are some examples which indicate that a struggle occurred. The top two photos show evidence of a struggle found during a wolf depredation investigation and the bottom photo shows evidence of a struggle found during a grizzly bear depredation investigation..."  EVIDENCE ANIMAL WAS MOVED FROM INCIDENT SITE AND CACHING BEHAVIOR "...Bears: More variable than cougars with this behavior. May or may not carry or drag prey item away from kill site. May or may not cache prey. If prey is cached, bears will use ground debris as well as dirt and ground may appear as if it was “roto-tilled” around the prey item..." CHARACTERISTICS OF PREDATOR ATTACKS   wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock/livestock_mortality_investigation_manual_mar2013.pdf  http://www.altai-sayan.com/about/publ/Bear.pdf TROUBLE-MAKING BROWN BEAR URSUS ARCTOS LINNAEUS,1758 (MAMMALIA: CARNIVORA) – BEHAVIORal PATTERNANALYSIS OF THE SPECIALIZED INDIVIDUAL LEONARDO BERECZKY, MIHAI POP, SILVIU CHIRIAC www.travaux.ro/pdf/595-541-554.pdf Abstract. In Romania more than 500 damage cases caused by large carnivores are reported by livestock owners and farmers each year. This is the main reason for hunting derogation despite the protected species status. This study is the result of detailed examination of 198 damage cases caused by bears in 2008 and 2009, in the south- eastern Carpathian Mts in Romania. The goal of the study was to examine whether an individual-specific behavioural pattern among problematic bears exists.We looked for bears which showed repeated killing of livestock, a phenomenon claimed by livestock owners to indicate the presence of a problematic individual in the area. In 27% of the observed cases the problematic bears exhibited specific behaviour patterns: clear specialization on a certain type of damage, high degree of tolerance for humans, selectivity for certain prey items, returning back to the damage site in less than 8 days. Fast adaptation and taking advantage of easily obtainable food around human created artificial sources is characteristic for all bear species, due to their high learning capacity and ecological plasticity, but from the conservation and management point of view dealing with individuals which specialize to live mainly around artificial areas becomes a “problem”. Thus defining and identifying individual behaviour patterns oriented towards conflicting behaviour might be useful for wildlife managers in identifying “problem individuals” in order to apply the proper control methods There are likely few populations of bears anywhere in the world whose behaviour has not been significantly influenced by man (Stirling & Derocher, 1989). This may confound our understanding of their behaviour and ecology. Remaining populations of bears may not be able to adapt successfully to the combined effects of human predation, disappearing habitat, and climatic change unless profiting on their learning capacity and plasticity to different food sources even if the result is a compromise called by us “habituation” or “specialized individual”. Bears are omnivorous animals, with the most complex diet, feeding behaviour and ecological plasticity among large carnivores (Swenson et al., 2000).Their predatory or vegetarian feeding behaviour seems to show a big variation among geographical distribution ranges and also a great deal of individual variationin feeding strategies as a result of learning (Stirling & Derocher, 1989). There are evidences especially in North America that sometimes bears are more active predators than previously thought (Cole, 1972; Mysterud, 1973; Franzmann et al., 1980; Stewart et al., 1985; Reynolds & Garner, 1987; Boertje et al., 1988; Stirling & Derocher, 1989; Mattson, 1996). Observations showed that most of kills made by adult bears are done after a short rush from ambush or after stalking to close range and that most kills that require a longer chase will be made by smaller sized females or subadults (Cole, 1972; Reynolds & Garner, 1987). Although in many documented cases and areas bears seem to behave as true predators, there are also studies which concluded that bears use less than 20% animal protein and feed more on vegetal food (Swenson et al., 2000; Bereczky, 2004; Shinsuke, 2009; Paralikidis et al.,2009). Especially in European analyzes, the results showed that bears eat a wide range of plant species, insects, and some percent of meat resulted from scavenging or depredation on different mammalian species (Swenson et al., 2000; Bereczky, 2004; Shinsuke, 2009; Paralikidis et al., 2009). Hurst et al. (1982) found that the energy required for a plantigrade animal like a bear to move is about double that for most of other mammals. To move at the modest speed of 7 km/h, uses 13 times more energy than lying (Hurst et al., 1982). That is probably why bears pass so fast from predatory feeding to vegetarian and also why some big adult individuals take advantage on their learning skills.In general, biologists who have worked with bears have been impressed with how variable the behaviour of individuals appears to be. There are few quantitative studies about the ability of bears to learn, such as Bacon & Burghardt (1976), but generally, in the literature there is an appreciation of their ability to learn or remember things. The success that circuses have had with training bears also suggests that they are good to learn new tasks. We have many observations on the learning abilities of bear cubs performed in an ongoing orphan bear rehabilitation project in the Romanian Carpathians. As long-lived mammals that spend most of their lives within a home range and show strong seasonal fidelity to particular locations, bears probably learn much about the area, including where and how to find food under a variety of circumstances (Stirling & Derocher, 1989). The variability in the way bears from the same population behave within a particular area may be influenced by both genetic factors and learning (Mazur & Seher, 2007; Breck et al., 2008). It is generally accepted that bears vary their feeding manners according to habitat and the presence of human (Zunino & Herrero, 1972; Swenson et al., 2000). Thus, through learning, some bears may develop individual differences in food preference, vary in the degree to which they prey on live animals, or respond to human disturbance. Individuals will develop behavioural patterns that are modelled by their own experiences (Stirling & Derocher, 1989). Similarly, some behaviour will be learned by cubs while accompanying their mothers during the long period before weaning (Mazur & Seher, 2007). We presume that all the above mentioned specific behaviour particularities make bears to be able to develop so called “individuality” or “personality”. Predation on livestock animals or feeding in agricultural fields, orchards or beehives might be considered the behavioural response of bears to the existing multi-use landscape conditions characteristic of Europe (Swenson et al., 2000). Our assumption is that within this natural behavioural response, exist several undesired patterns, which could lead at the definition of the “problem” individual. Most researchers who have studied individuals of any mammalian species are likely to have subjectively recognized that different individuals appear to behave slightly differently (Bekoff, 1977). Primatologists have long recognized individuality and have started to use the expression “personality” to describe individuals with different behaviour (Stevenson-Hinde, 1983). Linell et al. (1999) describe several cases when predator individuals show a particular behaviour pattern. In this paper we try to analyze different depredation cases on domestic animals, in which the behaviour of the individuals showed certain characteristics repeatedly. Such behaviour patterns have been associated empirically by people with the “problem individual” reputation. The paper addresses a basic problem related with bear management in Romania: how to recognize/define a trouble-making bear which should be removed from the population due to its high potential of conflict. We observed that there is a difference in shyness, boldness or other characteristics between individuals involved in trouble situations. After analyzing many damages caused by bears, we speculate that at brown bears (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) there is a predisposition of some individuals to take advantage on easy to catch prey situations, thus exhibiting higher opportunism. Our observations led to the assumption that some individuals learn that in certain areas depredating on livestock is the easiest way to obtain good quality food. Inside of this phenomenon we were interested in the behaviour of those individuals which developed a “personal preference” towards searching areas with such opportunistic circumstances.At the moment, in Romania, the brown bear harvest is restricted due to the European legislation. The existing derogation for bear hunt is explained as being a prevention method for the control of problem causing individuals. But in the same time there is no clear definition of the “problem” bear and implicitly no clear suggestion for the right control methods in certain trouble situations. Thus any bear can be considered to have problem causing feeding habits, since there are clear observations and documentations in the literature that most individuals of large carnivore species will at least occasionally kill livestock or cause other type of damage where grazing or husbandry techniques create a favourable circumstance for that (Linnell et al., 1999). Since the result of a conflict situation is a consistent loss in people’s welfare, it is obvious that it will have a negative impact on the image of the whole species, lowering the acceptance of local people towards bears and large carnivores in general. Thus the recognizing of specific behaviour patterns and applying the right control methods (either lethal or non lethal) on livestock killing specialized individuals or individuals with problem causing feeding habits will have a better effect than leaving them in the population. RESULTS In the study period, we recorded totally 198 livestock depredation cases. Fig. 2 shows the density of bear damages in the three counties and fig. 3 the locations of the observed cases. In every case when attacks were signalled in a range of maximum 15 km, with a repetition not passing 8 days, performed by the same individual, we considered that the bear shows significant specialized behaviour and preference for livestock killing. Among the observed attacks we founded 11 cases (Tab. 1), when specialized behaviour could be claimed as follows: -- Case of Barcani: the median of day no. passed between the attacks was 5. As we can observe from the table, between 26 June and 19 September the bear returned nearly every day to the damage site, making totally 12 victims. He showed a clear preference for swine. He developed a special strategy to enter into the stables and used that strategy repeatedly. -- Case of Bodoc: the median of attack repetition was 6 days. The bear preferred only beehives, coming into the beekeeper’s yards during 2 months. -- Oituz case: the median of attack repetition was 3 days. The bear showed preference for only small domestic animals like rabbits and domestic birds. zapodaj.net/639860ec08cc.jpg.html -- Turia case: the median of attack repetition was 3 days. The bear preferred only swine. -- Podul ªchiopului, Zãlan, Lunca de Sus and Aita Seacã cases: the bears attacked repeatedly the cattle during grazing. Attack repetition median: 4 days.-- Barcani-Zagon case: similar swine preference and attack repetition like in Barcani. --Moacºa case: the bear preferred domestic birds and sheep. Attack repetition median: 3 days. As we can observe the period of the attacks of these bears was between June- September. Field investigations revealed the following facts: -- Sometimes the bear came back several times in the same night. -- 77% of the attacks occurred in discontinuous urban areas according with Corine Land Cover map of Romania (Fig. 4.).-- When incidents occurred in urban areas, the preferred prey items were small sized domestic animals (sheep, goats, birds, etc.). -- In every case, the bears had to pass over different obstacles: fences, stables and others, or had to avoid guarding dogs and people. -- In the majority of cases the farms or yards where the damages occurred were very close to forest areas or the environment facilitated the approach of the bear (e.g. shrub lands or bush vegetation around). -- Bears with approximated body weight over 100 kg showed preference for bigger prey items, whereas smaller individuals preferred smaller prey species like sheep, birds, beehives. -- The circumstance in all of these cases offered other predation opportunities as well like other domestic animals, or food sources around the farms/ households, but the bears showed clear preference for a certain type of prey. In one of the cases (Barcani) the bear was killing only sows, even if on its way encountered male pigs and piglets Field observations made us to believe that the bear implicated in the Barcani (2008) and Zagon (2009) cases was the same individual. Preferred prey items, operation “style” and description of the bear by eye witnesses was similar. After the damage occurrence in 2009 that particular area, hunters from the area shared that they shot a bear near this damage spot and they assumed to be the trouble maker. Fact is that the bear damages decreased considerably after that in the surrounding areas. Among the 198 observed incidents, 70 matched the described behaviour patterns and have been considered to be done by bears specialized to obtain food in human created artificial areas. These incidents represent 27% of the studied cases. Their typology showed a big number of similarities and offered sufficient information for identifying behaviour patterns describing a “specialized individuals”. 54 of these 70 cases (77%) occurred in discontinuous urban areas. In all other incidents, when the bears didn’t show a clear predation pattern (128 cases), we can’t affirm that each case can be attributed to a different individual. There is an unquantifiable probability that some damages from different areas have been done by the sameindividual, considering the seasonal and daily movement patterns of the bears in the area. Though in the majority of cases the troubles done by “specialized” individuals occurred on areas between 1-10 km2 (Oituz, Bodoc, Valea Mare), in Barcani-Zagon case, the area surface is over 100 km2. We hypothesize that livestock herding techniques and the surrounding environment are main factors leading to the possible formation of “specialized” individuals. In many analyzed cases the cattle herd was kept free during the night without any guarding. The graze lands are near forest areas and the vegetation offers good cover to an approaching predator. In many cases when the bear entered into a settlement, in people’s yards, we founded garbage thrown around, with food remnants and sometimes even animal carcasses. It is unlikely that in such circumstances a brown bear will avoid to come closer to a potential abundant food source. The existing easy catchable prey in the area is a chance which probably would be interesting to any bear. In systems where domestic animals are constantly herded, kept in opened fields, or confined at night inside a corral, predation on livestock requires learning and development of specialized behaviour by the predator (Linnell et al., 1999). To successfully kill livestock, the predator has to either pass by the shepherd and his dogs, enter open habitat, or cross physical barriers. Individuals must learn how to access this food source. We founded also a relation between the approximate size of the bear and the size of the prey species specialized on. As table 2 shows, individuals with body weight approximated below 100 kg showed a preference towards small sized domestic animals such as birds, sheep, beehives, etc. whereas bigger bears preferred bigger prey like pigs and cattle. Body weight has been approximated with observations performed by experienced persons (hunters, foresters or members of our field crew). It is obvious that the body size of the predator influences not only his predation capability, but also its ability to carry away the prey. In an environment where guarding dogs, people, and other disturbing factors are present, a captured prey brings much bigger benefit to the predator if it is able to carry it away and consume it in a quiet place. Sometimes the big body size gives the power to defend himself during the consumption of the prey in the same place. We speculate that this logical aspect could enhance somehow the specialization of some individuals to certain prey species. Body size/weight is documented to influence the way how different individuals develop their attacking and hunting strategy (Rosenvig, 1966; Gittleman, 1985; Vezina, 1985; Stirling & Derocher, 1989). In our case, the observations showed that bigger individuals took advantage on their power in order to obtain bigger quantity of food even if it was necessary to destroy a wood beam constructed stable, or to attack a herd which was guarded by many dogs. Observations showed that bigger individuals attack fast after sunset, showing less prudence whereas smaller ones were waiting after middle of the night, when the disturbing factors (people’s activity) decreased. Big bears consumed part of the prey directly at the killing site, coming back next day to the carcass, whereas smaller individuals tried to transport their capture away in bush or forest covered areas We presume that the energetic efficiency strategy plays an essential role in the development of specialized behaviour in some individuals, which will profit on their learning skills and power in order to get better quality and quantity of food. This theory is somehow sustained also by the fact that most of attacks occurred in late summer or fall, in the period when bears need big amounts of food/energy. We presume that the energetic efficiency strategy plays an essential role in the development of specialized behaviour in some individuals, which will profit on their learning skills and power in order to get better quality and quantity of food. This theory is somehow sustained also by the fact that most of attacks occurred in late summer or fall, in the period when bears need big amounts of food/energy. DISCUSSIONS Surveying the people which suffered damages, we observed that the problem was considered much bigger when occurred repeatedly. The problem was fast forgotten when occurred accidentally (more than 500 damage cases caused by large carnivores are reported each year), but people highly condemned the carnivores when the predation occurred within several days, and when livestock depredation or damage occurred within a range of 15 km. It seems that the biggest problem consists not in that bear accidentally take the opportunity to feed on livestock items, but when certain habituation signs show up. Presuming that each predation case was done by different individuals, we can assume that on the study area a number of 198 potentially “specialized” bears exists, which would represent 8% of the existing 2300 individuals reported by the wildlife management units. Practically, these are bears which took advantage of opportunistic moments to feed on easily obtainable food sources around livestock, circumstances which existed within their homeranges. The fact that 35% of these damages have been done by only 11 bears, it is obvious that our presumption is false. According to the observations, only these individuals manifested a “special” behaviour pattern, risking repeatedly their lives approaching systematically to food sources around humans. Since any predator takes advantage of favourable factors as habitat, lack of protection measures, human negligence, etc., in order to obtain better quality food, it is unlikely that all the other cases were habituated “specialized” individuals. Thus, having a brown bear. population estimated at 2300 individuals in the study area, the proportion of the “specialized” individuals is 0.4%. Specialization in these individuals is oriented towards predation on livestock. In the 11 described cases, the bears demonstrated a high adapting capacity to an environment with high human activity. They identified and used narrow moving corridors between people’s yards. They showed a high learning capacity, in many cases finding the best entrance into the stables or protecting fences. Conclusions According to our study, there is a reason to believe that individuals within a bear population can show different behavioural trails. When in a certain area within a range of 15 km damages are reported with a smaller frequency than 8 days, there is enough reason to assume the presence of a “specialized” individual. We assume that exhibiting such individual specialized behaviour is in most of the cases associated with higher degree of intelligence. These identified behaviour typologies could be used in the future for signalling in utile time the existence of a specialized bear, in order to apply the right prevention methods or removing the individual out of the population. We hypothesize that most individuals within a bear population will at least occasionally kill accessible livestock they encounter in their home-range. If true, this implies that problem individual control will need to remove preferably those individuals which show a high degree of human acceptance, and the following observable indices like: -- Predation in a place where passing through human created obstacles is required. -- It was necessary to develop a special strategy for passing over protective items. -- Selective preference for prey items. -- The frequency of new predations: repetition within 8 days. We consider that damage control and prevention problematic must be oriented especially towards limiting occasional incidents, enhanced by the lack of proper protection methods, and not towards the bear population of which only a very small percent represents an imminent danger for farmers and livestock owners. Because changing the behaviour of bears is not a directly controllable process, the management objectives should regard first of all the elimination of those factors which enhance the occurrence of damage cases. Husbandry techniques and environmental factors which enhance the development of problem individuals should be seriously regarded by wildlife managers. Improving of livestock pasturing methods and equipments are highly required especially when farmers move with their livestock close to carnivore’s habitats. ‘This bear is a sick animal’: Italian farmers protest over rogue bear ‘killing cattle for sake of it’ An Italian brown bear has “gone rogue” and is now indulging in killing for killing’s sake, farmers in the Dolomite mountains claim. The male bear, nicknamed “Blondie” for its pale fur, has killed dozens of donkeys, goats, sheep and cows in the meadows and high passes of the Trentino and Veneto regions and farmers say they want it shot. The six-year-old animal is one of about 50 that live in the Dolomites of northern Italy after the species was reintroduced to the region from neighbouring Slovenia in the 1990s. The brown bear, which features in local folklore and on the crests of many of the region’s towns and villages, had been driven to the brink of extinction by hunting, trapping and poisoning. Its reintroduction had been hailed as a conservation success story. But there is growing disquiet over the bears after a string of attacks on livestock and the mauling of a man who was picking mushrooms in the forest. Upland grazers say they are being forced to drive their herds down from the mountains much earlier than usual. “This bear is a sick animal — he is killing purely for the sake of killing,” Valentino Frigo, the mayor of Roana, a village in the Veneto region north of Vicenza, told La Repubblica newspaper. Conservationists want to capture the bear and attach a radio tracking device to it. But locals say that will do nothing to stop the attacks. Despite the brown bear being a protected species in Italy, farmers say this particular bear — known to wildlife officials by its code name, M4 — must be found and shot. They say people who like the idea of brown bears returning to the mountains should come and see their animals writhing in agony with their stomachs ripped out after nighttime attacks by the predators. “We’ve had it with this bear — he’s a killer,” said Giacomo Rigon, who has had two cows killed and eight injured in the past few months. “The authorities tell us that we need to put up electric fences, but they are useless.” Fabio Spiller, another farmer, said: “The bear doesn’t only harm the animals it attacks. It creates panic so that the cattle run into the forest, where they sometimes fall into ravines. It’s enough to make you weep when you see a cow with its eyes full of terror, its back raked by the bear’s claws and its stomach ripped open.” www.theprovince.com/technology/This+bear+sick+animal+Italian+farmers+protest+over+rogue/10165086/story.html Edited by Warsaw2014, Dec 28 2014, 12:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Dec 31 2014, 01:19 AM Post #74 |
|
Herbivore
|
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS OF ADULT MALES AT THE TROUT CREEK ECOCENTER Aggressive encounters among aggregation members frequently involved spectacular feats of skill, strength, and endurance. Descriptions of these from abridged field notes for the year 1963 give some sense of the atmosphere of aggressive power that created the hierarchy each season. Marked male bears are identified by a number and/or a name; unmarked but individually recognizable bears are referred to by name only. Journal notes are as follows: 18 June 1963—Scarneck has not yet been sighted in the aggregation. Short-eared Boar is closely attending female No. 112. Inge (No. 12) is following female No. 65; she is in estrus. Inge is leaving No. 65 to challenge Short-eared Boar. He pursues him over a quarter mile [0.4 km]; Short-eared Boar turns and makes a stand. Inge closes with his opponent, parries, and jockeys for position. They move cautiously like wrestlers seeking advantage and leverage. Inge suddenly bores in, seizes Short-eared Boar by the throat, leveraging his body in a twisting turn. This maneuver throws the 750-pound male to the ground on his back. We can hear the two roaring from well over a third of a mile [0.5 km] away. Short-eared Boar regains his feet; the two stand, man-like, their jaws locked, striking fierce blows with powerful forepaws. They relinquish their holds and drop to all fours. Inge makes a bluffing charge but Short-eared Boar does not retreat. They again lock jaws and Inge forces Short-eared to back up. It is apparently not a concession, but a maneuver. Short-eared lunges for Inge's throat. Inge lowers his head and dives for the Short-eared Boar's groin. They roll and tussle. Neither can get a firm hold. Inge keeps the pressure on, driving steadily on after each lunge, backing Short-eared down the slope some 20 feet [6.1 m]. Short-eared turns and runs; he is pursued by Inge at a fast pace through the sage for half a mile [0.8 km]. Inge stands, watching his retreating contender for several minutes. He ambles slowly back to female No. 65 and together they move over the hill, the male nudging the female along until they disappear from sight. Short-eared Boar circles back to the dump and immediately shows interest in female No. 40, sniffing her genitalia (checking). The other males have shown no interest in her this evening. Short-eared mounts No. 40 and breeds her. Number 40 is receptive and the copulation lasts 19 minutes. Number 40 moves to a feeding site; Short-eared Boar moves to the creek, enters the water, and lays down. Female No. 40 was bred earlier by No. 88 [Patch-eye] on 11 June and by Inge on 14 June. Today's breeding extends her observed estrous period to a minimum of eight days. Inge appears to be the most dominant of the large males, but he is not yet recognized as alpha. The Grizzled Boar appears to be Inge's chief contender, but he has not yet appeared today. 19 June 1963—Female No. 112 is receptive to male No. 88, but he has been unable to breed her. Fighting and chasing contenders has interrupted his advances. Female No. 65 is present and apparently still in estrus as she is attracting the large, aggressive males. Inge is alert, his eyes fastened on male No. 88, 40 yards [36.5 m] away. He appears oblivious to female No. 65 and to other bears around him who are also alert and moving outward to a fringe of nervous animals. With ears erect and head thrust forward, Inge stands motionless, watching. In prelude to battle, each male approaches the other in a slow stiff-legged walk. Inge stomps his hind feet alternately downward and briefly holds his legs rigid before taking the next step in a similar manner. Advancing in this swaggering, robotlike gait, the males move closer. Both animals salivate profusely and urinate. The approach and ultimate showdown is delayed by frequent pauses as the contenders eye one another. Each appears to look for an appeasement sign or a propitious moment to charge. Inge continues his stiff-legged walk toward No. 88 and pauses. Number 88 moves in similar manner toward Inge. Both bears are studies in concentration: both seem oblivious to their surroundings. The pace increases. They are now 50 feet [15 m] apart. Most members of the aggregation have stopped feeding and are facing the contenders. Emitting a low, guttural growl, ears laid back and head low, Inge charges. It is amazingly fast. We detect no warning signal but No. 88 apparently does, for in split seconds he is prepared to defend himself. He does not meet Inge face-on as he has other contending males. He wheels around, and as he does so, Inge's jaws close on his rump, tearing free a 3-inch [7-cm] flap of hide exposing a white slash. Without losing stride or momentum, Inge climbs over No. 88, breaking him down. Number 88 twists under Inge's weight and rolls to his back, with all four feet fending off his opponent. Inge sinks his teeth deep into No. 88's groin as he lies pinned on his back. There is a brief tussle, the roaring loud and continuous. Inge rears back, lifting his head. As he does so, he lifts the near-700-pound [320-kg] bear clear of the ground and shakes him. The action is occurring in seconds, and I find it hard to believe my eyes. Both bears hit the ground in a tumbling roll. Number 88 has Inge by the neck as he finally regains his feet. He releases his hold and clamps on Inge's jowls, shaking his massive head. Inge rears back, fighting free at the expense of a ripped and bleeding lower jaw. The two stand erect face to face, jaws gaping, teeth bared, emitting rumbling growls. They drop to all fours, and in a synchronous lunge rise together to clash teeth, slap with fore-paws, and engage and disengage their jaws as each seeks an advantage. Inge throws his weight to the right, attempting to twist No. 88 to the ground, but No. 88 counters with a lunge to the left, his teeth imbedded in Inge's neck. They break apart and silently eye one another. The pause in action is only a few seconds but seems longer. Inge is the first to move. He steps upward to the right, taking advantage of the slope. Number 88 makes a leg dive; Inge sidesteps and slaps No. 88 across the shoulder with a terrific swipe of his right paw. I hear the slap and see deep furrows ripple through the fur. Number 88 lurches backward from the blow and Inge drives forward for No. 88's throat, exposed for a fraction of a second as he seeks his balance. Rising on hind legs, the two embrace with an audible clash of teeth. Biting and swiping, they exchange roars that carry across the valley and noticeably excite the spectator bears. The roaring subsides to growling and the contestants, now only feet apart, stand motionless eyeing one another with steady stares. Neither moves in this control of wills; 88 does not retreat but slowly lowers his head to one side, and eye contact is momentarily broken. Inge's head goes up, his ears erect. Number 88 holds his submissive pose, but with eyes on Inge; still, he does not retreat. Inge deliberately turns his back on 88 and very slowly moves 60 feet [18 m] to claim female No. 65. Number 88 could attack Inge from behind but he does not. This recognition of defeat is never breached. The contest is over; for this day Inge is victorious. There will be no sneak attack, no renewal of hostilities. The other bears begin to feed as though suddenly released. I can almost feel the tension subside. Number 65 had been receiving the attention of the Large Brown Boar while Inge was fighting. This male attempts to mount the female but retreats as Inge approaches. Number 88 remains where he had fought, breathing heavily, then climbs the embankment and mixes with the other males now actively feeding. He moves on to the creek. Inge, his chest expanding and contracting like huge bellows, stands with female No. 65 at his side, eyeing the aggregation. It is a challenging pose, but no bear responds. Ten minutes elapse before Inge moves. He appears to have lost interest in the female but his presence keeps other males at a distance. Neither Inge nor No. 88 appears to be seriously injured although both show wounds from the conflict. Inge is clearly dominant over No. 88 this day, but he is not yet recognized as alpha. There are other males yet to contend with. 26 June 1963—Inge (No. 12) and the Grizzled Boar [never captured and marked] have had three encounters earlier in the season, but none have been decisive. Since then, Inge and the Grizzled Boar have avoided one another. When they have approached closely, Inge has appeared to dominate. The Grizzled Boar has not challenged Inge and Inge has been relatively tolerant of his presence. The Grizzled Boar has had successful encounters with Short-eared Boar and Scarneck. He is powerful and aggressive but keeps his distance from Inge. There are three females present that are now in estrus. Inge has been aggressive toward all bears this evening, but there have been no battles. Inge (No. 12) is now moving among the 60 bears present. All show him deference—some by moving aside, others by lowering the head, and some by ignoring him completely. The Grizzled Boar and the Short-eared Boar are squared off, intently eyeing one another. Inge moves swiftly toward them, attacking the Grizzled Boar from behind. The Grizzled Boar is unaware of his approach until he is crushed to the ground. Inge does not carry the fight but allows the Grizzled Boar to retreat. [Inge] has not been feeding; he seldom does. He is patrolling the aggregation, exerting authority. The Grizzled Boar moves toward a choice feeding site, scattering younger bears and female No. 96 with her one cub. A growl and a rapid step is all it takes for,him to clear the site. The Grizzled Boar has fresh scars on his jowls and neck that were not there a day ago; he has been in a battle we did not observe, perhaps in the backcountry. His behavior toward Inge has changed drastically. He is now relatively submissive. He probably fought Inge for female No. 65 or possibly for female No. 40. In any case, he and Inge have battled, and Inge is now the alpha male. The Grizzled Boar recognizes this, as does the entire aggregation. There was no need to have seen the showdown; evidence speaks in the actions and behaviors of every bear. All defer to the "boss," from weaned yearlings and 2-year-olds to Inge's other major contenders, Short-eared Boar, No. 88, and Scarneck. Inge has dominated all the large aggressive males and has reclaimed his former status, relinquished to Scarneck last season (1962). We might say that he has established himself as alpha in 26 days of aggressive action and constant vigilance, or that the aggregation has accepted him as the dominant male after a 26-day period of contention. He has vigilantly checked the fertility of estrous females and has copulated at least three times with two different ones. He has earned the right to select females without a battle and to take choice feeding sites throughout the summer. Encounters such as those just described occurred each year and determined the ascension and succession of alpha males from one year to the next. The organization of the remainder of the male hierarchy fell into place by the same process. Source: The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: their ecology in the Yellowstone ecosystem, Craighead, J.J. (1995). The Brothers Wild Frank and John Craighead's groundbreaking study of grizzly bears helped save the carnivores from extinction. For the twins from Chevy Chase, it was just another chapter in a lifetime of adventure. Vicki Constantine Croke / Sunday, November 11, 2007 / WashingtonPost IT IS THE MID-1960S -- A WARM, SUNNY DAY AT YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, where a 500-pound male grizzly bear known as No. 36 is slumped in a drug-induced haze. Even flattened by tranquilizers, the big bear dwarfs the four researchers in Western-style clothing who are racing the clock to pull every piece of data they can from him -- weighing him, taking blood samples, checking his teeth. He grows larger still when he awakens suddenly with a shattering roar. Groaning, groggy and gladiatorial, the bear rises and charges blindly at the members of the group, who scramble into their red Ford station wagon. In a dizzy rage, the bear barrels like a bristling, fanged locomotive toward the packed car, running straight into the passenger door and then heaving himself onto the hood, his head seeming to fill the entire windshield. As the animal bellows again, the car is jammed almost cartoonishly into reverse, and the big, disoriented bear slides off. To aficionados of National Geographic documentaries, the scene is one of the most popular in the organization's ample, thrill-filled archives. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=96c_1361029427 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/parklandsupdate/yQN1RmMJ8Po Edited by Warsaw2014, Dec 31 2014, 01:26 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Warsaw2014 | Jan 2 2015, 07:32 AM Post #75 |
|
Herbivore
|
"...Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), like many long-lived animals, are highly susceptible to overexploitation. Late age at maturity, small litter sizes, and long interbirth intervals maintain low intrinsic rates of increase for the species. Because of this, all populations of grizzly bears in Canada are classified as being of “special concern” to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2002). Barren-ground grizzly bears inhabiting the Arctic coastal plain, however, may be particularly sensitive to overexploitation because they live at low densities in an area of low productivity and high seasonality (Ferguson and McLoughlin 2000; McLoughlin et al. 2000)..." The heaviest male (261,5 kg)barren-groun grizly bear captured in late may  http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/default/files/bear_tracks_winter_96-97.pdf 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Hyaenidae & Ursidae · Next Topic » |
2:20 AM Jul 14
