Search

Human–bear conflicts resulting from livestock depredation and crop use are a common threat to the brown bear Ursus arctos throughout its range. Understanding these conflicts requires the recording and categorization of incidents, assessment of their geographical distribution and frequency, and documentation of the financial costs and the presence of any preventative measures. Damage compensation schemes can help mitigate conflicts and, in some cases, improve acceptance of bears. This study aims to elucidate the major factors determining the patterns of damage caused by bears, examine the effectiveness of preventative measures in reducing such damage, and identify bear damage hotspots in Croatia. Our analysis is based on damage reports provided by hunting organizations to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture during 2004–2014. The highest number of claims were made for damage to field crops and orchards. Damage to livestock, agricultural crops and beehives resulted in the highest total cost to farmers. Damage to beehives and to automatic corn feeders for game species incurred the highest cost per damage event. We identified a hotspot for bear damage claims in Croatia, located near Risnjak National Park and the border with Slovenia. Damage appears higher in areas that have more villages closer to protected areas and a greater per cent of forest cover, indicating a synergistic effect of protected environments that facilitate bear movements and the presence of human activities that provide easily accessible food for bears. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We built on the existing capacity of a non-governmental organization called the Blackfoot Challenge to proactively address gray wolf (Canis lupus; wolves) livestock conflicts in the Blackfoot Valley of Montana. Beginning in 2007, wolves started rapidly recolonizing the valley, raising concerns among livestock producers. We built on an existing program to mitigate conflicts associated with an expanding grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population and worked within the community to build a similar program to reduce wolf conflicts using an integrative, multi-method approach. Efforts to engage the community included one-on-one meetings, workshops, field tours and regular group meetings as well as opportunities to participate in data collection and projects. Initial projects included permanent electric fencing of calving areas and livestock carcass removal to address the threat of grizzly bears and, later, wolves. Subsequently, we used intensive livestock and wolf monitoring provided by range riders in an attempt to reduce the frequency of encounter rates among wolves and livestock. Although we cannot claim causation from our effort, the results were encouraging. Confirmed livestock losses to wolves from 2006 to 2015 averaged 2.2 depredations per year across nearly 50 ranches on about 3,240 km2 that were annually grazed by 16,000-18,000 head of livestock. Fewer than 3 wolves per year have been removed (2.4 wolves per year) due to these depredations for the same period as the population increased from 1 confirmed pack to approximately 12 packs. Our collaborative approach and prior experience with grizzly bears were key in building a proactive program to mitigate conflicts with wolves in a community that was confronted with adjusting to an increasing large carnivore presence over a short period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]