A SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OF THE BEAR POPULATION IN ROMANIA

Neculai Şelaru, Dr. Eng. Atilla Kelemen, Acad. Dr.

We have gathered here today to try and

understand what we can do or what we can

do more to preserve, in time, a viably large

carnivorous populations.

We are worried, some by thinking about

preserving the ecologic balance, others

thinking about their own momentary

interests, about what could happen to these

large carnivorous populations as the

ecosystems where they are integrated shall

deteriorate and reduce, considering that

human populations in over-artificialized

countries cannot accept cohabitation with

such animals.

Currently, the trend is to support “in situ”

preservation, on the almost exclusive expense

of the countries where people had the wisdom

not to exterminate them. The other countries

mainly finance the enlighteners of the idea of

protecting and preserving such large

carnivores “in situ”.

Most representatives of the countries having exterminated large carnivores and no longer able to reintroduce them at

home wrongly and hypocritically claim the idea of “in situ” overpopulation of large carnivore numbers, which is, in

itself, a damaging idea for the balance in nature and for large carnivores themselves.

The lack of measures in relation to protecting and preserving overpopulations of large carnivores in countries where

such animals still exist, on the almost exclusive expense of such countries, may have, in a very short period of time,

catastrophic effects over the respective species, even in countries with a, so far, successful management, such as

Romania.

Introduction

Leaving all introductions aside, in order to save time, we

will therefore show you the „Multiannual dynamics of the

wolf populations in Romania”.

We may perform this presentation, based on the credible

statistical data, concerning the real bear numbers and yields

which were gathered annually since 1950 up to this time.

Numbers have been increasing almost permanently,

following some inspired management that was consistently

applied in Romania. We do, however, notice two periods of

downfall, between 1970-1974 and 1990 – present times,

when foreign hunting was permitted and most bears were

extracted, prevailingly dominant males.

However, bear numbers and densities have reached exaggerated levels, already surpassing 6,000 specimens in

our country, a number that may already be deemed as overpopulation.

Current extension of bear areas and the large numbers of juvenile specimens are clear evidence in support of

the idea of numeric growth of the bear population, above the normal limits, in Romania.

Fig. 1. Evolution of the real numbers of bears in Romania

Evolution of the real numbers, quotas achieved and rate of numerical growth.

Fig. 2. Evolution of annual bear extractions in Romania

By means of extractions approved by the administrator and usually only partially achieved by managers,

an almost continuous growth in the bear population in Romania was possible, up to a population level beyond

the optimum figures set de NIRDF, a level accepted in relation to the damage done to animal breeders, farmers

and hunters.

The multiannual average yield quota, computed for the last 66 years, was at 2.6% of the real numbers

assessed each spring, considering a multiannual average growth of 4.3% of the referenced numbers.

.

The numerical growths computed based on the statistical data concerning the real numbers and the yield

quotas achieved are comparable to the growth rates of bear populations in other countries and on other

continents, which highlights the credibility of the statistical figures held by Romania starting from 1950 and

up to present times.

It also highlights the fact that, after exceeding a certain population threshold (around 5,500 – 6,000

specimens), the numeric growth rate decreases, although the disproportion between genders and the

complementary feeding of bears should actually increase such rate.

In conclusion, even though the NIRDF determined an optimal number of around 4,500 bears that may

normally survive in their natural habitats in our country, without actually producing any unacceptable damage

to agricultural and zoo-technical producers and hunters, exceeding a number of 6,000 specimens raises several

issues from the numerical growth rate perspective, which may be deemed an important indicator in assessing

the level of a normal number of bears.

Fig. 3. Multiannual rate of numeric growth

• Adopting a consistent hunting strategy, part of the „National development strategy of Romania during 1968-2010”, under which actual figures were determined to be pursued for achieving optimal numbers in the main hunting species and for preservation of the ecological balance between the populations of the hunting species, for the purpose of a realistic exploitation of the bio-productive capacity of hunting stock;

•Conditions favorable for the management of the species, having consisted in: - putting the species under protection since 1953; - efficient safeguard of the hunting fauna and tightening sanctions related to poaching; -quietness provided within forests and assuring favorable feeding conditions by grouping the felling areas of wood; - more intense and more efficient complementary feeding during spring; - operative extraction of carnivorous bears and very few bears for trophies.

Explaining the successful management of the bear population in Romania:

• deteriorated shelter, peace and natural

feeding conditions as a consequence of chaotic exploitation of forests, food competition between domestic animals in forests, reduction of fruit-growing areas in the vicinity of forests and renouncing rural subsistence agriculture, human habitation extensions etc.;

• exaggerated feeding practiced during autumn and spring, quite often with sorts of non-natural food, in order to attract bears for the purpose of easy hunting or hunting tourism;

• selective-negative extraction, with a priority for dominant male bears, with repercussions over the

population structure according to gender and age class, as well as over the behavior of bears;

• preservation tendency of bear overpopulations and increase in natural growth, with an eye on the

profitable exploitation of their numbers;

• delays in paying for the damage done by bears and the operative approval of extracting bears

causing problems, with unwanted effects over acceptance of the cohabitation between the rural

population and bears.

Mistakes assessed in the management of the species, after 1990:

Measures necessary for the protection and rational preservation of bear populations:

• a review of the stable habitat limits for the species, in Romania, as well as the maximum numbers and densities to

be accepted for the species, so as to avoid exaggerated damage, accidents and the degeneration of the bear population itself, on Romanian territory;

• preventive extraction of the population surplus during autumn, by using the “scrambling” method which does not allow population de-structuring, but on the contrary, it contributes to a quick restructuring of such population, and the “lurk” operative extraction of any specimen with issues;

• complementary feeding with natural food sorts, exclusively during spring;

• interdiction to hunt bears “lurking” in the vicinity of feeding sites;

• interdiction for hunting tourism at the complementary feeding points of bears, so as to avoid the bear getting used to human presence;

• operative cover of damage done by bears.

Therefore, reconsideration of hunting, as the most important

activity in managing the bear populations in Romania in

order to achieve the desired purpose, to protect and actually

preserve viable bear populations that are normally

structured on gender and age class, that are vigorous and

healthy is needed, as opposed to experimentation in

maintaining a de-structured and degenerated overpopulation

of bears, predominantly scavengers and without any fear

towards humans, damaging to the agriculture, forestry,

animal breeding and management the haunting fauna.

• maintaining the bear population to a normal

population level, in a balance with the populations of the other hunting species;

• restructuring bear population based on gender and age class;

• re-wildering of species individuals by re-inducing fear towards man;

• calming the human population affected by the damage and/or accidents produced by bears.

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. M. Comşia – Biologia şi principiile culturii vânatului, Academiei Publishing House, Bucharest, 1961; V. Cotta and M. Bodea – Vânatul României, Agrosilvică Publishing House, Bucharest, 1969; C. Promberg and col – Ursul/Biologie, ecologie şi management, Hako Publishing House, 2000; N. Şelaru and N. Goicea – Situaţia şi Managementul ursului brun în România, Vânătorul şi Pescarul Român Magazine, no. 2/2005. **** – Statistics for hunting numbers and yield quotas during 1950-2016. **** – Action plan for preserving large carnivores in Europa. **** – „Vânătorul şi Pescarul Sportiv” and „Vânătorul şi Pescarul Român” Magazines, published during 1953 – 2016.

Reconsideration of hunting as being the only practical activity for: