Brown bear distribution and status in the South Caucasus
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Brown bear distribution and status in the South Caucasus
Bejan Lortkipanidze1
NACRES – Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Georgia
Abstract: I summarize data on the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the South Caucasus, which
includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The most current information is from Georgia,
where research has been carried out on the species. I determined the present distribution of
brown bears in the South Caucasus based on extensive fieldwork, literature, and satellite maps.
Bears have been exterminated from many areas and now live mainly in mountain forests, where
human access is limited. In some areas of the South Caucasus, the bear range may be considered
fragmented. The many population estimates have varying credibility among countries and
periods. I estimate that 2,000–2,500 bears remain in the South Caucasus. The brown bear is
protected in Georgia and Armenia and is hunted legally in Azerbaijan. Scientists from the South
Caucasus agree that recreational, illegal hunting is the primary problem in the region.
Key words: Armenia, Azerbaijan, brown bear, Caucasus, Georgia, status, Ursus arctos
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Biodiversity in the South Caucasus is rich, and 1999, they periodically collected data on bear
many species are Caucasian endemics. Among the population status and distribution from the region
large carnivores are the wolf (Canis lupus), the brown for analysis.
bear (Ursus arctos), the striped hyena (Hyaena
hyaena satunini), the Asian leopard (Panthera pardus
saxicolor), and the lynx (Lynx lynx) (Gurielidze Study area
1997). Most large mammals in the South Caucasus The South Caucasus includes 3 countries: Arme-
have been poorly studied. The brown bear is no nia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The region is located
exception and data on the species are general at best. between the Black and Caspian seas to the east and
Population estimation has been mostly based on west, respectively, and includes the southern slopes
often biased and unreliable data (Chestin et al. 1992, of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range in the
Kudaktin and Chestin 1993) from state hunting north, the Lesser Caucasus Range in middle of the
regulation organizations. There are few publications region, and the South Caucasian mountain systems
on the bear in the South Caucasus and fewer are in in the south. Our 3 study areas were located in the
English. Therefore, the status and distribution of Georgian part of the Greater Caucasus range
brown bear in the south Caucasus is relatively (western, central, and eastern parts of the range).
unknown worldwide (Servheen et al. 1999). Since One study area included arid and semi-arid parts of
1996, the nongovernmental organization NACRES Georgia in the southeastern part of the country and
– Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research another was located in the Borjomi district, in the
has been using standardized methods to study the Lesser Caucasus Range. Due to the location of the
brown bear in the South Caucasus. They have twice South Caucasus, the climate is diverse, ranging from
attempted to estimate bear populations in Georgia humid subtropical to dry, arid, and semi-arid. There
and have collected bear signs in northern Azerbaijan are 3 main types of forest: broadleaf, coniferous, and
and Armenia. To determine both the attitudes of the semi-arid open woodlands. The subalpine zone starts
local populations toward the bear and the reasons at 1,800–2,500 m, depending on the microclimate.
for bear hunting, they conducted a socio-economic Alpine areas (2,500–3,000 m), are covered with
survey in Georgia in year 2005. Additionally, since grasslands and thickets of Caucasian rhododendron
(Rhododendron caucasicum) (Krever et al. 2001,
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
1
bejan.lortkipanidze@nacres.org 2005).
0
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:51:49 1 Cust # 09GR017R0 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze
Fig. 1. Distribution of brown bear in the South Caucasus study area based on literature, fieldwork in Georgia
and the northern parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan, 1999–2005.
Methods to the bears’ intensive foraging activity. If sign was
Distribution found in the area, the bear range was assumed to
The historical distribution of brown bears was include the entire suitable habitat in the area (e.g.,
defined based on the literature. Because information forest, badlands, riparian forest). In areas where
on the species’ historical distribution was often bear sign was not found, I interviewed local
described very generally, I sometimes extrapolated residents. During interviews, I tried to determine if
the bear range and determined the distribution based the local people had seen bears or signs of bears
on habitat. To assess present distribution, I carried during recent years. If bear existence in an area was
out intensive fieldwork throughout almost all of not confirmed by locals, the area was excluded from
Georgia (except the conflict zone in Abkhazia, in the the estimated range.
northwest of Georgia) and the northern parts of In the areas where fieldwork was not conducted
Armenia and Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). During fieldwork, (the southern parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan), I
the locations of all bear signs (footprints, scrapes, defined bear range based on the available literature
scats, and visual observations) were recorded by as well as online satellite maps (Google Earth
global position systems (GPS) and subsequently Program version 4.3; http://earth.google.com/). Ac-
mapped. Presence–absence surveys were based on cording to schematic maps and general descriptions
scats and tracks, which were commonly found of bear range in the literature, I outlined bear
during the fieldwork. Most fieldwork was carried distribution in these countries. I used online satellite
out in autumn when scats could easily be found due maps to correct bear distribution there. I assumed
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:10 2 Cust # 09GR017RBROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 0
that bears still existed in large tracts of forested and ture. Threats to the bear population were assessed
badland habitats, and based on freely available based on literature, field data, and communication
satellite maps, I included these habitats in the bear with colleagues in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
distribution. A final map was sent to E. Askerov A socioeconomic survey was carried out by ACT
(WWF Caucasus Programme Office, Azerbaijan, International at the request of NACRES. The
personal communication, year 2007), a researcher research was carried out in 3 districts of Georgia
working on leopard in Azerbaijan, who evaluated (Gori, Borjomi, and Tetritskaro). A total of 450
the Azerbaijan portion of the map and, based on his interviews (170 in Gori, 140 in Borjomi, and 140 in
fieldwork, added to the bear range. Tetritskaro) were conducted using a comprehensive
questionnaire on a wide range of topics from
Population estimation household property to attitudes toward brown bears.
Initially our estimate was based on measuring bear To assess current forest utilization and poaching and
tracks. Pazhetnov (1990) reported that certain recent changes in the patterns and scale of human
measurements taken from the front footprint of a activity, especially with respect to the use of natural
bear can be used for individual identification. The resource, 35 indepth interviews were conducted with
NACRES team measured tracks (total length and local authorities, hunters, protected area staff, and
width, as well as pad measurements) along trails and foresters.
forest roads and compared these measurement to
each other. Based on this, the NACRES team
estimated bear numbers in each of 5 study areas (1 Results
in a semi-arid ecosystem, 1 in the Lesser Caucasus, Historical distribution
and 3 in the Greater Caucasus), covering 1,533 km2. Few sources provided information on the distri-
The study areas included protected and unprotected bution of bears in the past. In the earliest description
areas. Estimated bear numbers were used to of bear distribution in the Caucasus, Radde (1899)
calculate the mean bear density for each bear reported that bears were distributed throughout the
habitat, and these figures were used for the calcula- region and lived even in the forestless mountain
tion of overall bear numbers in Georgia. Although plateau in Armenia (Radde 1899, Dinnik 1914). At
this method is not accepted in scientific literature as the end of the 19th century, bear numbers were
a way for estimating population sizes, I used it here reported as high on the southern slopes of the
with caution due to the scarcity of data. In addition, Greater Caucasus Range, where winters are mild and
this method was used to assess bear populations in bear habitats are relatively productive (Radde 1899,
Georgia during Soviet times (Arabuli 1987), and is Dinnik 1914, Satunin 1915). Densities were espe-
therefore useful for comparative purposes. cially high in the western parts of the Greater
In 2004, I estimated the minimum bear numbers Caucasus Range (Geptner 1932). In some areas, bear
for the central part of Georgia (the Borjomi District) range included the Black Sea coast (Chkhikvishvili
using DNA analyses of fecal samples from the study 1939), and where forest was close to the sea, it was
area. The NACRES team covered 2,113 km2 and possible to see bears on the shore from the sea. Based
collected fecal samples on transects (at least 3 km in on Radde’s map and other literature (Dinnik 1914,
length) that were evenly distributed in the study area. Satunin 1915, Vereshchagin 1959, Markov 1934),
Based on DNA analysis, minimum bear numbers in bears did not live in the forestless and steppe habitats
the study area were identified. Detailed methods for in the Kura lowlands in the central part of
DNA analyses are found in Murtskhvaladze and Azerbaijan, nor were they observed along the shores
Tarkhnishvili (2006). Because the study area in- of the Caspian Sea. According to Vereshchagin
cluded protected and unprotected areas and data (1959), bears did not live in the Kolkheti lowland, a
were collected from different types of bear habitats large wetland area in the western part of Georgia
(deciduous, mixed, coniferous, sub-alpine meadows), (near the Black Sea coast around the town Poti), at
I concluded that the results could be generalized and the beginning of the 20th century (Fig. 1).
used for the calculation of a minimum bear
population size for the entire country. Present distribution
Data on the status and population size of bears in We mapped the current distribution of brown
Armenia and Azerbaijan were collected from litera- bears in the South Caucasus based on fieldwork and
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:27 3 Cust # 09GR017R0 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze
literature (Fig. 1). The present range is significantly Table 1. Estimates of brown bear population in the
smaller than the historical distribution. Bears were South Caucasus, 1970s–present.
exterminated from lower elevation forests and from Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
riparian forests along the main rivers of the South
Armenia 295a 600b (150c) –– ––
Caucasus (Gadzhiev and Rakhmatulina 2000). To- Azerbaijan 1,086a 680b 800e 1,600g
day, despite high rates of forest exploitation, the Georgia 675a 600b (3,000d) 600f 450h
most important bear habitat is still the mountain a
Vereshchagin (1972).
forest. Bears do not exist in the lowlands, where the b
Kudaktin and Chestin (1993).
c
habitat is more degraded by humans. Bears no Margarian (1987).
d
Arabuli (1987).
longer live on forestless mountain plateaus as Radde e
NACRES (2003).
(1899) and Dinnik (1914) described. f
Estimate based on tracking method.
g
I identified 3 major isolated populations in the Kuliev et al. (2002).
h
region, 2 in the southeastern Georgia and north- Minimal bear population.
eastern Azerbaijan, and the third in Armenia
(Fig. 1). The first two populations are very small; Chestin 1993). However, according to Margarian
up to 20 individuals total inhabit the semi-arid zone (1987), there were only 150 bears left, implying that
of the region (Lortkipanidze 2003). Despite having the numbers had declined. According to the Wildlife
assessed all semi-arid areas in Georgia and northern Data Bank of the Caucasus (NACRES 2003), the
Azerbaijan, I could not find any bear sign elsewhere current bear population in Armenia is unknown.
around these small sub-populations. As there is After the 1970s, bear numbers declined in
intensive land use, human activity, and settlement Azerbaijan (Kudaktin and Chestin 1993). According
surrounding the smaller populations, I decided to to Kuliev et al. (2002), bear numbers increased
outline the range of the sub-populations separately between 1993 and 2000. According to annual counts
from that of the main population in the Greater carried out by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural
Caucasus. Resources of Azerbaijan, there were approximately
Bear distribution in Armenia is mostly based on 1,600 individuals in the country (Kuliev et al. 2002).
the schematic map in the Red Book of Armenian Georgia’s bear population in the early 1980s was
SSR (Margarian 1987). According to this map, the estimated at 600 individuals (Kudaktin and Chestin
bear population is fragmented in the northern part 1993) and 3,000 individuals (Arabuli 1987). In 1997,
of the country. I roughly examined bear habitat in the NACRES team estimated the population at
the area, based on Google Earth satellite maps. I about 600 individuals (NACRES 2003). However,
observed settlements and agricultural fields along reliability of the result is doubtful because the bear
possible connection routes. Considering that bears population estimate was based on the tracking
are persecuted by poachers in Armenia, it likely that, method.
as in Georgia, they are relatively shy and may avoid In 2004 and 2005, I estimated minimum bear
crossing areas that are heavily used by humans. numbers using DNA analysis of fecal samples from a
study area in the central part of the country. I
Current abundance and population trends collected 102 samples during the autumn season.
Because of discrepancies in the data, it is DNA analysis of the screened loci in 31 samples
extremely difficult to determine the abundance and revealed 28 genotypes differing from each other in at
trends of the South Caucasian bear population least 1 locus. From this I concluded that, from the
(Chestin et al. 1992). For example, in certain years beginning of September through to the end of
there are 2 very different estimates (Table 1). It also November, at least 28 bears were present in the
appears that the level of credibility differs greatly study area (Murtskhvaladze and Tarkhnishvili
among countries and periods, partially due to the 2006). Based on these results, I calculated minimum
different methods utilized. Little information is bear density within our study area as approximately
available on bears in Armenia. The population 13 bears/1000 km2. Based on topographic and
estimate in the 1970s was 292 bears (Vereshchagin satellite maps, I defined bear habitat in Georgia
1972), but in the 1980s, according to data from and calculated a total coverage of approximately
governmental hunting districts, the population was 34,000 km2 with a minimum bear population of 450
reported to have increased to 600 (Kudaktin and individuals.
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:27 4 Cust # 09GR017RBROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 0
Table 2. Reasons for hunting bears as reported by even thought that they could hunt in the protected
people in central Georgia in 2005 (ACT International areas if they bought a license (ACT International
2005). 2005).
Reason Respondents, % Despite the legal status of bears in Georgia, bear
Amusement or hobby 54.3 killing is common throughout the country. Accord-
Family tradition 4.9 ing to the Georgian Ministry of Environment, no
Matter of bravery 10.2 hunting licenses were issued in the country during
Source of food for the family 9.1 1996–2006, and in 2006 bears were included in Red
Source of family income 4.5
Crop protection 1.9 List. Since that time, no bears have been killed
Protection of domestic animals 1.9 legally.
Get a bear skin 1.3
Nobody hunts bears at all 1.0
Difficult to answer 11.6
Discussion
Bear distribution in the region has contracted
significantly since historical times. Bears disappeared
Legal status and threats primarily from areas where human activity is most
The brown bear is a protected species in Armenia intensive, in the lowlands and areas without forest
and is included in the national Red Data Book cover. Due to increased hunting and habitat loss, the
(Margarian 1987). In Azerbaijan, bears are hunted population had already begun to decline at the end
and annual quotas are based on population censuses of the 19th century (Dinnik 1914); according to
conducted by the government. In Georgia, the bear Gepner (1932), bears avoided open habitat and lived
was included on the national Red List in 2006 as in mountain forests at the beginning of the 20th
‘Endangered’; therefore no bear hunting is allowed century. Bear numbers were already very low on the
according to Georgian legislation. Lesser Caucasus mountains (east Georgia, Armenia,
Habitat destruction and especially illegal hunting and southeast Azerbaijan) by the middle of the 20th
have been suggested as major limiting factors for the century (Vereshchagin 1958).
bear populations in all 3 countries of the South The present range is significantly smaller than the
Caucasus (NACRES 2003). The reasons for poach- historical range. I outlined 3 populations in the
ing have changed over time. In the mid-1990s, region that are evidently isolated from one another. I
hunters in Georgia shot many bears for their gall do not have precise data on isolation level of the
bladders, which commanded a very high price. At populations, but due to the intensive land use and
the end of the 1990s, due to unknown reasons, the settlements around these sub-populations, I assume
business became unprofitable and poachers stopped that individual exchange is limited.
killing bears for gall bladders. According to a Many figures on bear numbers in the South
socioeconomic survey in central Georgia, 54% of Caucasus are based more on expert opinion than
respondents thought that people hunted bears for on actual population estimates. During the Com-
amusement or as a hobby (ACT International 2005). munist regime, some officials tried to provide higher
About 10% of respondents answered that bear numbers of game animals to keep hunting quotas
hunting was a food source for their family (Table 2). high and to demonstrate their success at wildlife
Killing a bear is considered brave, and many hunters conservation. It seems that this tendency still prevails
tried to kill bears to bolster their self-confidence. in the South Caucasus.
Selling bear parts, mostly skins, and bear cubs in Estimates from Azerbaijan suggest a population
spring, was an additional source of income for some decline in the 1980s and a recent increase to 1,600
hunters. Prices of bear skins and cubs varied from individuals (Kuliev et al. 2002). Some Azeri scientists
US $100 to $200. This provided a fairly good income believe that the official number of bears in the
for rural communities in a country where, outside country is greatly overestimated and that there are
the capital, the average monthly salary was about fewer than 1,200 individuals (E. Askerov, personal
$100 (ACT International 2005). Therefore, I suspect communication, 2007). Perhaps government agen-
that in some cases, bear hunting may have been cies and commercial entities are inclined to over-
motivated by income. Up to 50% of local people estimate the population of bears because hunting
were unaware of the ban on bear hunting, and some tourism brings in considerable revenues.
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:28 5 Cust # 09GR017R0 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze
Georgia had 2 wildly different estimates for bears of reliable data makes informed management deci-
in the early 1980s: 600 individuals (Kudaktin and sions difficult.
Chestin 1993) and 3,000 individuals (Arabuli 1987).
The first estimate is based on reports from state
game departments; the second is based on a tracking Acknowledgments
method and counts on flushed bears. None of the I thank our donors for funding bear conservation
authors described their methods in detail, and and research (World Society for the Protection of
therefore it is difficult to assess the credibility of Animals, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
either estimate. Caucasus Programme Office, Fauna and Flora
According to more recent population estimates, International, MacArthur Foundation, United Na-
however, at least 450 bears were counted in tion Development Programme, World Bank and
Georgia, although there is no accurate census for Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline/South Cauca-
the country. However, due to intensive poaching sus gas pipeline (SCP)). I especially thank our donor
and the lack of effective conservation measures, the and partner in bear conservation in Georgia, Alertis
bear population is likely declining. The fact that, in — Fund for Bear and Natural Conservation. E.
some places, habitats are well preserved but there Askerov provided invaluable comments on bear
are no bears present supports this speculation distribution and information on bear legal status in
(unpublished data). Azerbaijan. My warmest thanks to our consultants
There is no information on bear numbers in J. Swenson and D. Huber, who greatly helped us in
Armenia, and so it is difficult to estimate current many fields of bear research. Thanks also to J.
bear numbers in the South Caucasus as a whole, but Swenson and N. Kopaliani for essential comments
based on data I speculate that there are 2,000–2,500 on the manuscript. Great thanks to my NACRES
bears throughout the South Caucasus. colleagues, who helped carry out fieldwork and
Bear are completely protected in Georgia and analyze data and who were there for me as friends,
Armenia, while in Azerbaijan an annual hunting and to all students and rangers who were involved in
quota is set based on official counts carried out by data collection and were good companions in the
the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources. field.
However, attempts have been made to include the
bear in the second edition of the Red Book of
Azerbaijan (E. Askerov, personal communication, Literature cited
2007). Scientists from the South Caucasus agree that ACT INTERNATIONAL. 2005. Socio-economic research
poaching is the most important factor influencing report. Prepared for NACRES – Centre for Biodiver-
bear numbers in all 3 countries (NACRES 2003). In sity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In
Georgian.)
Georgia, the primary reason for poaching seems to
ARABULI, A.l. 1987. Datvi Sakartveloshi. [Bear in Georgia].
be recreation. Despite legal protection, enforcement Metsniereba, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Georgian, summary
of the hunting law is weak in Georgia, and no in Russian.)
poachers have been punished since 1996. This CHESTIN, I.E., Y.P. GUBAR, V.E. SOKOLOV, AND V.S.
apparent impunity encourages further illegal hunting LOBACHEV. 1992. The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in
of bears and other large mammals in Georgia. In the USSR: Numbers, hunting and systematics. Finnish
addition, accessibility to remote areas is increasing, Zoological Publishing Board 29:57–68.
and exploitation of mountain ecosystems is becom- CHKHIKVISHVILI, I.D. 1939. K Faune Mlekopitayushchikh i
ing more intensive. Increased accessibility makes Ptits Abkhazii. [Mammals and birds of Abkhazia].
hunting easier in remote parts of the country. Pages 10–11 in Materialy k Faune Abkhazii. [Materials
It is obvious that, despite some information being about Abkhazian fauna]. Gruzinkiı̈ filial Akademii
Nauk SSSR, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)
available on the status of bears in the South
DINNIK, N.I. 1914. Zveri Kavkaza, Khishchnye. [Animals
Caucasus, many questions remain unanswered. No of the Caucasus, predators]. Part II. Tipografiya K. P.
adequate monitoring system for bear populations Kozlovskogo, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)
exists in the range countries, or monitoring is carried GADZHIEV, D.V., AND I.K. RAKHMATULINA. 2000. Khishch-
out with questionable methods that do not allow for nye — Carnivora. Pages 552–588 in Zhivotnyı̈ Mir
accurate estimates of the true bear population trends Azerbaı̈dzhana. [Fauna of Azerbaijan]. Volume III.
in the region. In terms of conservation, this paucity Elm, Baku, Azerbaijan. (In Russian.)
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:28 6 Cust # 09GR017RBROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 0
GEPTNER, V.G. 1932. Buryı̈ Medved.’ [Brown bear]. molecular-genetic methods. Volume 4. Pages 43–50 in
Pages 17–32 in Medvedi. [Bears]. Vneshtorgizdat, Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences,
Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.) Biological series B, Tbilisi Georgia. (In English and
GURIELIDZE, Z. 1997. Large mammals. Pages 83–92 in summary in Georgian.)
Georgian Biodiversity Country Study Report. United NACRES. 2003. Baza Dannykh Zhivotnogo Mira Yuzhnogo
Nations Environmental Programme, Ministry of En- Kavkaza (Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia).
vironment of Georgia and NACRES – Centre for [Wildlife Data Bank of the Caucasus (Amphibia,
Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Geor- Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia)]. NACRES — Centre for
gia. (In Georgian and English.) Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Geor-
KREVER, V., N. ZAZANASHVILI, H. JUNGIUS, L. WILLIAMS, gia. (In Russian.)
AND D. PETELIN. 2001. Biodiversity of the Caucasus NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN –
Region. An analysis of biodiversity and current threats GEORGIA. 2005. Tbilisi, Georgia. Available at http://
and initial investment portfolio. World Wide Fund for nacres.org/pub.html.
Nature, Moscow, Russia. PAZHETNOV, V.S. 1990. Buryı̈ Medved’. [Brown bear].
KUDAKTIN, A.N., AND I.E. CHESTIN. 1993. The Caucasus. Agropromizdat, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian.)
Pages 136–141 in Bears. Nauka, Moscow, Russia. (In RADDE, G.I. 1899. Museum Caucasicum. Volume 1.
Russian and summary in English.) Tipografiya Kantselyariı̈ Glavnonachal’stvuyushchago
KULIEV, G.N., S.M. KULIEV, AND E.K. ASKEROV. 2002. grazhdanskoyu chastiyu na Kavkaze, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Sovremennoe Ēkologicheskoe Sostoianie Burogo Med-
(In Russian and in German.)
vedya (Ursus arctos L.) v Azerbaidzhane. [Status of
SATUNIN, K.A. 1915. Mlekopitayushchiya Kavkazskogo
brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Azerbaijan]. Pages 222–224
kraya. [Mammals of the Caucasus]. Volume I. Tipo-
in Proceedings of II CIC Bear Conference, Moscow,
grafiya Kantselyariı̈ Namestnika ego Imperatorskago
Russia. (In Russian.)
Velichestva na Kavkaze, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)
LORTKIPANIDZE, B.L. 2003. Buryı̈ medved’ (Ursus arctos L.)
SERVHEEN, C., S. HERRERO, AND B. PEYTON, cOMPILERS.
v aridnych i semiaridnych ēkosistemax Zakavkaz’ya.
1999. Bears. Status survey and Conservation Action
[Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in arid and semiarid
Plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist
ecosystems of the South Caucasus]. Pages 35–40 in
Konservaciya aridnych i semiaridnych ēkosistem Za- Groups. International Union for the Conservation of
kavkaz’ya. [Conservation of arid and semiarid ecosys- Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
tems of the South Caucasus]. Proceedings of NACRES VERESHCHAGIN, N.K. 1958. Zhivotni Mir SSSR. [Mammals
– Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research, of USSR]. Volume V. Pages 180–220. Akademii Nauk
Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.) USSR, Moscow, Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.)
MARGARIAN, N. A 1987. Zakavkazkiı̈ Buryı̈ Medved.’ ———. 1959. Mlekopitayushchie Kavkaza. [Mammals of
[Brown bear of the South Caucasus]. Pages 22–23 in the Caucasus]. Akademii Nauk USSR, Moscow,
Krastnaya Kniga Armyanskoı̈ SSR. [Red Book of Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.)
Armenia SSR]. Aı̈stan Press, Erevan, Armenia. (In ———. 1972. Ckol’ko zhe burykh medvedeı̈ v SSSR. [How
Russian.) many bears are in USSR]. Okhota i Okhotnich’e
MARKOV, E.L. 1934. Okhotnich’e Khozyaistvo Zakavka- Khozyaistvo. [Hunting and hunting management].
z’ya. [Hunting management in the South Caucasus]. Volume 11:20–21, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian.)
ZakGIZ, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)
MURTSKHVALADZE, M., AND D. TARKHNISHVILI. 2006. Received: 9 June 2009
Estimation of brown bear abundance and population Accepted: 28 January 2010
structure in Borjom-Kharagauli National Park with Associate Editor: O. Nevin
Ursus 21(1):000–000 (2010)
Ursus ursu-21-01-10.3d 2/3/10 16:52:28 7 Cust # 09GR017RYou can also read
