Download Problems connected with the large-carnivore conservation in

Adamic, M., Jerina, K., and Jonozovic, M. (2004). Problems connected with the large-carnivore
conservation in Slovenia: did we find the right way? Game & Wildlife Science 4(21): 571-580.
Keywords: 8SI/Brown bear/Canis/Canis lupus/carnivores/community/compensation/
conservation/cost/damage/dynamics/expansion/farming/harvest/large carnivores/livestock/lynx/
Lynx lynx/Malme/policy/predation/predator/Predators/prevention/project/sheep/Ursus
arctos/wolf/wolves
Abstract: Yearlong protection of the brown bear, Ursus arctos, wolf, Canis lupus, and lynx, Lynx
lynx, was adopted in October 1993 by a decree of the Government of Slovenia, including a
harvest control of bears. But, despite being granted legal protection from shooting, large
predators faced new threats arising from the changes in agricultural economics. According to the
EU agricultural policy, financial support has also been granted to Slovene people engaged in
sheep farming. The stock of sheep in Slovenia was estimated to be about 135,000 animals in
2004, and is slowly growing. With the expansion of the range of the brown bear and the wolf in
post-1993 period, the risks of predation have spread from southern Slovenia to the west and
northwest. The expansion of large predators has not been properly considered by the sheep
farmers and, consequently, the extent of damage caused by large predators has increased since
1993. In the period 2000-2003, the claims for the compensation of damages, mostly upon
livestock, amounted to around 706,000 Euros. In the same period 1,440 predation claims were
registered. Provision of anti-predator protection is not an obligatory part of State-supported
livestock projects, although predator damages have to be compensated from the State budget.
Slovenia is a small country, but local communities differ greatly in the ways of life and economic
resources available to them. Therefore the natural heritage, of which large carnivores form an
essential part, may also be regarded as a nuisance by a good part of the people of Slovenia.
Effective mitigation programs in predator-exposed parts of the country will therefore have to be
launched. Target groups should be properly informed about the current expansion dynamics of
carnivore populations, with emphasis placed on the exposure of their properties to potential
predation. Livestock farmers ought to be aware that good anti-predator prevention of their
properties is worth both the effort and the cost.
Game and Wildlife Science, Vol. 21 (4), 2004, p. 571-580
ISSN 1622-7662
<
<
PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH
THE LARGE-CARNIVORE CONSERVATION IN
SLOVENIA: DID WE FIND THE RIGHT WAY?
M. ADAMIC (*), K. JERINA (*) and M. JONOZOVIC (**)
(*) University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of
Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Vecna pot 83,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
E-mail: [email protected]
(**) Slovenia Forest Service, Division of Wildlife Management,
Vecna pot 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
KEY WORDS: Brown bear, Ursus arctos, wolf, Canis lupus, lynx, Lynx lynx, population,
extent range, damage, livestock farming, conservation, damage prevention, Slovenia.
ABSTRACT
Yearlong protection of the brown bear, Ursus arctos, wolf, Canis lupus, and
lynx, Lynx lynx, was adopted in October 1993 by a decree of the Government of
Slovenia, including a harvest control of bears. But, despite being granted legal
protection from shooting, large predators faced new threats arising from the
changes in agricultural economics. According to the EU agricultural policy, financial support has also been granted to Slovene people engaged in sheep farming.
The stock of sheep in Slovenia was estimated to be about 135,000 animals in
2004, and is slowly growing. With the expansion of the range of the brown bear
and the wolf in post-1993 period, the risks of predation have spread from southern Slovenia to the west and northwest. The expansion of large predators has
not been properly considered by the sheep farmers and, consequently, the
extent of damage caused by large predators has increased since 1993. In the
period 2000-2003, the claims for the compensation of damages, mostly upon
livestock, amounted to around 706,000 Euros. In the same period 1,440 predation claims were registered. Provision of anti-predator protection is not an obligatory part of State-supported livestock projects, although predator damages
have to be compensated from the State budget. Slovenia is a small country, but
local communities differ greatly in the ways of life and economic resources available to them. Therefore the natural heritage, of which large carnivores form an
essential part, may also be regarded as a nuisance by a good part of the people
of Slovenia. Effective mitigation programs in predator-exposed parts of the country will therefore have to be launched. Target groups should be properly informed
about the current expansion dynamics of carnivore populations, with emphasis
placed on the exposure of their properties to potential predation. Livestock farmers ought to be aware that good anti-predator prevention of their properties is
worth both the effort and the cost.
572 Large carnivore conservation in Slovenia
I. INTRODUCTION
<
<
<
<
Slovenia is a small Central European country, extending over 20,000 km2.
About 60% of its surface is covered by forests. Vast forested areas of the
Dinarics represent the core range of large predator species: the brown bear,
Ursus arctos, the wolf, Canis lupus, and the lynx, Lynx lynx. The latter was, following its extirpation in the 19th century, reintroduced in 1973 using the stock
of animals from Slovakia.
The historic fate of large carnivores on the present territory of Slovenia was
similar to that of other Central European countries. Under the provisions of the
Austrian hunting legislation from mid-18th century, large predators, wolves,
brown bears and lynx were persecuted at every opportunity. In the second
half of the 19th century, the anti-predator campaign became so efficient that
the lynx disappeared from the whole area of Slovenia, and the wolf and the
brown bear were nearly exterminated (SIVIC, 1926). The State's bounty system might have been an important economic trigger in those anti-predator
campaigns.
The life history of predators in the area of Kocevje and also in that of
Notranjski Sneznik (HUFNAGL, 1898; SCHOLLMAYER, 1889) proves that
human acceptance (or aversion) is a very important part of habitat suitability
for most wildlife species, especially where people are faced with problems
due to these species (DORRANCE, 1983). This very important historical lesson is to be seriously considered in the present and future conservation
strategies of all wildlife species which compete with humans in the exploitation of the same or common resources, damage their properties or even pose
threats to their lives (ADAMIC, 1993).
The conservation status of the large predators in Slovenia improved significantly in October 1993 when “The Decree on the Protection of Endangered
Animal Species in Slovenia” was adopted by the Government of the Republic
of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 57/93). The act provided for yearlong protection of large carnivores over the entire territory of
Slovenia. The Government of Slovenia also took on the responsibility to compensate property damages caused by large predators, and regulations concerning the harvest of large predators were also included. What were the
consequences of the use of this decree on the brown bear and wolf population numbers? Were the damages to livestock bearable to farmers? Did we
find the right way?
II. HISTORICAL AND RECENT FATES OF LARGE
CARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN SLOVENIA
Brown bear
Slovenian brown bear populations declined again during World War II due
to uncontrolled hunting and extensive military operations, mostly inside
forested areas. According to crude estimations by the Hunters Association of
Slovenia (Statistical Yearbook of the Hunters Association for the Year 1949),
the post-World War II population size of the brown bear was less than 50 individuals. Following the adoption of legal yearlong protection in 1951, the
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
<
<
M. Adamic, K. Jerina & M. Jonozovic 573
<
<
<
population began to grow gradually and at the end of the 50s it was estimated at about 160 animals (SVIGELJ, 1961). In 1966, the area of 3,500 km2 in
south-central Slovenia was designated as the “Bear Core Conservation Area“.
The resulting conservation measures, including yearlong shooting ban of
females with the cubs of the year, supplemental feeding, and the fixations of
yearly harvest quotas, contributed to accelerated population growth in the
whole post-1966 period. Outside the core area, yearlong shooting of bears
was allowed. Thus, brown bear zonation in Slovenia was modelled for the first
time. According to crude estimations of Slovenian brown bear populations in
the mid-60s, about 90–95% of bears roamed the core conservation area
(JERINA et al., 2002). Subsequently, bears expanded their range towards the
north and west. The presence of individual bears in the Alps and surrounding
prealpine regions in the entire post-WW II period was well documented, since
most of these animals were shot by hunters and the events were published in
the newspapers of the time.
In the whole post-1990 period, the brown bear accelerated its expansion
towards the north and west (ADAMIC, 1996 ; ADAMIC, 2003). The size of
Slovenian bear population in the year 2000 was estimated to be about
400–450 animals (JERINA et al., 2002). According to the results of a year-long
censusing of bears about 25% of the current Slovenian bear population lives
in the outer range of expansion. This sub-population unit is the key source of
individuals for reintroduction and natural recolonization of the neighbouring
Austria and Italy (BOITANI, 2000 ; SWENSON et al., 2000).
As a result of the damage caused to human property and also due to a few
cases of injuries to people, the population of the brown bear has been kept
under control. The measures also include harvest control of bears. Yearly harvest quotas are planned for the entire population living on the territory of
Slovenia, and are then subdivided into regional sub-quotas to be realized in
individual wildlife areas in the current calendar year. Planned size of yearly
harvest quota is composed by taking into account the extent of control harvest in previous years, the number of incidental kills, live-capturing and transfer of bears, road kills and other losses. It is calculated separately for the core
area and other areas (marginal, transit and exceptional bear presence areas).
Fixation of harvest quotas and the inspection of extracted animals is provided
by the wildlife officers of the Slovenian Forest Service.
Wolf
<
The wolf population on the current territory of Slovenia was seriously
reduced in the 19th century. They reappeared in the southern parts of the
country in the first half of the 20th century, but were quickly killed off by the
hunters again (ADAMIC et al., 1998). After the protection measures adopted
in 1993, wolves in Slovenia began to reoccupy their historic range. Owing to
the wolf's long-lasting absence from a large part of Slovenian territory, the
knowledge on wolf ecology is poor among people. Repeated cases of wolf
predation upon livestock in recovery areas and attacks upon pet animals (e.g.
dogs, Canis familiaris), especially if made in the vicinity of houses, initiated
fear among people and stirred negative feelings towards wolves in local communities. People were not familiar with high reproduction potentials of wolves
and their abilities of long range dispersions. We are aware that any efficient
conservation strategy also depends on positive human attitudes towards the
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
574 Large carnivore conservation in Slovenia
<
<
<
problem. Therefore we find it important to establish feedback contacts with
local communities, assess their attitudes and improve their knowledge on wolf
biology with the emphasis on wolf-human relations.
The size of the wolf population is hard to estimate on account of the species'
large home ranges and crossborder movements (ADAMIC et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, in the whole post-1990 period the wolf accelerated its expansion towards the north and west (ADAMIC, 1996; ADAMIC, 2003).
II. CONFLICTS WITH LIVESTOCK FARMERS
II.1. LIVESTOCK FARMING
In the 19th century livestock husbandry was the main activity in the prealpine
and alpine regions of Slovenia, and to some extent also in the Dinarics. Large
predators were therefore considered by local communities as serious obstacles to their economic goals. They were persecuted and killed in any possible
way. The bounties for wolf kills in Slovenia were paid for by the State until
1970.
Between 1994 and 2003, the extent of human-carnivore conflicts in Slovenia
arose in line with the expansion of carnivore populations and that of livestock
farming. Indeed the number of reported cases of damage upon human properties increased from 7 in 1994 to 314 in 2003 (Table I).
TABLE I
Number of reported cases of large carnivore damage upon human
property in Slovenia in the period 1994-2003. Source: Slovenia Forest
Service (2004).
TABLEAU I
Nombre de cas recensés de dégâts causés par les grands carnivores
(ours brun, loup et lynx) aux fermes slovènes entre 1994 et 2003;
Source : Service Forestier Slovène (2004).
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total
%
Brown bear
Ursus arctos
7
57
45
81
105
138
139
123
503
229
1,427
70,0
Number of damage cases due to
Wolf
Lynx
All 3 species
Canis lupus
Lynx lynx
7
12
25
94
19
2
66
10
8
99
30
21
156
24
15
177
64
14
217
81
29
233
154
19
676
56
29
314
450
162
2,039
22,1
7,9
100
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
<
<
M. Adamic, K. Jerina & M. Jonozovic 575
In southern and western Slovenia, particularly in the areas with extensive
sheep-farming, the sheep-owners have become accustomed to regular
occurence of the brown bear. Thus, efficient protective devices (electric
fences) have been used to suppress bear predation. The recovery of wolves
and increasing wolf predation upon livestock beyond 1993 brought new problems to the farmers. Bear-proof fences were of poor use against wolves, since
an average height of the fence hardly reached 1.3 m and wolves could easily
jump over them. In several cases they even dug the entrances beneath the
fence. The stock of sheep also increased from about 20,000 in 1970 to about
135,000 in 2004. The agricultural policy of the Government of Slovenia, followed by financial support to individual farmers, was probably among the
most important reasons for the increase. Further expansion of sheep farming
is also planned in the future. The damage caused by wolves has been
increasing since 1995. In the period 2000-2003, compensation claims for wolf
damage upon livestock exceeded the sum of 316,000 Euros.
People raising livestock in “predator–loaded” areas can be divided in three
major groups, according to their goals, place of living, number of animals they
keep, as well as the use of anti-predator protection measures. Group 1
includes professional sheep farmers who live on sheep and who are aware
that good prevention is a part of their economic success. They use electric
fences, sheep-guarding dogs, they overnight the animals in guarded pens
and hire people for sheep-guarding. As a rule, they face minor problems due
to predation losses. Unfortunately, professionals keeping more than 200
sheep are few in Slovenia.
Group 2 includes sheep farmers keeping 50-150 sheep and/or goats, with
a goal to improve family budgets. They produce cheese and lambs for local
markets. Since many of them are employed away from the pasture areas, their
flocks are poorly surveyed. They are not interested to invest money in efficient
anti-predator protection. Often they suffer repeated predator losses of the
flocks. Group 3 includes hobby farmers keeping small flocks of 10-50 sheep
who are financially unable to ensure efficient anti-predator prevention of animals. As a rule, they raise sheep for private use, although some provide lambs
for local markets.
Groups 2 and 3 faced greatest predator losses and thus represented the
loudest anti-predator group, although the compensations paid by the State
agencies far exceed the market prices of livestock killed by predators.
II.2. DAMAGES DUE TO LARGE CARNIVORES
According to the registered frequencies of predation, the extent of lynx predation is negligible in comparison with that of the brown bear and wolf (Table I).
But according to the financial compensations per predation case, the cost of
lynx damages was 1,38 times higher than the average cost (Table II).
Additionally, the current range of lynx in Slovenia is smaller than it was in the
first two decades of the post-release period (STANISA et al., 2001).
The cost of a predation case is highest in wolf predation and lowest in
brown bear predation. The wolf, a social carnivore, hunting in pairs and/or
small packs is by far the most efficient predator, killing or injuring on average
5.1 sheep in one predator attack (n = 188), ranging from 1 to 40. On the contrary, brown bears are hardly ever involved in mass killings.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
576 Large carnivore conservation in Slovenia
TABLE II
Number and cost (Euros) of large predator damages (compensation
claims) upon livestock in Slovenia in the period 2000-2003.
TABLEAU II
Nombre et montants (Euros, total, par cas, index) des dégâts (suivant les
demandes d'indemnisation) occasionnés au bétail par les grands prédateurs (ours, loup et lynx) en Slovénie entre 2000 et 2003.
Reported
cases of
Predator species
damage in
2000-2003
Brown bear Ursus arctos
994
Wolf, Canis lupus
355
Lynx Lynx lynx
91
Total or average
1,440
Cummulative
compensations
(Euros)
Compensation
per case (C)
(Euros)
Index
C/Caverage
327,632
316,934
61,382
705,948
329
893
674
490
0.67
1.69
1.38
1.00
III. DAMAGE PREVENTION
Spatial extent of predation and use of fences
We tried to define the spatial extent and core areas of the predation on livestock by the brown bear and wolf in Slovenia. The nearest spots of reported
damage claims in the period 1995-2003 (the database of the Ministry of the
Republic of Slovenia for Agriculture, Forestry and Food) were geolocated with
the use of the Basic Topographic Map of Slovenia of a scale 1:25,000.
KernelHR software (SEAMAN et al., 1998) was used to determine the spatial
ranges of brown bear and wolf predation, as well as their overlaps.
In Slovenia, the brown bear and wolf are forest-dwellers, and occupy
similar habitat types. Therefore, there is an 1,230-km2 overlap between the
predation ranges of these species (Table III) corresponding with the spatial
expansion of the wolf. In this overlap, bear-proof fences proved to be ineffective in preventing wolves from intruding into formerly predator-safe pastures.
Therefore the claims of sheep farmers and their political representatives
(Farmers Chamber) are aimed primarily against the conservation of the wolf.
TABLE III
Extent range of reported cases of brown bear, Ursus arctos, and wolf,
Canis lupus, predation upon livestock in Slovenia in the period
1995-2003. Ranges estimated by Kernel method (SEAMAN et al., 1998).
TABLE III
Domaine d'expansion des cas de prédation de l'ours brun Ursus arctos, et
du loup Canis lupus, sur le bétail en Slovénie entre 1995 et 2003.
Domaines à 65% et à 95% estimés par la méthode de Kernel
(SEAMAN et al., 1998).
Species
Brown bear, Ursus arctos
Wolf, Canis lupus
Overlap of ranges
Predation range (km2)
65% core area
95% core area
1,800
4,950
470
1,420
215
1,230
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
<
<
M. Adamic, K. Jerina & M. Jonozovic 577
Requests for special shooting permits to extract «problem» wolves, believed
to be responsible for the greatest extent of predation damage in an area, are
nowadays a regular issue in exposed areas.
Protection and control of the predators' populations
Target extraction of »problem individuals« might only be successful in specific cases (LINNELL et al., 1999). Wolves which live and hunt in packs are
particularly hard to classify as problem and non-problem individuals. Wolves
are rarely sighted during predation (Table IV), which further reduces the
chances of successful extraction of target «problem» individuals.
MECH (1996) said: "For everyone¢s sake it seems better to keep carnivores
under control in the areas where they cause an unreasonable amount of interference with human activities and conversely, to nuture and restore them in
the areas where they do not", and we believe that his statement could also be
used as a sound basis for general conservation mangement strategies for the
wolf and other large predators in the cultural landscapes of Slovenia.
On the other hand, it is expected that the general public would oppose any
adjustments of the current legal status of large carnivores. The reaction of the
public was similar in 1995, after the Hunters Association of Slovenia issued
the petition for extra shooting of wolves and lynx, five of each, which was
required due to the unbearable extent of the damages upon wildlife. It is very
popular in Slovenia to arrange public referendums for any kind of decisions.
And if this really happens, we can expect the results to be similar to another
of MECH's (1996) thought: "For example the multitude of voters in cities who
are unaffected by any of negative impacts of carnivores can simply outvote
rural residents who bear the brunt of damage".
TABLE IV
Distribution (number of cases, %) of the detected signs used to define a
wolf, Canis lupus, predation case by the officers of Slovenia Forest
Service.
TABLEAU IV
Distribution (nombre de cas, %) des éléments utilisés par les officiers du
Service Forestier Slovène pour déterminer un cas de prédation causée
par le loup, Canis lupus.
Reported signs of wolf predation
Éléments utilisés pour identifier un cas de prédation par le loup
Scats / Crottes
Tracks (footprints) / Traces (empreintes de pas)
Characteristic bites on prey / Morsures caractéristiques sur la proie
Wolves sighted / Observations visuelles de loups
No data / Pas de précisions sur le mode de détermination
Total cases / Nombre total de cas
n
%
29
114
134
6
8
291
10,0
39,2
46,0
2,1
2,7
100,0
IV. CONCLUSION
It is probably senseless to propose any radical statements about the necessary reduction of livestock farming in predator-loaded areas. A further
increase in the herds of sheep was provided in the document "Projected
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
578 Large carnivore conservation in Slovenia
development of livestock husbandry in Slovenia", prepared by the Ministry of
Slovenia for Agriculture, Forestry and Food. The growth of herds, mostly kept
on small farms, will lead to an expansion of pastures into the areas that are
currently unaffected by livestock-large predator conflicts. We can expect an
increased area of overlap between pasture land and the ranges of large carnivore populations, which are increasing in size. Based on the currently established low level of sheep-herd protection against carnivores, we can also
expect a rapid growth of predation upon livestock and an increase in damage
compensation claims. This will be followed by initiatives for delisting the wolf
from the Endangered Species Protection Act and requests for an extension of
licenced killing.
It is therefore urgent to launch a public awareness campaign in Slovenia
about wolves on the local and national levels. Preparation of workshops and
meetings with the representatives of local communities and hunters, press
and TV conferences, publishing of posters, pamphlets, etc., might be an
important issue of our project engagement in Slovenia. An important task
would also be to improve the general knowledge on the conservation of vulnerable species and the levels of ecological ethics among the journalists, in
particular those writing about the wolf and other large carnivore damages
upon domestic animals.
It should be pointed out that livestock is only a complementary or secondary source of food for the wolf and lynx. The increase in the population
density of large herbivores, especially red deer, Cervus elaphus, and roe deer,
Capreolus capreolus, which are their key food sources, can thus act as an
important relief component in preventive protection of livestock. No statewide
strategies for conservation management of wolves in Slovenia have yet been
adopted.
<
REFERENCES
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
ADAMIC M. (1993). - The status of wolf (Canis lupus L.) in Slovenia. In: Wolves in Europe, status and
perspectives, C. PROMBERGER & W. SCHROEDER, eds. Munich Wildlife Society, Ettal: 71-73.
ADAMIC M. (1996). - An expanding brown bear population in Slovenia: current management
problems. Journal of the Wildlife Research (Krakow), 1(3): 297-300.
ADAMIC M. (2003). - The brown bear in Slovenia: a brief summary of the 20th Century population
dynamics and future conservation issues. In: Living with bears, a large European carnivore in
a shrinking world, B. KRYSTUFEK, B. FLAJSMAN & H.I. GRIFFITHS, eds. Ecological Forum of
the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, Ljubljana: 157-171.
ADAMIC M., JERINA K., ZAFRAN J. & MARINCIC A. (2004). - The backgrounds for the establishment
of conservation management strategy for the population of wolf (Canis lupus) in Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, 35 p. (In Slovene).
ADAMIC M., KOBLER A. & BERCE M. (1998). - The return of the wolf (Canis lupus) into its historic
range in Slovenia - is there any place left and how to reach it? Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana,
Forestry and Wood Technology, 57: 235-254.
BOITANI L. (2000). - An action plan for the conservation of wolves in Europe (Canis lupus). Council
of Europe, Nature and Environment, 113, 86 p.
DORRANCE M.J. (1983). - A philosophy of problem wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
11: 319-324.
HUFNAGL L. (1898). - Die Entwicklung des Forstwesens auf der Fuerst Karl Auerspeg'schen
Herrschaft "Herzogtum Gottschee" in Krain von 1848 bis 1896 mit besonderer
Beruecksichtigung der Verwertung des Buchenholzes. Prag, 64 p.
JERINA K., DEBELJAK M., DZEROSKI S., KOBLER A. & ADAMIC M. (2003). - Modeling the brown
bear population in Slovenia - a tool in the conservation management of a threatened species.
Ecological Modelling, 170: 453-469.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
<
<
<
M. Adamic, K. Jerina & M. Jonozovic 579
<
<
<
KORENJAK A. & ADAMIC M. (2000). - The role of human dimensions in large carnivore
management. In: Proceedings IUFRO: Working under a dynamic framework - forest ownership
structures and extension, J. BEGUS, J. ANDERSON & R.L. BECK, eds. Slovenia Forest Service,
Ljubljana: 136-144.
LINNELL J.D.C., ODDEN J., SMITH M.E., AANEES R. & SWENSON J.E. (1999). - Large carnivores
that kill livestock: do “problem individuals” really exist? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(3): 698-705.
MECH L.D. (1996). - A new era for carnivore conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24(3): 397-401.
SCHOLLMAYER H. (1889). - Die Jagd auf Krainer Karste. Schwarz, Roth und Raubwild im
Besonders. Waidman's Heil, Klagenfurt: 109, 123.
SEAMAN D.E., GRIFFITH B. & POWELL R.A. (1998). - KernelHR: a program for estimating animal
home ranges. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(1): 95-100.
STANISA C., KOREN I. & ADAMIC M. (2001). - Situation and distribution of lynx (Lynx lynx L.) in
Slovenia from 1995-1999. Hystrix, 12(2): 43-51.
SWENSON J.E., GERSTL N., DAHLE B. & ZEDROSSER A. (2000). - Action plan for the brown bear
(Ursus arctos) in Europe. Council of Europe, Nature and Environment, 114, 69 p.
ZIVIC A. (1926). - Lov na Dolenjskem v starih zasih in sedaj [Historic and current characteristics of
hunting in Dolenjsko]. Lovec, 13: 316-320.
ZVIGELJ L. (1961). - Medved v Sloveniji [Brown bear in Slovenia]. Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana. (In
Slovene).
<
<
PROBLÈMES LIÉS À LA CONSERVATION DES
GRANDS CARNIVORES EN SLOVÉNIE :
AVONS-NOUS TROUVÉ LA BONNE FORMULE ?
M. ADAMIC, K. JERINA et M. JONOZOVIC
MOTS-CLÉS : Ours brun, Ursus arctos, loup, Canis lupus, lynx, Lynx lynx, population, aire
d'extension, dégât, élevage du bétail, conservation, prévention des dégâts, Slovénie.
RÉSUMÉ
En octobre 1993, le gouvernement de Slovénie a décidé de protéger tout au long
de l'année l’ours brun, Ursus arctos, le loup, Canis lupus, et le lynx, Lynx lynx, par
un décret qui inclut un contrôle par prélèvements des ours. Mais, malgré cette
protection légale contre la chasse, les grands prédateurs sont confrontés à de
nouvelles menaces provenant des changements dans l’économie agricole. Dans
le cadre de la politique agricole de l’Union Européenne, des aides financières
ont également été accordées aux slovènes pratiquant l’élevage de moutons. Le
cheptel des moutons en Slovénie est estimé à 135 000 animaux en 2004 et croit
lentement. Avec l’extension de l'air de répartition de l’ours brun et du loup dans
la période postérieure à 1993, les risques de prédation du bétail se sont propagés depuis le sud de la Slovénie en direction de l’ouest et du nord-ouest. Les
éleveurs de moutons n’ont pas pris suffisamment en considération cette expansion des grands prédateurs et, par conséquent, l'ampleur les dégâts causés par
ces derniers ont augmenté depuis 1993. Durant la période 2000-2003, le mon-
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004
580 Large carnivore conservation in Slovenia
tant des demandes d'indemnisation des dégâts, causés essentiellement au
bétail, a atteint environ 706 000 Euros. Dans la même période, on a enregistré 1
440 plaintes pour prédation. Si la prise en charge de la protection contre les prédateurs n'est pas une obligation incluse dans les projets d’élevage financés par
l'État, les dégâts causés par la prédation doivent néanmoins être dédommagés
par les pouvoirs publics. La Slovénie est un petit pays, mais les modes de vie et
les ressources économiques diffèrent énormément selon les localités. C’est
pourquoi le patrimoine écologique, dont les grands prédateurs sont un élément
essentiel, peut être considéré comme une nuisance par une grande partie de la
population slovène. Des programmes efficaces de protection dans les zones du
pays les plus concernées devraient donc être mis en place. Les groupes cibles
devraient être correctement informés sur les dynamiques d’extension actuelle
des populations de carnivores, en mettant l’accent sur l’exposition de leurs biens
à une prédation potentielle. Les éleveurs de bétail devraient prendre conscience qu’une bonne prévention anti-prédation mérite que l’on en fasse l’effort et que
l’on y mette le prix.
Game Wildl. Sci., 21 (4), 2004