by Christopher Servheen - February 1989

This was a paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. (The printed document may be purchased from the IBA; click here>>> for more information.

Christopher Servheen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, email: grizz@selway.umt.edu

Note: This document has been superseded by the 1999 book Bears: status survey and conservation action plan by C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton. It may be obtained from the IUCN. The document below has been retained here because it contains many still relevant facts.

There are 8 bear species worldwide. Six species are likely in decline while 2 are probably stable. Information on the status of species and their habitats is fragmentary, at best, over much of the world. Species with the most credible status data incl ude the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), and the American black bear (U. americanus) throughout much of their range, and the brown bear (U. arctos) in North America and parts of Europe and the Soviet Union. Information on the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) is limited but increasing while habitat destruction continues. Data on the Asiatic black bear (U. thibetanus), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), and sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) are minimal and the validity of distribution information is questionable for these species.

The activities of man are severely impacting bear habitat for all 8 species worldwide. These impacts are most recent and widespread in the tropics. Major human actions influencing bear habitat include commercial exploitation, human occupancy and crop cultivation, timber harvest, and oil and gas exploration and development. Direct human impacts on bears include killing of bears for protection of property, unregulated hunting, and vandal killing. A serious threat to bears in Asia an South America is t he killing and capture of bears for the use of their parts in primitive medicine, aphrodisiacs, or as pets. The selling of bears and bear parts is a lucrative business in Asia that has the potential to extirpate the Asian species we know the least about.

Bear conservation efforts vary from the intensive and highly organized management of the grizzly bear (<cite>U. a. horribilis</cite>) in the United States to no management of most Asian species. Successful international cooperation in conservation and management is exemplified by the work done on the polar bear in the Arctic. Several other species also need international cooperation to if they are to survive.

Conservation efforts on bears must be based on accurate biological information and knowledge of the habitat requirements of the species. Even when required biological data are available, implementation of conservation efforts requires an effective gover nmental commitment and incorporation of the needs of the local people into bear conservation. Management implementation and public education remain the greatest challenges in bear conservation.

The fate of bears in many areas of the world will be decided in the next 10-20 years. The future of several species is in serious doubt. The elimination of bears from 50-75% of their historic range has already occurred and the remaining range will decr ease unless serious efforts are focused on bear conservation. Increasing human demands on bears and bear habitat will require basic ecological information on species and their habitats, support of local people in bear range, and implementation of organiz ed management programs. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., Monogr. Ser. No. 2. 1989.

The conservation and status of the bears of the world was last reviewed by Cowan (1972). This review owes much to Cowan's effort in form and purpose. The status of most of the bear species has changed markedly since 1972 due in large part to accelerati ng encroachment and manipulation of bear habitat by man.

Six of the 8 species of bears are seemingly in worse condition in 1989 than in 1970. The two species whose status is likely stable or better off are the American black bear and the polar bear. It can be argued that the state of the grizzly/brown bear i s better in some areas of the conterminous United States and eastern Europe, but these gains may have been offset by overall losses throughout the rest of brown bear range.

We know more about the historic numbers and distribution of the brown bear than any other species. The decline of the brown bear is an example of the response of bear populations to increasing human populations. Extinctions of subpopulations of brown b ears in Europe began early including the population in Denmark at approximately 3000 B.C., Great Britain in the 10th century, eastern Germany in 1770, Bavaria in 1836, Switzerland in 1904, and in the Alps of France in the 1937 (Curry-Lindahl 1972). Known or suspected brown bear subspecies that have disappeared include the Atlas Mountain brown bear (U. crowtheri) in the late 1800's, and perhaps the Mexican grizzly (U. arctos nelsoni).

Cowan (1972), noted that bears worldwide suffered little reduction in range or numbers due to human influence until the recent introduction of firearms within the last 100 years or so. However, the reduction of the range of the brown bear in the low ele vation areas of eastern Europe (Jakubiec and Buchalczyk 1987) on the Iberian peninsula (Naves and Palomero 1988) probably was well under way in the 1600 and 1700's as a result of intense killing by man. It was during this time that insularization began w ith the reduction and eventual extermination of brown bears from habitat outside mountainous areas. Reductions in bear numbers in the last 100 years were accelerated by the general availability of more lethal methods, largely firearms and poison. This r eduction is most evident in the demise of the European brown bear (<cite>U. arctos</cite>) from much of its range in Western Europe where men and bears were able to live in proximity for thousands of years until the recent reductions. To some extent, this long-term c oexistence was due to the preservation of areas for hunting by the nobility and prohibitions against hunting most large game species for most of the human population.

In the western United States the grizzly bear (<cite>U. arctos horribilis</cite>) was eliminated from 99% of its range in the American west outside of Alaska with the arrival of European man. The killing of grizzly bears was prompted by real or imagined competition between bears and man especially in relation to livestock (Brown 1985). An intolerance of predators was generated by predation on livestock. This resulted in widespread use of firearms and toxins as efficient population reduction means. The reduction o f grizzly numbers from an estimated 100,000 in the 1850's to less than 1000 by the early 1900's was due to intolerance. The limited reproductive capacity of the grizzly to tolerate continued persecution accelerated and assured its decline.

The historic impacts of man on bears were more related to direct killing while recent impacts are more related to habitat loss. However, the two factors are interrelated in that intolerance was related to predation which was related to intrusion into be ar habitat by man. Present day habitat impacts are due to increasing human populations and the resultant demand for agricultural lands, raw materials and living space. Man and bears are direct competitors for space and resources worldwide. This competi tion is mediated by resource availability and the adaptability of both species. Man is certainly more adaptable and effective at resource exploitation when in competition with bears. Man continues to develop new and effective mechanized resource use str ategies while bears continue to attempt to use resources in "natural" ways. Under such a system of interaction, the efficient adaptable species will eventually eliminate the competitor.

Conservation of bears requires human intervention in the competitive interaction between man and bear to assure resource availability for both species to the exclusion of neither. The mediation of human predation on bears through management of harvest b ased on sustained yield or the cessation of harvest is also necessary. Unfortunately, the population levels of many bear populations are either unknown or too low to sustain any human-caused mortality, thereby making careful population management difficu lt.

A review of the status of the conservation of bears has required a review of available literature as well as correspondence with scientists, government officials, and resource managers throughout the world. The success of this review effort depended lar gely on these people and on their cooperation and shared knowledge. Although I have attempted to contact everyone I was aware of or who I was referred to, it is certain that some knowledgeable individuals and sources were overlooked and I take full respo nsibility for these oversights. Much of the information available on some species, particularly the sun bear, the sloth bear, and the Asiatic black bear is anecdotal information. I have tried to piece together an accurate picture about the current statu s of these species, but any misinterpretation of the limited information is my responsibility.

Ursus malayanus

The sun bear is the least known of the bears of the world. This species formerly inhabited the lowland forests of southeast Asia from India eastward into Indochina through Burma, southern China, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia (Fig. 1). The range of the species is not well known, especially on the periphery of its eastern range.

India -- Mr. Bharat Bhushan (pers. commun., letter dated July 30, 1988) of the Bombay Natural History Society reports that of 67 Natural Parks and Sanctuaries in India only one reports presence of sun bears although he cautions that census data for bears in Indian preserves are possibly unreliable. The sanctuary reporting sun bears is the Siju Sanctuary in Meghalaya State near the border with Bangladesh.

A. J. T. Johnsingh of the Wildlife Institute of India (pers. commun., letter dated Nov. 2, 1988) reports that the sun bear may be extinct in India. Both Cowan (1972) and Johnsingh refer to the reports of Gee (1967) about sun bears south of the Brahmaput ra River, but the last actual verified report from this area was in 1964 when a sun bear collected in this area was sent to the Trivendrum Zoo.

Bangladesh -- The situation for the sun bear in Bangladesh is also grave. Dr. Reza Khan (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 9, 1988) reports that sun bears formerly occurred in the eastern part of Bangladesh in the former Chittagong Hill Tracts District, but the last sighting was in 1980. Sun bears could occur in Chittagong and Sylhet regions as some mixed-evergreen forest remains, but if any occur they are likely to be very rare. No records are available in Chittagong since 1980 because there is an ins urgency movement in the area and access and surveys are impossible.

Burma -- Little information is available from Burma. Jeffrey Sayer and R. E. Salter of IUCN (both formerly in Burma) report that no census or distribution data are available but that the sun bear does occur in "reasonable numbers" throughout the foreste d areas (pers. commun., letters dated July 18, 1988 and Aug. 8, 1988). Primary forests are reportedly more dense in Burma compared to neighboring Thailand and reports from border areas in Thailand indicate Burma is a good source for bears including sun b ears for the pet and product trade.

China -- The sun bear is known only from southern China in Yunnan Province where a sun bear was captured in 1972 near the border with Burma (Ma 1983). Professor Hu Jinchu of Nanchong Normal College also believes sun bears may occur in Sichuan province ( pers. commun., letter dated Oct. 5, 1988). These areas in China are the northern extent of the range of the species and, given the lack of recent records, the present existence of the sun bear in China is in doubt. The sun bear is listed as a "first cla ss conserved animal" under Chinese law as opposed to the three other bear species which have lower protection as "second class conserved animals." George Schaller of Wildlife Conservation International (pers. commun., letter dated Sept. 4, 1988) and Donald G. Reid of the University of Calgary (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 25, 1988) report that the sun bear is seriously threatened in its remaini ng range in China due to habitat destruction and the use of all bears for traditional medicine with little official protection. Little protection for any bear species exists outside of Nature Reserves in China (Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988).

Laos -- Little information is available in Laos although Sayer (1983) noted that the species is known to occur throughout Laos and the local people are able to distinguish between the sun bear and the Asiatic black bear. R.E. Salter, an IUCN conservatio n advisor in Laos and Bouaphanh Phantavang a wildlife officer with the Wildlife and Fishery Conservation Division, Lao PDR Forest Department (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 8, 1988) report that the sun bear is "widespread in forested areas." Most local people will kill bears where they can but they report the meat is not eaten. They also report that hides and bear parts are sold, and my experience in Thailand indicates that Laos is a source area for bears in the Thai pet and bear part trade. No wildl ife legislation is in force in Laos to cover bears but the bear is proposed as a protected species in pending legislation.

Vietnam and Kampuchea -- No information on bears was available from Vietnam or Kampuchea.

Thailand-- The name of the sun bear in Thailand translates to "dog bear" because of its small size and short hair. In Thailand, the sun bear is protected against hunting by legislation, but local people kill bears opportunistically with impunity, usual ly for subsistence. Because 95% of the human population is rural and because rice fields, rubber plantations, and oil palm plantations cover most of the available lowland habitat, and human intrusion into the range of the species is severe. Forest harve st and settlement is advanced in Thailand compared to surrounding countries and forest cover has been reduced by 75% since 1945 (Piset na Patalung, WWF Thailand, pers, commun.).

The illegal trade of wildlife in Thailand is another impact on both the sun bear and Asiatic black bear. Bear parts are openly sold in Chinese medicine shops throughout Asia, especially the gall bladders. Skulls and hides are also available. Bears are preferred as a special meal to enhance health and vigor by Korean tourists who visit Bangkok to eat in special restaurants. These restaurants procure bears for such meals using the paws and meat and sometimes reportedly killing the bear in front of the guests to assure them of the authenticity and freshness of the meal. Pet keeping also affects bears by creating a market for live bears, especially cubs which are sold in local markets. Such animals usually are given away or sold to restaurants when the y get older and less manageable. Thai law allows anyone to keep two of most wild animals including bears. Although sale of bears and bear parts is illegal, this legality of pet bears, along with limited support of law enforcement preventing sale of wild life, results in a continuing market for bears throughout the country. In a recent visit to Thailand I was easily able to find two different dealers who could obtain a sun bear and assist in getting it shipped out of the country. One dealer said it woul d take one to two weeks to obtain a sun bear cub from either Laos or southern Thailand upon request.

Lekagul and McNeeley (1977) reviewed the status of the sun bear in Thailand. They report that it inhabits dense forests in all elevations throughout the country, although little is specifically known about its distribution. The potential ecological ove rlap between the sun bear and the Asiatic black bear is notable and needs further study. Because much of the former low jungle habitat is now converted to plantations, the available habitat is increasingly limited to more mountainous areas where such pla ntations are not feasible. Since the habitat preference of the sun bear is unknown, the effect of this removal of significant portions of low elevation habitats on either the sun bear or Asiatic black bear is also unknown.

Thailand is an example of the possible future scenario for bears in southeast Asia. This scenario involves the conversion of available forests into wood products and then to plantations and rural settlement. These habitat effects are compounded by poac hing by local people driven by subsistence needs and the high prices paid for bears and bear parts. Although national parks and reserves have been established throughout Thailand, their effectiveness is limited by minimal funding for management, and inte nse poaching pressure. Ongoing population increases isolate these reserves creating island populations. These negative effects are most pronounced on large mammals whose low reproductive rate and larger home ranges make them vulnerable.

Malaysia -- The sun bear in Malaysia has significant portions of its range in both peninsular Malaysia and on the island of Borneo in the states of Sarawak and Sabah. Limited specific information is available. Davies and Payne (1982) report the sun bea r is distributed widely throughout the dipterocarp and lower montane forests of Sabah from 0 to 1350 m but is common nowhere. They estimate that the primary habitat may be dipterocarp forests between 0 and 1000 m in elevation. Unfortunately, most of thi s habitat (approximately 30% of Sabah) is being cleared for agriculture and settlement (John Payne, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 17, 1988).

Timber harvest is ongoing throughout the virgin forests of Malaysia and its effects on bears are unknown. Payne (op. cit.) reports that termite density and diversity decreases with logging and this may be a major food of the sun bear. Another impact of logging may be the elimination of old trees that serve as nest sites for wild bees. Another name for the sun bear is the honey bear due to its habit of climbing trees to excavate bee hives in hollow tree trunks. Such hollow trees are more common in unl ogged areas where trees of various ages are found. Duff, et al. (1984) reported no sun bears in areas logged and planted for a commercial tree plantation in Sabah, but they did noted sun bears in an island of unlogged habitat within the plantation. Inte restingly, they also recorded a high density of bee nests in the unlogged island which was surrounded by plantations of Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus deglupta whose flowers may have provided an increased food source for the bees.

Payne (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 17, 1988) noted that bear sign is seen in logged forests and even in heavily logged areas. It is important to note that logging with subsequent diverse regrowth may have less effect than harvest of primary forest followed by planting of fast-growing tree plantations for wood production or by rubber or oil palm plantations, which are essentially monocultures.

The sun bear is listed as a game animal in Sabah (management authorities are separate in each state in Malaysia) and the Sabah Wildlife Department is considering placing the species on the list of protected animals pending more information on its status (Patrick Andau, Director, Sabah Wildlife Department, pers. commun., letter dated Oct. 9, 1988). Hunting of sun bears occurs throughout Malaysia for sale of gall bladders, claws and hides. Bladders are used to heal bruises and broken bones because of the belief that the sun bear sometimes falls from high trees but suffers no ill effects (P. Andau, pers. commun., letter dated Oct. 9, 1988). Payne (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 17, 1988) believes that preservation of tracts of habitat either logged or unlogged is the key to preservation of the species as agriculture, tree plantations, and human settlement may likely eliminate bears permanently. The future of the sun bear in Malaysia may lie in upland forests managed for timber production (Payne, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 17, 1988) since conversion of most lowland habitat to agriculture is continuing.

Indonesia -- The sun bear is found on the island of Sumatra and on Borneo in the state of Kalimantan. Natural habitats in Indonesia include some of the largest remaining tropical rain forests in the world occupying 59% of the total land area (GOI/IIED 1 985 cited in Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988). Despite this rich potential habitat and the fact that sun bears have been protected in Indonesia since 1973, the future of the species is bleak except perhaps in some large national parks although no esti mates of numbers exist (Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988). Clifford Rice (pers. commun., letter dated Nov. 17, 1988) noted that after spending time in Bukit Baka National Park in Kalimantan, he believed that sun bears were "common" in this remote area. The present distribution in Sumatra includes all eight provinces (Fig. 2) from sea level to 2,800 m. In Kalimantan exact distribution data are minimal but a distribution estimate is presented in Fig. 3.

Habitat alteration is proceeding rapidly in Indonesia as in Malaysia. The Indonesian human population is now the fifth largest in the world with more than 180 million people and growing. In Sumatra, land use results in 4% of the island being classified as derelict land incapable of further agricultural production and such uses are increasing at 9-10% per year (GOI/IIED 1985, cited in Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988). There is now a government program to resettle people from the crowded cities to Ka limantan and Sumatra. Each family so relocated gets a five acre homestead. More than one million people have been relocated in this manner to date, usually into formerly forested habitats.

Sun bears are hunted in Indonesia usually when they damage crops, but the meat is not used (Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988). Hunting seems to be a secondary factor to habitat disturbance and conversion.

Summary -- The status of the sun bear is one of population decline due to habitat destruction and killing of bears. The range of the species is shrinking in most areas, but distribution data are unavailable. Increasing resource demands combined with exp loitation of forest habitats will likely affect the species in these countries soon. The conversion of thousands of square km of virgin lowland forest to crops such as coffee and plantations such as rubber and oil palms eliminates significant amounts of sun bear habitat each year. These areas are usually then settled by rural people who will kill bears and other species for subsistence and to sell their parts. Little enforcement of what few laws exist to protect sun bears, combined with increasing mark eting of bear parts and live cubs for pets continues to erode the remaining populations.

Areas set aside as parks or reserves often are the only areas where any large animals remain and thus act as magnets to poachers. In one reserve in Thailand over 60 well-used poacher camps were found (Bob Dobias WWF, Thailand, pers. commun.). Compoundi ng the problem of reserves is their insularization as the surrounding lands become developed. Most countries in the range of the sun bear have rapidly increasing populations of mostly rural people. In such situations, encroachment on the remaining fores ts for subsistence is continual.

Basic habitat needs of the sun bear are unknown so existing reserves may or may not provide necessary habitat. Sun bear response to timber harvest is unknown as is use of secondary forests. Throughout its range the sun bear generates little interest fr om conservation groups or government managers. John Payne (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 17, 1988) notes that there is less known about the sun bear than about any other large mammal on Borneo, and the same can be said throughout most of the sun bear' s range. To date, no government or conservation group has decided that the sun bear needs management or research. This combination of increasing habitat destruction and direct killing and capture with minimal knowledge and lack of management interest ma kes the sun bear's future bleak and uncertain.

Melursus ursinus

The range of the sloth bear is India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan (Fig. 4). The distribution of the sloth bear is throughout the forested areas south of the Himalayas and Sri Lanka but they remain predominantly in lower elevation habitats an d do not ascend above the low foothills (Prater 1980, Rice 1987). Optimal habitat appears to be the tropical dry deciduous forests of central India. A population estimate in 1975 (Jaffeson 1975 cited in Rice 1987) was 7,600 to 8,400 animals but this omi tted northern India, Nepal and Bhutan. A 1982 "survey" of unknown origin cited in the New York Times, July 5, 1988, stated an estimate of 10,000 sloth bears, but the origin and validity of this estimate could not be determined. There are 13 national par ks and sanctuaries in India that report the presence of sloth bears. Three sanctuaries have been established for specifically for sloth bears in India. These 3 reserves report the following population estimates: Ratanmahal - 43; Jessor - 225; Shoul Pane shwar - 35 (Proposal to include sloth bear in Appendix I under CITES, submitted to CITES convention by the government of India, 1989). Sightings of sloth bears are "common" in Chitwan National Park in Nepal (Gurung 1983). No specific information is avai lable from Sri Lanka or Bhutan. Sloth bears were found historically in the Sal Forest of central Bangladesh but none have been seen since 1968 (Khan 1982, Reza Khan, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 9, 1988). Khan also reports that sloth bears are occas ionally seen in the Chittagong and Sylhet forests where there are mixed evergreen forests but they are very rare.

The main threats to the species appear to be habitat alteration with the major impacts being forest cutting and intrusion into forests by local settlements. The sloth bear is reported to be gone from many forested areas of former range (Krishnan 1972).

Given the fact that the species occurs in populated countries there is surprisingly little information available on its distribution or numbers. Reza Khan (pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 9, 1988) reports that bears of all species in Bangladesh are kil led for the sale of the parts and this likely occurs in other areas of its range.

The extent and potential impact of the killing of sloth bears and possibly other species for sale of parts can be massive. TRAFFIC Japan, an arm of the World Wildlife Fund, reported that between 1978 and February 1988, 681 kg of dried sloth bear gall bl adders were imported into Japan from India (Proposal to include sloth bear in Appendix I under CITES, submitted to CITES convention by the government of India. 1989). The bladders were used for medicine (traditional medicine called "kampoyaku") to cure l iver, stomach and intestinal problems. Fat is used as a hair restorer in Sri Lanka (Norris 1969). All imports were from India via Singapore and were reported to CITES to be sloth bear, but the exact species is unknown. The sloth bear is classified as e ndangered by the Indian government and sale of parts is illegal inside India. It is not an Appendix I animal under CITES, unlike the other three bear species in India, so its international trade is not limited. On May 19, 1988, after being informed of t hese illegal exports of sloth bear parts, the Indian government asked for special emergency listing of sloth bears under CITES Appendix I to prevent such continued exports.

The trade in sloth bears represented by the amount of gall bladders imported into Japan may come from a substantial portion of the remaining population. Dried gall bladders from bears weigh between 50 and 120 g according to Japanese traditional medicine users (Milliken 1985), but a whole dried bear gall bladder in a Chinese medicine store in Bangkok that I saw weighed 37 g. The figure of 681 kg would represent approximately 8,011 dead bears if a mean estimate of 85 g per gall bladder is assumed. If, ho wever, dried bladders weigh approximately 40 g as indicated by the bladder I saw, the 681 kg could represent as many as 17,025 dead bears. In either case, the reported level of trade over 11 years could represent the harvest of between 728 to 1,548 sloth bears per year. Since the sloth bear is not presently covered by CITES it is likely that gall bladders from all bear species are represented in the total import figure to minimize the illegality of the trade, thus making the sloth bear harvest only a po rtion of the total. The sloth bear is the most common bear in India indicating that bears other than sloth bears make up only a small percentage of the reported trade. Trade in bear parts continue through 1989 even though it is illegal to export bear par ts from India and bears are protected by Indian law. In the first four months of 1988, 20 kg of bear gall bladders, reportedly from sloth bears, were imported into Japan from India (New York Times, July, 5 1988). Certainly a portion of these were from d ead sloth bears. The total represented by 20 kg could be between 235 and 500 dead bears.

In summary, the status of the sloth bear is basically unknown and few protective measures exist for the species. Laws that do exist to prevent killing of bears and the export of their parts but they are either ineffective or unenforced, resulting in a s ignificant harvest of the species for commercial purposes. The future of the species is precarious given the lack of information on the species combined with ongoing, unregulated, commercially-driven harvest.

Ursus thibetanus

The distribution of the Asiatic black bear is through much of southern Asia. The western edge of the range was formerly Afghanistan across Pakistan extending eastward over northern India and southern China, northern Indochina and in northeast China, the eastern Soviet Union, Korea and Japan (Fig. 5). It is generally thought to prefer forested hills and mountains and the tropical moist forest below alpine elevations (Lekagul and McNeeley 1977, Roberts 1977).

Afghanistan -- The easternmost extent of the species in Afghanistan may have been eliminated in the past 10-20 years. Dr. Ronald Petocz who worked on wildlife projects in Afghanistan for eight years in the 1970's reports (pers. commun., letter dated Aug . 16, 1988) that no one he knew ever saw any sign of any bears in the country. Bears were rare during the 1970's and were unprotected by any laws at that time in Afghanistan. No recent information is available due to fighting ongoing since 1978.

Pakistan -- The Asiatic black bear was once found throughout the dry mountain steppe forests to the west of the Indus River and across the mountainous regions in the northern part of the country (Roberts 1977). From 1930 to the present human activity ha s caused insularization of small bear populations in various mountainous areas throughout the country (Fig. 6, see Roberts (1977) for examples of this population fragmentation). There may remain a small isolated population in Baluchistan described as a s ubspecies (<cite>U. t. gedrosianus</cite>) listed in the IUCN Red Data Book. This population, if it remains, lives in an arid and treeless area an unusual habitat for the species. Here it feeds on insects, lizards, fruits of the russian olive (Elaeagnus hortensis) a nd the starchy rhizomatous stems and fruit of the dwarf palm (Nannorrhops ritchieana) (Roberts 1977).

Capture of bears for use as performing animals is still quite common in Pakistan (Aban Marker Kabraji, IUCN representative for Pakistan, pers. commun., letter dated July 18, 1988). Captive bears are taught to wrestle and dance for groups of "gypsies" wh o earn their sole living from the bears. Considerable persecution of bears continues in Pakistan where bears are being shot for sport and when they depredate crops. This has increased dramatically since the 1940's due to the widespread ownership of fire arms by the local people (Roberts 1977). Such use of firearms has undoubtedly increased since 1978 due to the Afghanistan war and the influx of automatic weapons and Afghanistan refugees into the northern mountainous range of the species.

India -- Information on the Asiatic black bear is scanty. The species range extends across the mountainous north of the country but not a sign of the species was seen in a nine month survey for snow leopard in Jammu and Kashmin State, Himachal Pradesh S tate, and Ultar Pradesh State (Fox et al. 1986). It is reported from two of the 67 national parks and sanctuaries in India (Bharat Bhushan, pers. commun., letter dated July 30, 1988) and is reported to be "fairly common" in Dachigam National Park in Jamm u and Kashmir State (Gruisen 1983 cited by A. J. T. Johnsingh, Wildlife Institute of India, pers. commun., letter dated Nov. 2, 1988). Low populations of Asiatic black bears in India are evidence that most bear gall bladders from India are probably from sloth bears.

Nepal and Bhutan -- No information is available from Nepal or Bhutan.

Bangladesh -- Asiatic black bears are confined to the Chittagong and Sylhet regions where they are very rare due to forest conversion to agriculture and opportunistic killing (Reza Khan, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 9, 1988).

Burma, Laos, Vietnam -- The situation of the Asiatic black bear in Burma, Laos, and Vietnam is similar to that of the sun bear in that little is known other than they do occur in forested areas and no protection of management exists.

Thailand -- The species may occur further south than was previously thought. A cub is known to have been purchased at Ranong in 1985 and cubs sometimes available from local villagers who capture them in the jungle around Thung Sung. They are also report ed in the mountains west of Hat Yai near the Malaysian border but this remains unconfirmed. Asiatic black bears are desired in the pet and animal parts market in Thailand and they can easily be obtained at animal dealers. Because of the ease of obtainin g them in Thailand, it is reported that Korean tourists come in groups to Thailand to eat bear paw soup and meat. A single serving of bear paw soup sells for several hundred U.S. dollars. Wild game restaurants in Bangkok are known to serve bear and any local villager can sell bears both live and dead at any Sunday market. The impact of this market on Thai bears is unknown but when asked about obtaining a bear, a dealer said that it would likely come from Laos, Burma or southern Thailand, perhaps indica ting that bears are now harder to obtain within Thailand. Little differentiation appears to exist between marketing of Asiatic black bears and sun bears and it is likely that both species are eaten and kept as pets depending on what is available.

The Asiatic black bear is listed as a "Protected, Schedule 2" animal under Thai law. This requires that a license be obtained to hunt them and that their sale is prohibited. However, bears and parts are available for sale throughout the country upon re quest. Thai law also allows two bears of either species to be kept as pets. This law negates effective protection, as anyone who can catch a bear can sell it and the authorities can only arrest someone if money is seen being exchanged for the bear. Tha iland is a signatary nation to CITES but it is known that live bears have been smuggled out of the country. Koreans began buying pet bears in Thailand prior to the 1988 Olympics so the meat and parts could be fed to Korean athletes to enhance their Olymp ic performance (Robert Dobias, World Wildlife Fund Thailand, pers, commun.). It is thought that as many as 30 live bears (species unknown) were shipped out of Thailand to Korea in 1988 for this purpose.

China-- Asiatic black bears have decreased in numbers since 1950 but it is reported (Ma 1983) to have increased its range within forest lands. Unfortunately, the range of the species overlaps those areas of China that have experienced the greatest incre ase in human population in the last 70 years in Sichuan, Yunnan, and southeast China (Donald G. Reid, University of Calgary, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 25, 1988). George Schaller (Wildlife Conservation International, pers. commun., letter dated Sep t. 4, 1988) reports that extensive habitat destruction of forest areas is probably having a negative effect on the species, although the forest reserve system throughout the country may offer some habitat maintenance.

Within native reserves hunting of bears is prohibited but because many reserves have resident villagers within them who raise crops such as maize, the killing of marauding bears is generally ignored (Donald G. Reid, University of Calgary, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 25, 1988). In Sichuan Province, the population estimate for the Min Mountains is 200-800 bears while it is 200-700 in the Qionglai Mountains (Donald G. Reid, cited in Santiapillai and Santiapillai 1988). Under Chinese law the Asiatic b lack bear is a "second class conserved animal" which can only be hunted with permission of the Provincial government.

Habitat loss is a major factor, especially the conversion of forest lands to agriculture and cutting of forests for firewood and timber. An important factor to the Asiatic black bear is the killing of bears due to bear depredation on crops and because o f the high value of bear parts in Chinese medicine. Demand for bear gall bladders in China is probably as high as it has ever been both for domestic consumption and export. Donald G. Reid (University of Calgary, pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 25, 1988 ) reports "well over 50 specimens from Asiatic black bears available at any one time in the Medicine markets in Chengdu". This illegal marketing occurs even though the Chinese government has declared the trade in bears or parts to be illegal and has passed two laws, "The Urgent Order to Prevent Indiscriminate Hunting, Catching and Smuggling of Rare Animals" and "The General Order About Conserving Rare Animals" (Hu Jinchu, Nanchong Normal College, pers. commun., in letter dated Oct. 5, 1988).

Between 1979 and August 1988 it is estimated that between 11,000 and 59,000 bear gall bladders were exported from China to Japan (Tom Milliken, TRAFFIC Japan, pers. commun. and Ashai Shinbun Newspaper, Tokyo, February 13, 1988). This, despite the fact t hat international trade in Asiatic black bears or their parts would violate CITES. Chinese authorities have stated "During the past few years we have not issued permission for the export of bear gall bladders." (Asahi Shinbun Newspaper, Tokyo, February 1 3, 1988), and exports of bear gall bladders are not listed any exports of gall bladders on Chinese CITES Annual Reports.

Further evidence of the economic importance of the trade in bear parts is the fact that the retail price for imported bear gall bladder in 1985 was $64 per gram and it is higher now (Japan Times, Tokyo, April 16, 1988). At this price the recent import o f 62 kg of bear gall bladder from China into Japan in January and February of 1988 was worth $3.968 million (U.S.) making this an important industry and source of foreign capital.

Another bear part import from China into Japan is bear paws with the species unidentified. The paws are prepared in an elaborate Chinese dish and are frequently served at business banquets or in fancy Chinese restaurants in Japan. It is reported by Mil liken (1985) that the dish is served in only five restaurants in mainland China as of 1985, but it can be obtained also in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok. Chinese restaurants in Japan now claim that it is more easily obtained in Japan than in China. Milliken (1985) notes that restaurant sources in Japan said that more than 900 kg of paws were imported annually into Japan from China in the mid-seventies with the current amount averaging ab out 5-600 kg/year. Prices as reported by Milliken (1985) in 1985 were approximately $75/kg paid by Japanese importers and $416-833 per serving at the retail level. Again, this adds up to a substantial economic value for bear parts and for those involved in the trade. Assuming about 3 to 6 kg/bear for its paws, the 600 kg/year imported equals between 100 and 200 dead bears.

On October 27, 1987, Japan adjusted their compliance with CITES regulations of which they are signatory by excluding coverage of Asiatic black bear import and export (along with 503 other species) (Asahi Shinbun Newspaper, Tokyo, October 28, 1987). This exclusion from CITES allows Japanese importers to continue trade in live bears and bear parts from Asiatic black bears. The trade continues because it is of economic importance. According to a spokesman from Japan's Ministry of International Trade and I ndustry "Domestic industries depend on the imports" (New York Times, July 5, 1988).

The situation for the Asiatic black bear in China is not promising given the economic incentives to kill bears and the ongoing habitat change common in all countries.

Taiwan -- An endemic subspecies of the Asiatic black bear, (<cite>U. thibetanus formosanus</cite>) is confined to the rugged mountains in the eastern part of Taiwan. The status of this population and its accurate distribution are reviewed by Wong (this proceedings). Even though Taiwan has one of the highest population densities of any country with 510 people per square km (Rand McNally 1985) it still has more than 60 peaks over 3,000 m and remote, dense forests in the eastern mountain range. Threats to the species include forest harvest and plantation development, and unregulated killing of bears. Taiwan has a population of aboriginal people in ten tribes who lived on the island for thousands of years. These people are skilled at trapping and snaring of wildlife and there exists a market for animal parts including bears. Specific laws and their implementation are needed to protect bears from commercial harvest.

South Korea -- The Asiatic black bear is very close to extinction with a population estimate of 57 animals in 1982 separated into five separate populations (data from the Korean Society for the Protection of Wild Animals cited in Milliken 1985). The spe cies is protected under South Korean law as "Natural Monument No. 329". The use of bears for medicinal purposes in South Korea is called for by "hanyuk" or traditional medicine practice, and there are more than 3,600 hanyuk clinics in South Korea. Bear gall bladders are available at thousands of the hanyuk clinics. The bladder is used for digestive problems, inflammation and blood purification. There is a high demand for bears for this purpose in Korea with prices at between $1,740 to $3,000 paid for live bears in 1985 in Japan for export to South Korea. Since the Asiatic black bear is the only bear species endemic to Korea, it is the preferred species for hanyuk medicine (Milliken 1985). In 1982, a wild Korean black bear was shot in Gangju district and it sold at public auction for $18,500. The undried gall bladder from a wild bear illegally shot in May 1983 in South Korea sold for $55,000 at public auction while the meat of the same bear sold for $1,830 (Milliken 1985). Theis et al. (1988) state that bear bile sells for $3,000 for 30 g in Korea. South Korea is not a signatary nation to CITES.

The import of live bears is popular in Korea where the animals are reported to be killed before restaurant customers. Live bears are imported under the pretext of going to zoos but the numbers of bears (Table 1) make this unlikely (Milliken 1985). It h as even been reported that another way to cook bear in South Korea is to lower a live animal in a cage onto a bed of hot coals until its feet are cooked (Pisit na Patalung, World Wildlife Fund Thailand, pers. commun.).

Although the situation in South Korea appears to be serious for the Asiatic black bear with population reduction and fragmentation, the existing laws may save the few remaining wild Korean bears. South Korea continues to have a major negative effect on the Asiatic black bear populations in other countries, however, by its importing of bears and bear parts.

Table 1.  South Korean customs statistics, live bear imports, 1980-83. From Milliken (1985).

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.-- No information on the Asiatic black bear is available.

Japan -- In Japan, the Asiatic black bear (<cite>U. thibetanus japonicus</cite>) has a historic distribution throughout Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku Islands. The present range is confined to the islands of Honshu and Shikoku with the Kyushu population becoming extinc t in the 1950's (Hanai 1985). The population on Shikoku numbers less than 100 animals and, lacking any protection, is close to extinction (Hanai 1985, Tom Milliken, TRAFFIC Japan, pers. commun., letter dated Sept. 20, 1988). The population on eastern Ho nshu was recently driven to extinction due to hunting pressure and habitat encroachment (Hanai 1985). The species has no legal protection in Japan and has been removed from the Japanese CITES list because of "trade importance". Harvest of Asiatic black bears is virtually unlimited in Japan. The animal is classified as a "pest" species so it can be taken year around and females and young can be taken as long as the hunter claim s his life or property was in danger. The species is also classified as a game animal and is taken in the hunting season. Hunting of bears exists in all designated national parks and sanctuaries (Tom Milliken, TRAFFIC Japan, pers. commun., letter dated Sept. 20, 1988).

Between 1979 and 1983 an average of 2,283 Asiatic black bears were killed by hunters in Japan with an average of 43% killed by sport hunters and the remainder killed as "pests." (Hanai 1985). Hanai (1985) infers that in areas where the "pest" kill excee ds the sport harvest the population is increasing. No hunting management program is in effect and the harvest is unregulated by sex, age, reproductive status or time of year.

The export of Asiatic black bears from Japan as live animals or as parts poses another threat to the Japanese population. In 1981 Korean importers began to pay high prices for Japanese bears and between 1980 and 1983, 244 live Asiatic black bears from J apan were shipped to Korea (Japanese CITES Annual Reports 1980-1983, cited in Milliken 1985). The majority of these bears are killed in South Korea for their parts (Milliken 1985). Gall bladders from Asiatic black bears from Japan are also exported and South Korea apparently outbids local dealers for the preferred Asiatic black bear gall bladders from Japan to such a degree that Japanese dealers rely on foreign imports mainly from China and India (Milliken 1985), as previously mentioned.

Habitat loss is another factor facing the species in Japan. Significant portions of its range are being deforested and planted in mono-culture plantations of cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa) (Shibata 1985). These plantati ons become food sources for bears once natural forests have been removed, and bears are destroyed in such areas as pests when they peel bark in plantations seeking cambium (Kuwahata 1985).

The future for bears in Japan is uncertain. Regulation of the harvest on the species and the establishment of some reserves for bear habitat protection are needed. The economic values of the present marketing system for bear parts provide incentives fo r the continued taking of bears.

Soviet Union -- In the eastern Soviet Union the Asiatic black bear (<cite>U. thibetanus ussuricus</cite>) is fully protected and numbers are increasing (Anatoley P. Bragin, research biologist, Vladivostok, U.S.S.R., pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 4, 1988).

Summary -- In summary, the situation for the Asiatic black bear appears uncertain throughout much of its range outside the dense forests in Laos and Burma and in the eastern Soviet Union. This situation is aggravated by the habitat problems facing all b ears. The marketing of bears and bear parts seems most acute with this species. It is a favored species for traditional medicine and for unusual cuisine and it is the most available species in the three countries where these uses are prevalent - China, Japan, and Korea. The existing trade is large and the prices paid for bears are rapidly increasing, pushed by the economic prosperity of these countries. The internal trade in China alone must be massive and there are no records available on this intern al trade. CITES records exist on the massive amount of international trade, but these records are no doubt incomplete. Without controls on trade and the initiation of management on the harvest, it appears the species could become extinct throughout most of its range in the very near future.

Ursus arctos

The brown bear range is the most widespread of any bear species occurring in Europe, Asia, and North America from northern arctic tundra to dry desert habitats. The range of the species has been significantly reduced since the mid 1800's due to the adve nt of firearms, human occupancy of portions of its range, and habitat alteration or destruction.

Europe -- The brown bear formerly occupied most of the continent including Scandinavia. The present range has been dramatically reduced since approximately 1850. In western Europe, most remaining populations occur in small isolated ranges (Fig. 7) wher e they continue to be subject to habitat loss and human-induced mortality. These present populations are disjunct and there is no possibility of reestablishment of contiguous habitat (Sorensen in press). This situation requires management directly relat ed to the genetic and demographic consequences of small, insular populations.

Spain -- The brown bear was once found throughout the Iberian peninsula but it has been reduced in range to two subpopulations in the Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain (Naves and Palomero 1989, Del Campo et al. in press). The brown bear has been li sted as a protected species in Spain since 1973 and violations of this law result in fines ranging from 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 Spanish pesetas ($13,00 to $26,000 U.S.).

Insularization of the Cantabrian population occurred 300-400 years ago when they were separated from the population in Pyrenees to the east (Naves and Palomero 1989).

The population in the Cantabrian Mountains is divided into two distinct populations (Clevenger et al. 1987, Naves and Palomero 1989) (Fig. 8). The western population occupies approximately 2700 km2 with a population estimate of between 93 and 103 animal s (Campo et al. 1984 cited in Clevenger et al. 1987). The eastern population occupies approximately 2700 km2 and has a population of approximately 17 individuals (Notario 1980, Clevenger et al. 1987).

Despite the formal protection of the brown bear in Spain, human-induced mortality continues and six bears including a female with cubs were known to be killed in 1986 (Naves and Palomero 1989). A government sponsored compensation program exists to pay f or bear-caused losses of cattle, beehives, and crops. Brana et al. (1979) and Naves and Palomero (1989) believe this compensation results in little direct killing of bears by farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, compensation payments for wolf and bear d epredations may be delayed for 2-3 years resulting in resentment by farmers. Poisoned baits are still placed for wolves (Canis lupus) in bear range in Spain. Since 1983, 2 bears have found dead with high levels of strychnine in their tissues due to cons umption of poison baits placed for wolves. Most illegal killing of bears is poaching by trophy hunters, vandal killing, and death from the use of poisons aimed at depredating wolves (Naves and Palomero 1989).

Habitat alteration has affected the distribution of brown bears in Spain with elimination of the once dominant beech and oak forests to provide grazing and regular burning of these areas to prevent shrub growth (Clevenger et al. 1987). Deforestation has reduced forest cover to less than 32% of the country (Bauer 1980 cited in Clevenger et al. 1987). Since 1946 in Asturias, the major autonomous state in the Cantabrian range of the brown bear, oak forests have decreased by 48% and beech forests by 69% (Clevenger et al. 1987). Because these two tree species provide a major food base for brown bears in this area, such a reduction is significant. Continued reduction in habitat due to forest harvest, fire, a nd the flooding of major valleys for reservoirs further isolates the two subpopulations in the Cantabrian Mountains and makes them more susceptible to the demographic and genetic consequences of small population size.

France -- The brown bear once existed throughout most of France but with the advent and wide distribution of firearms and poisons, its range was reduced to portions of the Pyrenees Mountains along the border with Spain (Fig. 9). The population in the Al ps became extinct in 1937 (Couturier 1954, Curry-Lindahl 1972). The population in the Pyrenees is subdivided into several subpopulations and the reduction in these small populations has likely accelerated as they reach critically small numbers (Camarra 1 986). The total population may be perhaps no more than 20-30 animals (Dendaletche 1981, Camarra and Parde in press). The population in the Pyrenees is divided into eastern and western subpopulations with 11-16 animals in the west and 8-12 in the east (Ca marra and Parde in press).

The degree of insularization in the Pyrenees makes the future of this small population perilous. The future of this population may be dependent on introduction of new animals into the area to aid recruitment. The few sightings of cubs or young bears th at have been made in recent years further indicate the grave condition of this population. The population interacts with herds of domestic sheep, especially in the eastern edge of its range, but this predation rate seems to be decreasing as a result of bear population decline (Camarra 1986). Government and conservation organizations have set up an organized reimbursement effort to compensate for damage from bears to livestock. The effort goes even further by giving producers radios for their backcountry camps to facilitate reports of depredation and by paying for flying supplies into backcou ntry sheep camps to demonstrate the goodwill of the conservation effort. Several times the value is paid by the compensation program for any domestic sheep suspected of being killed by a bear. Some bear mortality probably occurs in the area, but the com bination of an intensive compensation program and few bears probably limits the scope of human-induced mortality. The system of land ownership is another factor affecting bears in the Pyrenees. Most forest and grazing lands where the bears live are managed by local villages. Management is directed by the local major of each village. Management of bear range for forest harvest, grazing allotments, road construction, and access must be agreed to by each village under this system. Consensus between so many villages on management actions is difficult but must be coordinated if they are to eventually benefit the bea rs. Management ideas from the central government are less palatable than those developed locally. The brown bear is fully protected in France and a management plan has been proposed by the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture. This plan proposes beginning artificial feeding in certain areas of bear range in 1989 along with consideration of intr oduction of additional animals in the Pyrenees and reintroduction into the former range in the Alps. Local communities have also initiated a management program which they propose to incorporate local views on bear management into the overall management e ffort (Claude Berducou, Office National de la Chasse, pers. commun., letter dated January 2, 1989). The future of the brown bear in France will be determined by the success of the various management plans and approaches now in consideration. The success of the effort will depend on agreement between the government agencies, the local communities, and the conservation groups, some of whom are formed specifically for the conservation of the bear. Time is critical as the present populations are so small that their future existence may be limited to no more than 10-20 more years without some intense mana gement. If numbers are as low as they seem, then survival of the Pyrenees bear may depend on introduction of animals into the prime areas combined with a unified and locally supported habitat management plan encompassing enough area to allow for populati on maintenance.

Italy -- The brown bear in Italy is limited to two population isolates, one in the Trentino Alps in the north where the population is approximately 10-16 animals (Roth 1976, Osti in press) and the Apennines in and around Abruzzo National Park (Zunino 198 1, 1986) where the population is estimated at approximately 50 animals in 1985 (Zunino 1989, Boscagli in press). Hunting is prohibited inside Abruzzo National Park but protection of bears is limited outside the park (Boscagli in press). Considerations o f additions to Abruzzo National Park to minimize poaching are underway. The small isolate in Trentino is in serious danger of extinction due to its critically low numbers and the larger population in Abruzzo may be declining due to human-induced mortalit y from poaching by wild boar hunters around the park (Fabbri et al. 1983, Boscagli in press).

Yugoslavia -- The brown bear population in Yugoslavia is estimated between 1600-2000 animals (Isakovic 1970, Huber in press) occurring mostly in the Dinara Mountains. The management of the brown bear in Yugoslavia is under the control of forestry and hu nting organizations who manage fee hunting. The number of bears declined during World War II but numbers have increased throughout most of the country due to intensive management. The bear is legally hunted only from elevated blinds over bait and all hu nters must be accompanied by a member of the forestry organization issuing the permit. Annual harvest is directed at a predetermined number from each age class and sex (Frkovic et al. 1987). The bear is considered a valuable trophy and foreign hunters c omprise a significant percentage of the hunters. Density in Yugoslavia is estimated at 1 bear/25-31 km2 (Huber in press) while the density in the Gorski Kotar area of the Republic of Croatia is estimated to be 1 bear/10 km2 (Frkovic et al. 1987). Although habitat is available throughout the Dinara Mou ntains natural food density and diversity is thought to be limited (Frkovic et al. 1987). Bear management is centered around dispersed feeding stations away from human settlements in forest reserves where bears are regularly fed corn and animal carcasses . All population counts and age/sex class estimates as well as all hunting are carried out at these feeding stations where the predictability of bear use is assured. Hunting harvest is 120-200 bears annually during the Sept. 1 - May 31 season (Huber in press). Legal hunting comprises 60% of known mortalities with other sources attributable to illegal hunting (13%), traffic (11%) and poisoning (9%)(Frkovic et al. 198 7). The population is thought to be increasing in the Gorski Kotar area (Frkovic et al. 1987) and the future of the population in Yugoslavia under this management regime is promising. Greece.-- The brown bear population in Greece is under extreme pressure from habitat loss due to accelerating forest harvest and associated road building as well as from continuing mortality. Legal hunting has been outlawed since 1969. Less than 100 an imals live in Greece in two separate populations; one in the central and northern areas of the Pindus Mountains and the other in the western part of the Rhodope Mountains (Mertzanis 1989) (Fig. 10). The future management of the population and its habitat is unclear and Mertzanis (1989) considers the population severely endangered due to habitat loss, continued poaching, and conflicts with livestock in its limited range. Mertzanis (1989) estimates 10 poached bears in the Pindus Range population alone in 1985 and brown bear hides are still sold for high prices. There exists no compensation program for livestock loss.

Albania -- Albania apparently has a brown bear population that was once common (Couturier 1954) but its present status is unknown and no information is available from the country. The range of the brown bear in Greece and Yugoslavia extends to the Alba nian border so it is likely that the species does exist in the country. 

Bulgaria -- The brown bear population is separated into 4 subpopulations. Brown bears occur in the middle Balkan Range, the Rila area, the Pirin area, and the western Rhodope Range (Fig. 11) (Spiridonov and Spassov in press). Populations have increased from 360 in 1935 (Kazarov 1935 cited in Spiridonov and Spassov in press), 450 in the late 1950's (Ruskov 1961 cited in Spiridonov and Spassov in press), to 700-750 in 1986 (Spiridonov and Spassov in press). A 1979 estimate from the Conseil International de la Chasse et da la Conservation du Gibier for Bulgaria cited by Rosler (1989) was 400 bears while Rosler (1989) estimates the current population at 850. Population densities are estimated at 1 bear/15km2 within occupied areas.

Bear management in Bulgaria is directed by the Forestry Association under the Ministry of Agriculture. Hunting was prohibited from 1941-1983 and is now managed for sport and the removal of depredating animals. Two captive breeding facilities exist to p rovide bears for release for hunting. Captive-bred bears have been released in the central Balkan Mountains in a newly established population although these bears exhibit loss of fear of man and represent an abnormal threat to people with an increase in aggressive attacks by captive-bred bears (Spiridonov and Spassov in press). From 1975-83, 1237 domestic animals were reported killed by bears with 83% being domestic sheep (Genov and Gunchev 1987 cited in Spiridonov and Spassov in press).

A management scheme for brown bears in Bulgaria has been proposed by Spiridonov and Spassov (in press) to include: a ban on further captive breeding and release; the maintenance of a minimum of 50 sexually mature animals in the central Balkans and 25 sex ually mature animals each in the Rila, Pirin, and Rhodope areas; recolonization of former range to connect disjunct populations; and the eventual goal of 1000 animals in Bulgaria. This plan has yet to be formally accepted by the management authorities.

Romania.-- Romania has the largest brown bear population in Europe outside the Soviet Union with an estimated 6,000 bears in the Carpathian Mountains and the Transylvanian Alps in an area of 34,000 km2 or 52% of the wooded area of Romania (Fig. 12) (Rosl er 1989, Weber in press). This population has increased from less than 1,000 animals in 1950 to its present size and more than 4,000 km2 has been reoccupied by bears in the past 20 years. The density of this population is approximately 1 bear/6 km2 on a verage with certain areas having a density of 1 bear/1.25 km2 (Weber in press).

Sport hunting permits are limited and less than 300 bears are shot legally each year with additional bears taken illegally due to depredations (Weber in press). Captive breeding for release is also practiced in Romania and more than 300 bears have been captive-raised and released by the Forest Administration in various areas.

The Carpathian Mountains appears to be some of the most productive brown bear habitat in Europe having the highest population densities of brown bear populations in all areas except coastal populations along the Pacific coast of Asia and North America.

Czechoslovakia -- The population is estimated at 700 with an increasing trend (Rosler 1989) while Sladek (1978) and Hell (in press) estimate 350 to 400 also with a population increase. Numbers have undoubtedly increased since reports of 35-40 in 1928, 2 0 in 1932, 50-80 in 1949, 200 in 1953. The population occurs along the border with Poland and is centered in the 500 km2 High Tatra National Park.

The species was completely protected in Czechoslovakia from 1932 to 1962 when a sport hunt was initiated. The harvest rate is 8-10% per year but this level is rarely attained (Sladek 1978, Hell in press). Most hunting is done in the spring over bait an d adult males are usually taken. Only 9.6% of bears taken are females (Sabados and Simiak 1981 cited in Hell in press). Damage to livestock and bee hives is compensated by the government with a 1986 payment of 750,000 crowns ($30,000 US). Damage to oat fields and fruit trees is not compensated.

Poland -- The 1982 population estimate was 70-75 animals (Jakubiec and Buchalczyk 1987) that were concentrated along the southern border with Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. This population continues to grow from an estimated 10-14 animals in 1946 mainly through cross-border expansion of the range of the population in adjacent Czechoslovakia (Parusel 1985, Jakubiec and Buchalczyk 1987) and occupancy of formerly occupied habitat in two major Polish reserves totaling approximately 357 km2 (Rosler 198 9). Reproduction is seen each year with about 10 females with cubs observed annually and an average of 13.7 cubs counted 1980-85 (Jakubiec in press). Litter size is 1.4 cubs per female (Jakubiec and Buchalczyk 1987).

Bears have been fully protected since 1949 although permission to kill depredating bears is available from the Minister of Environment. Compensation for losses due to bears was implemented in 1970 and consideration is underway to secure further bear hab itat and to experiment with supplemental placement of carrion in some areas (Jakubiec and Buchalczyk 1987, Jakubiec in press).

Finland -- The brown bear in Scandinavia was heavily hunted resulting in extermination of the species from most areas by the early 1900's (Bjarvall 1980, Elgmork 1978, 1987, 1988, Kolstad et al. 1986, Pulliainen 1989, Sorensen in press). Population numb ers have increased in the 1970's and early 1980's in Finland due to immigration from the adjacent Soviet population which was reported to be of high density (Pulliainen 1989). This population increase in Finland was from approximately 150 in 1970 to 450 in 1985 (Pulliainen 1989). Bears are hunted in northern Finland and protected in the south and hunting regulations are annually reviewed. From 1979-87 the average hunting kill was 58/yr or approximately 10% of the population estimate resulting in a popu lation decline (Nyholm in press).

Sweden -- Sweden has a population which is centered in central to northern portions of the country. The population estimate is 400-600 (Bjarvall in press) to 600-800 (Pulliainen 1989) with a probable increasing population. The hunting harvest level is set at 5% of the estimated population of 600. From 1981-86 the harvest has averaged 27/yr (Bjarvall in press).

Norway -- In Norway, the population is fragmented into perhaps 17 subpopulations (Mysterud and Muus Falck 1989) and populations appear to be of low density (Overskaug et al. 1988; Kolstad et al. 1986; Elgmork 1986, 1988; Pulliainen 1989). Kvam et al. (i n press) have estimated 160-230 bears in Norway with a probable minimum of 230 and a slightly increasing population. The status of the population is debated, however, and Elgmork (1988) believes no reliable evidence is available to state that Norwegian p opulations are expending and increasing.

Hunting has been prohibited since 1973. Vaag et al. (1986) have presented a management plan for Norwegian bears which seeks to secure populations of 30-70 bears in any isolate for viability and the establishment of zone management to establish levels of management intensity in different areas. Mysterud and Kolstad (1986) have proposed three possible approaches to brown bear management in Scandinavia including a cooperative program with the three Scandinavian countries to establish two large management zones of 377,000 km2 having a total population of 1,000 bears (Fig. 13). Kvam et al. (in press) propose that the Norwegian population should not be considered endangered but only vulnerable due to its insularization and fragmentation with evidence of inc reasing numbers. The management situation in Norway remains in flux and no unified approach has yet been reached.

Management of brown bears in Scandinavia is varied. Norway populations have been protected since 1973 yet bears are hunted in Sweden and Finland. The situation in Scandinavia presently indicates a unified large population in Soviet Karelia that overlap s into Finland with regular movement across the border. The Norwegian population appears fragmented and somewhat contiguous with Swedish populations along the northern border. The connection between Swedish populations and Finland bears may take place. Livestock conflicts contribute to reductions in range availability in many areas of Norway further assuring small populations in these sites. Unified management leading to larger populations and less fragmentation may be the only management approach to assure the future of brown bears in Scandinavia.

Eurasia -- The brown bear is widely distributed throughout Eurasia from the tundra and boreal forests of the Soviet Union to the Himalayas (Fig 14). Populations become disjunct and insular across the southern portion of the range where population declin es are occuring from Turkey and Syria eastward to China.

Turkey -- Distribution of the brown bear in Turkey occurs throughout the country (Fig. 15). The highest populations appear to be in the core areas of Artvin, Hakkari, Tunceli, and Erzincan (Mursaloglu 1989). Although the areas noted in Fig. 12 have rec ords of bears, there is concern that the brown bear is facing extinction outside of the core areas mentioned. In the late 1970's the hunting of brown bears was banned throughout the country, but complaints began to increase about the damage done to lives tock by bears. In 1982, hunting was allowed in the areas of Artvin and Yusufeli but only to foreign hunters accompanied by local guides who thus have an economic incentive to maintain bears in their areas (Mursaloglu 1989). Decisions on the numbers of bea rs harvested are made by the government management authority, the General Directorate of Forestry. Mursaloglu (1989) estimates that although the population decline has slowed in Turkey, the decline still continues throughout most of the country.

Syria -- Brown bears were reported in the Al Sheikh Mountains along the Lebanese border in the late 1950's, but present distribution is likely only in the northwest part of the country in the area of Latakia (Khalaf 1983). Present status is unknown.

Lebanon -- Possibly in the Al Sheikh Mountains until about 1960 but likely extinct now (Khalaf 1983).

Iraq -- Populations of brown bears are still thought to occur in the Kurdistan Mountains in the northeast portion of the country, but little is available on the status of the populations (Khalaf 1983, Hatt 1959).

Iran -- Small numbers of brown bears may still remain in the Zagros Mountains in the western part of the country and in the Elburz Mountains in the north (Lay 1967). Present status is unknown.

Soviet Union -- The population of brown bears west of the Ural Mountains is estimated at 30-33,000 covering an area of 1.7 million km2 (Fig. 7) (Shenchenko 1989). Regional estimates for the western part of the USSR are 16,000 in northwestern regions, 4, 000 in central regions, 4,000 in the Ural Mountains, 5,000 in the Volga-Vyatka region, 1,000 in the Carpathian Mountains, and 3,000 in the Caucasus Mountains (Boldenkov and Krainev 1972 cited in Shevchenko in press). Numbers are thought to be stable in t he northwestern region adjacent to Finland where movement from the dense Soviet population is thought to be the major factor increasing the Finnish population. Decline in populations is noted in the central regions and in the Caucasus Mountains (Shevchen ko in press). The population in the Carpathian Mountains is reported to have increased more than 10-fold from 1950-1975 in the area adjacent to the robust Carpathian population in Romania (Shevchenko in press). In the western region, litter size is repo rted to average 1.9 and cubs and yearlings comprise 20.4% and 13.5% of the population respectively (Priklonsky 1967, Kaletskaya 1981, and Danilov et al. 1979 cited in Shevchenko in press).

Estimates for the eastern Soviet Union based on wildlife counting efforts of the Soviet Hunting Department (Glavokhota) quoted by Vereshchagin (1978) were: 1,800 in Kazakhstan; 8,850 in West Siberia; 40,000 in East Siberia; 32,000 in the far eastern s ection of the country; 1,400 in Sakhalin; and 700 in the Kuril Islands. For the far eastern USSR, Dunishenko (1987) estimated 12-14,000 brown bears in Kamchatka, 1,900-2,000 in Sakhalin, 5,000-5,500 in Khabarovsk, 2,000 in Primorye, 1,700 in Amurskaya, a nd 2,200 in Magadaskaya.

Two subspecies of the brown bear are protected in the USSR including U. a. leuconyx in Middle Asia and Kazakhstan and U. a. syriacus in the Caucasus Mountains (Anatoley P. Bragin, research biologist, Vladivostok, U.S.S.R., pers. commun., letter dated Aug . 4, 1988). U. a. leuconyx populations are estimated by Zhirnov et al. (1978) at 900-1,000 in Kazakhstan, 300 in Kirghizia, 700 in Tajikistan, and 95 in Uzbekistan. U. a. syriacus has an estimated population of 150 (Thikhonov 1987). Bragin (pers. commu n.) reports numbers of both subspecies decreasing due to habitat destruction and poaching. There is a small apparently isolated brown bear population in Estonia which is listed in the Soviet "Red Data Book" and fully protected. Anatoley P. Bragin (research biologist, U.S.S.R., pers. commun., letter dated Aug. 4, 1988) notes that the annual kill of brown bears throughout the Soviet Union is about 10,000 animals. Nikita Ovsyanikov (wildlife biologist, U.S.S.R., pers. commun., le tter dated November 28, 1988) states that legal hunting takes 10-15% of the bears killed annually while poaching accounts for "up to 30-40%, but more truly 20%" of the annual kill. Populations of brown bears are thought to be stable throughout the countr y except for U. a.