The criteria “population” is assessed as U1 even though the national assessment is 27-40, which is in average lower comparing to the previous reporting 37 – 40. The reported range is 33,000 km2 or between 0.08 and 0.12 bears/100km2 or 0.46 to 0. 68 bears/100 km2 from the habitat estimation are estimated. On other parts of the Balkan Peninsula the bear population densities exceed 40 bears / 100 km2 (Jerina et al.). In the Alpine biogeographical region in Bulgaria also the density is much higher. In the National Park Central Balkan 10-20 ind./ 100 km2 (Popova et. al 2018). So the average population density in the continental region is extremely low. The optimal estimated number of bears for Bulgaria is ≈ 1200 individuals (Brown Bear Action Plan 2008-2017). So the current assessment is less than 50% of the potential optimal number of bear in the country (assessment for the continental region is 27-40) and so the species should be evaluated as U2.
The “range” have decreased from 44,000 (last reporting 2007-2012) to 33,000 km2 or with 25.7%. According to annex C of the Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for U2 range status is specified: “Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within period….”. In that case the lost for 6 years is 26% or the average 4.2% per year. So why the trend, instead of decreasing (-) and why the status is assessed as favorable, instead of unfavorable bad - U2? Also less than half of suitable habitat is currently occupied by bears, with this continuing to decrease (Frosch et al. 2014), so the range should be evaluated as U2.
All three criterion for the future prospects are assessed as poor as well as the general assessment of the future. Taking into account the serious current problems like: illegal hunting, increased free ranging of livestock in bear habitats (due to EU subsidies) or livestock breeding by not experienced shepherds/herders whit not significant damage prevention measures taken. Lack of natura food and subsequent increased damages, tension and risk of poisoning that will effect many other protected species. So some of the future threats can also be assessed as U2.
The brown bear is listed in the Red data book of Bulgaria as endangered species: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol2/Urarctos.html
Conclusion the status of the species in the Alpine region should be evaluated as U2.
by BALKANI Wildlife Society
2020-03-07 19:53
Following the comment, BG parameters were reassessed as U2 leading to a revision of the EU CON status from FV to U1. Data sheet and audit trail updated accordingly.
The criteria “population” is assessed as U1 even though the national assessment is 27-40, which is in average lower comparing to the previous reporting 37 – 40. The reported range is 33,000 km2 or between 0.08 and 0.12 bears/100km2 or 0.46 to 0. 68 bears/100 km2 from the habitat estimation are estimated. On other parts of the Balkan Peninsula the bear population densities exceed 40 bears / 100 km2 (Jerina et al.). In the Alpine biogeographical region in Bulgaria also the density is much higher. In the National Park Central Balkan 10-20 ind./ 100 km2 (Popova et. al 2018). So the average population density in the continental region is extremely low. The optimal estimated number of bears for Bulgaria is ≈ 1200 individuals (Brown Bear Action Plan 2008-2017). So the current assessment is less than 50% of the potential optimal number of bear in the country (assessment for the continental region is 27-40) and so the species should be evaluated as U2.
The “range” have decreased from 44,000 (last reporting 2007-2012) to 33,000 km2 or with 25.7%. According to annex C of the Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for U2 range status is specified: “Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within period….”. In that case the lost for 6 years is 26% or the average 4.2% per year. So why the trend, instead of decreasing (-) and why the status is assessed as favorable, instead of unfavorable bad - U2?
Also less than half of suitable habitat is currently occupied by bears, with this continuing to decrease (Frosch et al. 2014), so the range should be evaluated as U2.
All three criterion for the future prospects are assessed as poor as well as the general assessment of the future. Taking into account the serious current problems like: illegal hunting, increased free ranging of livestock in bear habitats (due to EU subsidies) or livestock breeding by not experienced shepherds/herders whit not significant damage prevention measures taken. Lack of natura food and subsequent increased damages, tension and risk of poisoning that will effect many other protected species. So some of the future threats can also be assessed as U2.
The brown bear is listed in the Red data book of Bulgaria as endangered species: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol2/Urarctos.html
Conclusion the status of the species in the Alpine region should be evaluated as U2.
Following the comment, BG parameters were reassessed as U2 leading to a revision of the EU CON status from FV to U1. Data sheet and audit trail updated accordingly.
Jump to Top