AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE OF TRENTO

www.orso.provincia.tn.it

2013 BEAR REPORTWITH APPENDICES ON THE LYNX, WOLF

AND GOLDEN JACKAL

www.orso.provincia.tn.itmailorso@provincia.tn.it

PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO

SERVIZIO FORESTE E FAUNAUFFICIO FAUNISTICO

2013BEAR REPORT

Overall coordination and supervisionRuggero Giovannini - Director, Wildlife Office

CoordinationClaudio Groff

Edited byNatalia BragalantiClaudio GroffRenato RizzoliPaolo Zanghellini

With the contribution ofMuseo delle Scienze di Trento (MuSe) and the Adamello Brenta Nature Park (ABNP)

CitationsThe information contained in this report may be quoted, making due reference to:Groff C., Bragalanti N., Rizzoli R., Zanghellini P. (editors), 2014 2013 Bear Report, Forestry and Wildlife Department of the Autonomous Province of Trento.

Cover pageThe bear Daniza in the Val dAlgone, May 2013Photo by Massimo Vettorazzi (with camera trap)

Back coverBeech trees in Autumn Photo by Claudio Groff - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department archives

Photos without captionsClaudio Groff, Renato Rizzoli - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department archives

Layout and graphics APT Wildlife Office - Publistampa Arti grafiche

Printed byPrint centre of the Autonomous Province of TrentoTrento, April 2014

CONTENTS

Presentation page 5

Introduction page 7

1. Monitoring page 8

2. Damage compensation and prevention page 41

3. Management of emergencies page 48

4. Communication page 57

5. Personnel training page 62

6. National and international links page 63

7. Research and conferences page 65

Acknowledgements page 65

Appendix 1 - The lynx page 66

Appendix 2 - The wolf page 69

Appendix 3 - The golden jackal page 76

2013 BEAR REPORT

Presentation

For the first time since the end of the reintroduction project, implemented to avoid the dis-appearance of the bear in Trentino and the central Alps, in 2013 there was a reversal of thetrend for the bear population, which had gown constantly up to this point. The reasons whichmay have led to this phenomenon are analysed in this report, which has now reached its sev-enth edition.

Although it is too early to arrive at definitive conclusions, the signal certainly should not beunderestimated. 2013 also saw the first case of poaching documented in the province; an adultmale bear, M2, was shot with a rifle in the Val di Rabbi. What is more, this may not be the onlycase, given the sudden disappearance of the bear M11 from Monte Baldo during the spring forexample. These facts, probably linked to the poor social acceptance ascertained by a publicopinion survey in Trentino at the end of 2011, further underline the importance of the ques-tion that the provincial administration has set itself for some time: namely the need to be ableto act quickly and effectively to deal with a few problem bears, naturally respecting the agreedtechnical criteria. It is therefore necessary for the Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea(Ministry) and the Istituto Superiore per la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) to play their part inthis context, in order to avoid gradually sliding towards a form of hidden and illegal manage-ment of the phenomenon, which should instead be managed in a competent, responsible,prompt and transparent manner.

In this context, the need to update the management tools available (the Action Plan for theConservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps PACOBACE first of all) is un-derlined, in the light of the current situation, which is very different from the situation just tenyears ago. From this point of view, 2013 has not gone by without success and it is hoped thatthe Ministry of the Environment will shortly agree an updated version of the Action Plan men-tioned above, the fruit of work promoted by the Autonomous Province of Trento (APT), in as-sociation with the other administrations in the central-eastern Alps.

However, the year that has just ended has also confirmed and emphasised the statistics,showing that the bear project is a technical endeavour which is carried out by the adminis-tration with great commitment and competence. Genetic monitoring has taken place for twelveconsecutive years, with more than 5,600 samples collected and analysed and almost 1,000 pre-vention works have been distributed. These are just some of the figures showing the successof the management programme at biological level, in some ways unique in Europe. It shouldbe recalled that this has also been recognised by the national and international scientific com-munity.

In 2013 the Department also continued to make its contribution and to receive input at in-ternational level, even in new and demanding areas, such as the Large Carnivores Platform inthe context of the Alpine Convention (taking on the presidency), the new initiatives started upby the European Commission and the Bear Specialist Group of I.U.C.N.

There continues to be a strong commitment to introducing innovative elements and im-provements made available over time. In this context, for example, it has been decided to moveforwards from a minimum population estimate, nevertheless important, to a genuine pop-ulation estimate, making use of sophisticated CMR methods for data analysis, which it is in-tended to prepare for the first time in 2014, also thanks to technical support from Science Mu-seum in Trento (MuSe).

In the same way it is strategically important to maintain the network of collaborative rela-tions at provincial level which this year has once again made it possible to build up the pic-ture summarised in this report. This is based on the fundamental contribution made by bodies

5

2013 BEAR REPORT

such as the Science Museum in Trento (MuSe) and the Adamello Brenta Nature Park (ABNP),along with numerous volunteers, and the constant commitment of forestry staff.

As regards genetic monitoring, ISPRA and the alpine partners, the Autonomous Provinceof Bolzano first of all, along with the Autonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, the VenetoRegion and the Lombardia Region, also play an important role and have made available someof the data contained in this report. Our sincere thanks go to all of them.

Finally the report analyses the situation of the wolf, another large carnivore which Trentinois likely to have to deal with in the next years. 2013 was marked by the appearance of the firstpack in the eastern Alps (in an area between the provinces of Trento and Verona), after around150 years since wolves were last present, with the first significant cases of preying on domes-tic livestock.

The return of the wolf, in contrast with what has taken place for the lynx and the bear inthe Alps, is a completely natural phenomenon, undoubtedly bringing with it new and impor-tant commitments, involving the search for a possible equilibrium between man and the largealpine carnivores.

DOTT. MAURIZIO ZANINManager of APT's Forestry and Wildlife Department

6

The brown bear has never completely dis-appeared from Trentino, which is thus theonly area in the Alps that can proudly affirmthe continuous presence of bears.

However, protection of bears, which beganin 1939, has not eliminated the risk of theirbecoming extinct. Direct persecution by manand, to a lesser extent, environmental changestaking place in the last two centuries, reducedthe original population, bringing it to thethreshold of extinction. At the end of the1990s there were probably no more than threeor four bears remaining, confined to thenorth-eastern Brenta area, the last bears inthe Alps. However, just when all seemed lost,there was turn in fortunes, originating in theaction taken by ABNP, which started up theLife Ursus project together with the APT andISPRA, co-funded by the European Union. Be-tween 1999 and 2002 this led to the release of10 bears (3 males and 7 females), giving riseto the current population. The release of thebears was preceded by a detailed feasibilitystudy supervised by ISPRA, which ascertainedthe environmental suitability of a sufficientlylarge area to play host to a viable bear popu-lation (40-60 bears), which is the minimumaim of the project. This area extends well be-yond the confines of the province of Trento,also involving neighbouring regions and coun-tries.

Following the conclusion of the phase in-volving the release of the animals, the phasededicated to the conservation and ordinarymanagement of the bear population, perhapseven more demanding, began in 2002. For thispurpose the provincial government set out theoperational guidelines on which these man-agement activities should be based in resolu-tions no. 1428 of 26 June 2002 and no. 1988of 9 August 2002. Specifically, six programmesof action were identified (Monitoring, DamageManagement, Management of Emergencies,Staff Training, Communication and Nationaland International Links), which represent theunderlying structure followed in this report.

2013 BEAR REPORT

Introduction

7

2013 BEAR REPORT

Monitoring of the bear has been carried outcontinuously by APT for 40 years. Over time,traditional survey techniques in the field(Photo 1) have been supplemented by ra-diotelemetry (a method first used in Eurasia, inthe second half of the 1970s), automatic videocontrols by remote stations, camera traps andfinally, since 2002, by genetic monitoring.

The latter technique is based on the col-lection of organic samples (hairs and scats)and takes place using two methods commonlydescribed as systematic monitoring, basedon the use of traps with scent bait, designedto "capture" hairs using barbed wire, and onopportunistic monitoring, which is based onthe collection of organic samples found in thearea during routine activities. In the last fewyears, genetic monitoring has represented themost crucial technique for collecting infor-mation regarding the bear population presentin the province. It was carried out coordinatedfor the twelfth consecutiveyear, coordinated by APTsForestry and Wildlife Depart-ment, with the collaborationof ISPRA, ABNP, MuSe andvolunteers.

It is nevertheless implicitthat the monitoring tech-niques cited do not guaran-tee that all the bears pres-ent will be detected, so thedata in this report must beread bearing in mind this in-trinsic limitation.

Finally it should be re-called that monitoring of theother two species of largecarnivores in the Alps (theeurasian lynx and the wolf)began following their reap-pearance in the province,hence from the end of the 1980s for the lynxand since 2009 for the wolf. The monitoringof these two species also involved the use of

traditional survey techniques in the field, cam-era traps, radio-tracking and genetic monitor-ing.

In 2013 genetic testing was again carriedout by technicians from the conservation ge-netics laboratory at ISPRA. The samples col-lected (hairs, faeces, tissue or other) are sentto the laboratory for genetic tests, carried outusing standard protocols; the data is validatedusing population genetics software. The or-ganic samples collected may be analysed ac-cording to the standard procedure (730 in2013), or in more urgent cases (1 in 2013),using a faster system. The methods devel-oped, in accordance with the provisions of PA-COBACE, provide for amplification of ten dif-ferent genomic regions (DNA microsatellites)and molecular sexing of all the hair and fae-ces samples collected by staff and sent to theinstitutes laboratory. The high risk of error as-sociated with analysis of samples collected

using non-invasive techniques demands opti-misation of laboratory procedures, designedto minimise the risk of genotyping errors.

8

1. Monitoring

Photo 1 - Bear tracks in the snow in Val Brenta (C. Groff - APT Forestry and Wildlife Depart-ment archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

With this scope the multiple amplification ap-proach has been adopted, involving repeatinga series of tests until a genotype considered tobe reliable is obtained. Reliability was estab-lished using statistical evaluation, carried outusing the Reliotype programme. This calcu-lates the likelihood of the particular genotypeobserved effectively belonging to the popula-tion, based on the allele frequency observed inthe population of reference and on the num-ber of repeat tests providing concordant re-sults. If the reliability of the genotype arrivesat or exceeds 95% it is accepted and the sam-ple identified is added to the database. Fol-lowing processing of the initial results of ge-netic tests, the combination of genotypesidentified is subjected to careful quality con-trol carried out subsequently, through com-parison of genetic data, sampling and datacoming from other activities in the field(telemetry, sightings etc.) designed to identifysamples potentially subject to error. Furthertests were used for these samples in order toclarify any uncertainty. Finally, blind tests arecarried out regularly by the authority (testsdesigned to reveal any possible errors in thesystem of analysis).

Collection of organic samples A total of 821 organic samples from wild

predators were collected in the province ofTrento in 2013, of which 206 using the sys-tematic method (hair traps) and 615 with theopportunistic system, with 731 of these beingsent for genetic testing. Some of the samplescollected (90) were not sent for testing, asthey were duplicates (or further repeats) ofsamples which had already been analysed andled to positive identification. It was possibleto attribute 719 samples (602 hair and 117faeces samples) to the bear, 9 to the wolf (1hair, 6 faeces and 2 saliva samples) and 3 tothe lynx (faeces). The organic samples relatedto bears were collected from rub trees (272),hair traps (206), damage sites (59), followingcapture (1) and elsewhere (181), whereas inthe case of the wolf and the lynx the samplescame from casual findings of their presence,except for 1 sample collected at a site related

to possible damage by wolves. The 719 sam-ples analysed in 2013 brought the total num-ber of organic samples related to the bear col-lected and subjected to genetic testing since2002 to 5,671.

The fact that genetic monitoring has nowbeen carried out for twelve consecutiveyears makes the Trentino case particularlyinteresting, as the medium-long term time -scale for these activities (generally difficult tokeep up and hence rare, perhaps withoutprecedent), makes certain types of analysispossible which would be unthinkable withmore fragmentary monitoring.

The 731 organic samples (bear, wolf andlynx) analysed were collected by the staff ofthe Autonomous Province of Trento (415;57%), ABNP (297; 41%) and by volunteers(19; 2%).

Further samples were collected outside theprovince, contributing towards determiningthe total number of bears from this populationidentified; the data was kindly provided by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the

9

2013 BEAR REPORT

Lombardia Region, the Veneto Region (theProvince of Belluno in particular) and the Au-tonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia.

The trend in relation to the number ofsamples collected in Trentino over the lasttwelve seasons can be seen below (Graph 1).

10

Graph 1

N of organic samples tested by method

N

of

sam

ple

s

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOT.

Opport. 45 125 319 193 228 205 290 311 514 587 646 513 3976

System. 4 227 464 154 255 135* 83 - 167 - - 206 1695

TOTAL 49 352 783 347 483 340 373 311 681 587 646 719 5671

N of traps 4 39 41 42 47 17* 57 - 57 - - 50

* within the ABNP alone

Systematic

Opportunistic

Total

The monitoring of rub trees During 2013, (for the fourth consecutive

year) the Forestry and Wildlife Department,with the collaboration of MuSe and ABNP,again carried out monitoring of rub trees,namely plants on which bears leave signs oftheir presence by leaving their odour and hairon the bark. For the second year running, thismonitoring activity, begun in 2010, took placein a standardised manner, as describedbelow and with the results given.

Overall, 137 trees equipped with barbedwire were monitored, with the scope of col-lecting organic samples, assessing the possi-ble significance of the use of these trees bybears and consequently understanding howuseful they may be in monitoring the popula-

tion. The checks, carried out every threeweeks from April until November, interrup-ted in July and August at some sites, with atotal of 9 sessions in total, provided for thecollection of samples of organic material fromeach positive rub tree (collected exclusivelyfrom the barbs of the barbed wire). In order toavoid changing the habits of bears, no lureswere used. Identification and monitoring ofthe sites was possible thanks to the local kno-wledge of staff from the Wildlife Office, thepark wardens of the Adamello Brenta NaturePark, the staff of the Trentino Forestry Service,forest wardens and volunteers.

During the season 272 hair samples werecollected on rub trees. A total of 15 bearswere genotyped; 9 males and 6 females (re-

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20132012

2013 BEAR REPORT

11

presenting 45% of males and 30% of femalesknown to be present in the area studied in2013, also considering all the cubs). Of these12 were adults and 3 young bears. In thefour years of monitoring (2010-2013), a totalof 23 bears actively frequented the rub trees.

Sampling bears by collecting hairs left na-turally on rub trees was thus confirmed as ahelpful addition to monitoring methods pro-

viding for opportunistic collection of samplesand the use of hair traps with lures. Rub treesare indeed an efficient, safe, flexible, non-in-vasive and relatively cheap method for the col-lection of data useful for estimating the extentof the population investigated and populationtrends.

For the second year photographic monito-ring of rub trees was also carried out (box 1).

BOX 1 - Photographic monitoring of rub trees

After a promising first season of standardised camera trap monitoring of rub trees in2012, following renewal of the agreement signed by APT and MuSe - the Science Museum,and in collaboration with ABNP, the monitoring programme was conducted for a second sea-son. The main scope was to obtain quantitative and qualitative data on the use of rub treesby bears, in relation to the frequency and ways in which they are used by the different sexesand age groups and during different seasons. Secondly, the camera traps made it possible toobtain important information on seasonal variations and the activities of bears in general,along with information about numerous other species.

Repeating the data collection system adopted in 2012, 20 IR-plus camera traps wereused (Photo A). These are activated by infrared sensors following the passage of animals,recording a video or photographic image after a trigger time of around 1 second from the timethe animal comes within the field of the sensor.

The cameras were attached to trees opposite the chosen rub tree, at a height of around 2metres and an average distance of around 4 metres. They were set to video mode, with con-tinuous filming (20 second sequence) and the date and time of the footage impressed on theimage. They wereequipped with a 4 GBmemory card, makingit possible to recordhundreds of videos,also thanks to the ex-tensive operational au-tonomy guaranteed byan external battery, inaddition to the inter-nal batteries.

The camera trapswere checked every 3weeks by APT/ABNPstaff, in order to down-load the data and con-trol the batteries.

In order to guaran-tee comparability of

Photo A - Camera trap being positioned on a tree (P. Zanghellini - APT Forestry and WildlifeDepartment archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

the results in different years, the rub trees chosen for monitoring in 2013 were the same asthose used in 2012, with the exception of 3 sites which were changed because the cameraswere stolen (2) or because the rub trees were not visited in 2012 (1). Overall, the 20 sites(of the 137 rub trees recorded in 2013) represented a sample uniformly distributed in thearea used most regularly by bears (Figure A). The 23 camera traps used in the 2012-2013two-year period were positioned at an altitude ranging between 650 and 1720 metres a.s.l.(average altitude 1240 m).

With the exception of onecamera trap set up on 1March 2013, photographicsampling was carried outfrom 1 April to 25 November2012, with a total of 3,631camera days in terms of ef-fective operation (an averageof 182 days per camera).The sampling was not quiteas extensive as expected, dueto reduced operation bysome of the cameras becauseof full memory cards orproblems with batteries, andto the theft of two cameras.However, over and beyondthis, all the cameras workedeffectively and the samplingcarried out was nevertheless significant, being more ex-tensive than in 2012 (whenit was started up in May)and covering the whole cycleof the bears activities fromApril to November.

12

Figure ALocation of camera traps and relative number of bears passing

Photographic monitoring Camera trap site

20122012 and 20132013

0 bears passing1-5 bears passing> 5 bears passing

0 3 6 9Km

2013 BEAR REPORT

13

Results (bears)The cameras recorded a total of 4,962 videos of animals and men, of which 285 of

bears (Photo B). For the purposes of analysis, individual events relating to the passageof bears (or other species) were established, joining together sequential videos because theyreferred to a single event (such as a bear checking and using a rub tree for example), or in

the event that the same ani-mal spent a long time infront of the camera, leadingto several videos within astandard time interval (es-tablished as 1 hour). In thisway 213 individual events(or separate events inde-pendent of each other) re-sulted for bears (out of atotal of 285 recordings),with an average of 10.7 percamera (from a minimumof 0 to a maximum of 42).

Graph 1 shows the sea-sonal changes in camerasrecording the presence ofbears, expressed as the % ofcameras capturing imagesof bears in relation to thetotal number of cameras.

The trend also providesinformation about changesin the activity of the speciesin general, given that therub trees are situated alongpaths or forest roads used bybears. The graph clearlyshows that there was moreactivity in 2013 than in2012, both in general andspecifically in the June-Sep-tember period. Further-more, given the complete-ness of the monitoringperiod in 2013, it was pos-sible to record the startingup of activities at the begin-ning of April, while the two

cameras already functioning in March did not record any activities. Although it is still tooearly to establish whether these data represent a general trend for the population, the av-erage values show that the activity of the bears at the sites was as its highest in May-July,followed by a slight fall in August and an increase in September, before declining in autumn.

Photo B - Bear marking a rub tree - Valle dei Laghi (R. Rizzoli - APT Forestry andWildlife Department archives)

Graph 1 - Seasonal changes in the activity of bears in 2012, 2013 and the average forthe two years, as recorded at rub trees monitored with camera traps, expressed as the% of sites recording the presence of bears in relation to the total number of sites mon-itored with camera traps. N indicates the overall number of working camera traps.

Seasonal changes in activity 2012-2013

Pro

po

rtio

n (

%)

of

sit

es r

ec

ord

ing

the p

resen

ce o

f b

ears

100

80

60

40

20

0

APR

IL

MAY

JUN

E

JULY

AUG

UST

SEPT

EMBE

RO

CTO

BER

NO

VEM

BER

2013 (N=140) 2012 (N=121) Average (N=261)

2013 BEAR REPORT

The bears behaviour at rub trees was assigned to one of 4 categories: (1) indifferent(bear did not stop at tree), (2) checking of tree, (3) checking of tree and rubbing, (4) onlyrubbing. Graph 2 shows the percentagesfor these different categories of behaviourin terms of the 213 individual eventsrecorded, overall and by age group andsex. It is interesting to observe that thefrequency of the behaviour showed atrend almost identical to that recorded in2012, but with more data available (213events as compared to 110), an impor-tant aspect because it shows the emer-gence of a clear pattern in the behaviourstudied. Overall, 39% of events involvedindifferent bears, whereas the remain-ing 61% involved checking of the tree(40%), checking and rubbing (16%), orjust rubbing (5%). As also highlighted inthe 2012 data, it was confirmed thatmost of the bears rubbing themselves against the trees were male adults, as shown in theimages (in 34 events out of 43), while the remaining events involved 2 adult females, 3young bears and 4 adult individuals of unidentified gender (so the effective proportion ofmales is probably higher). As regards this it should be recalled that classification of indi-viduals by age groups and gender was carried out in a conservative manner (the bears wereclassified by sex and or age group in 124 events out of 213, 58% of cases), due to objectivedifficulties in terms of identification.

The filming of 2 adult females rubbing on the trees (data confirmed by genetic testing)is interesting and new ascompared to 2012. How-ever, the trend previouslyidentified in 2012 remains,with events involving adultfemales being equally di-vided between indifference(7 out of 14, namely 50%)and checking alone (5 outof 14), whereas only 24%of adult males were indif-ferent to the rub trees. As re-gards differentiation accord-ing to age groups, it isinteresting to observe thatin 69% of cases of passingbears (18 out of 26) theyoung bears checked thetree, while three of themrubbed against it. The pat-

14

Graph 2 - % distribution of behavioural categories in terms of the use of rub trees(in relation to individual events recorded by camera traps) by different age groups

Behaviour at rub trees

Photo C - Bear that checking a rub-tree - Valle dello Sporeggio(APT - Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

Pro

po

rtio

n (

%)

of

ind

ivid

ual

even

ts b

y c

ate

go

ry

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Checking Rubbing Indifferent

Male adults (N=35) Female adults (N=8) Undetermined adults (N=4)

Cubs (N=11) Young bears (N=22) Other undetermined bears (N=30)

2013 BEAR REPORT

tern was therefore similar to 2012, with the difference that cases of cubs rubbing againsttrees were also recorded in 2012, whereas in 2013 no images of cubs were captured. Thiswas certainly influenced by the low number of cubs present in 2013. In this context itshould be underlined that young bears were necessarily identified in an empirical manner,based on the markedly smaller size of young bears as compared to adults. They wereclassified in a conservative manner, so it is possible that some young bears were consid-ered to be adults, whereas the opposite is much less likely. The other undetermined bearscategory instead includes those bears whose size did not make it possible to determine ei-ther the sex or age group.

This data confirms thatactive behaviour (checkingand rubbing + rubbingcategories) involves aboveall adult males, also con-firming the results of ge-netic testing and informa-tion coming from previousreports and other studies.Analysis of seasonal chan -ges in behaviour at rubtrees shows a clear trend foradult male bears, with amarked peak in activity inMay, June and part of July,as compared to subsequentmonths (Graph 3).

This could suggest thatthe reproductive season formales in 2013 was longerthat in 2012, and this issupported by direct sight-ings of pairs of bears untilthe middle of July. This re-sult reinforces the theorythat rub trees have a fun-damental role in inter-spe-cific communication linkedto reproduction (Photo D).

In addition to the use ofrub trees, the results re-vealed other interesting as-pects regarding the habits ofbears. In particular, by plot-ting events by time bands, itis possible to arrive at aprofile for daily activities(Graph 4). Having verified

15

Graph n. 3 - Behaviour trend for adult male bears at rub trees over the months.Data refers to individual events recording the passage of bears (N=59)

Behaviour trend over time (2013)

Nu

mb

er

of

even

ts

(male

bears

)

APR

IL

MAY

JUN

E

JULY

AUG

UST

SEPT

EMBE

RO

CTO

BER

N

OVE

MBE

R

checking rubbing

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Photo D - Male and female bear near a rub tree - Valle dello Sporeggio (APT Forestryand Wildlife Department archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

16

that the profiles were similar in 2012 and 2013 and assuming that the behaviour trend ispopulation-specific and changes little over the years, the graph provides a considerableamount of data for both years. It follows the typical pattern for a nocturnal and crepuscu-lar species, with peaks in terms of passage (and hence activity) early in the morning (4:00-6:00) and in the evening (18:00-22:00).

Results (all species)In addition to the bear, a further 12 species of medium-large mammals were captured

on film, including man, with 2600 individual events being related to passing humans (morethan 50% of all events), very much in line with the results for 2012. In Graph 5 the species,

Graph 4 - Daily activity of bears, in terms of events when passing bears were filmed by camera traps (the graph shows the %of events by time band out of the total, N=323)

Daily activity in 2012 and 2013 (N=323)

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

of

even

ts

Daily time bands (1 hour intervals)

10

8

6

4

2

0

00-0

1

01-0

2

02-0

3

03-0

4

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

14-1

5

15-1

6

16-1

7

17-1

8

18-1

9

19-2

0

20-2

1

21-2

2

22-2

3

23-2

4Graph 5 - Individual events recorded for all species of medium-large mammals

Mammals sampled

Nu

mb

er

of

ind

ivid

ual

even

ts

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Alpin

e ch

amois

Red

deer

Roe

deer

Fox

Bear

Mou

fflon

Badg

erPi

ne/b

eech

mar

ten

Euro

pean

har

e

Squir

rel

Mou

ntain

har

e W

ild b

oar (

3) (N

=3)

2013 BEAR REPORT

17

excluding man, are placed in order of the overall number of events recorded, allowingstraightforward comparison of the results for different species. The variety of animals filmedshows the usefulness of camera traps in monitoring a wide range of mammals. Three un-gulates (the alpine chamois, red deer and roe deer respectively), were recorded more fre-quently than the bear, followed by the fox. The only appreciable difference as compared to2012 was the filming of 3 passing wild boars (at a different station). As in the case of the2012 data, there was no apparent link between the bear and other species in terms of ei-ther avoidance or association.

ConclusionsThe positioning of cameras on rub-trees made it possible to obtain important data on the

way such trees are effectively used by bears, along with a range of additional information(changes in coat, beginning and end of activity, daily pattern of activity, interaction betweenindividuals and species, consistency between genetic and morphological data, indicationsregarding the length of the mating season etc.).

As confirmed by many studies, camera traps are however suitable for individual identi-fication in the case of species with a specific coat, such as felines; recognising individuals onthe basis of incidental marks or individual peculiarities is occasionally possible, but this isan exception, meaning that the method cannot be considered as an effective monitoringtool. Even the additional information provided by genetic testing in the specific case of rubtrees does not usually allow visual identification of the individual which can also be usedon other occasions.

by Francesco Rovero and Natalia Bragalanti (MuSe-Science Museum)

2013 BEAR REPORT

18

Status of the population in 2013

Definitions cubs: bears aged between 0 and 1; young bears: males between the ages of

1 and 4 and females between the ages of 1and 3;

adults: males over the age of 4 and fe-males over the age of 3.

detected bears: bears whose presencehas been ascertained during the last year,either genetically or on the basis of un-equivocal and repeated observations;

undetected bears: bears not detected inthe last year alone;

missing bears: bears certainly or mostlikely no longer present within the popula-tion, as they have been found dead, killed,emigrated, taken into captivity or for whichno genetic evidence has been found in thelast two years;

rediscovered bears: bears detected ge-netically after two or more years duringwhich their presence was not recorded;

roaming: movement outside westernTrentino by bears born in this area, withoutthem reaching the territory habitually fre-quented by bears belonging to the Dinaric-Balkan bear population;

emigration: the abandoning of the popu-lation present in the province by bearsreaching the territory habitually frequentedby bears belonging to the Dinaric-Balkanbear population.

immigration: the arrival of bears fromthe Dinaric-Balkan bear population in theprovince.

As shown above, the category of adult

males has been revised this year, reducing theage at which they are considered to have be-come adult to 4 (as compared to 5 previously).This was decided on the basis of informationcollected over the years. All the statistics re-ferring to 2013, but also to previous years,have therefore been updated in line with this.

Processing of the data collected has pro-vided the information given subsequently re-

garding the identification of the bears sam-pled, estimation of the minimum popula-tion, the number of litters during 2013, thesurvival rate, the trends in terms of popula-tion development and the use of the area bythe animals.

It should be noted that the graphs re-garding demographic aspects have been up-dated not only in relation to 2013, but also onthe basis of data regarding previous yearsthat monitoring in 2013 has made it possibleto recover. This explains the differences whichcan sometimes be found between the graphsin previous reports and those in this years re-port. The updating of the data available andthe relative graphs is therefore ongoing andthe current graphs must thus be considered tosubstitute previous ones, bearing in mind thegreater reliability of the background informa-tion and hence the related analysis.

Once again this year it is likely that the ge-netic monitoring carried out in the provincedid not detect all the bears making up thepopulation. Considering the presence of indi-viduals not detected in the last year alone (9,including 5 cubs born in 2012 that were notdetected in 2013) as possible, and excludingthose missing for two or more years (17), theestimated population in 2013 goes from 40to 49 bears.

It should be underlined that the minimumnumber represents the number of bears cer-tainly present, whereas the maximum is ex-clusively an evaluation of probability, based onspecific criteria shown to be essentially validto date, but which have intrinsic limitations.The 40 bears therefore represent a minimumpopulation estimate, which is different froma genuine population estimate, requiring the

use of demographic models involving capture,marking and recapture (CMR). It is intendedto carry out a population estimate in 2014,thanks to the scientific support of the ScienceMuseum in Trento (MuSe).

For the first time since the Life Ursus proj-ect began, the minimum figure highlights areversal in the population trend.

Some considerations regarding the possi-ble reasons for this and in relation to popula-tion dynamics follow below: As observed in all the last odd-numbered

years (particularly since 2007) in 2013there was again a low number of femalesreproducing (only two with certainty, aswill be seen subsequently, although somemay not have been detected by the moni-toring programme).

2013 BEAR REPORT

19

ResultsThe minimum number of animals con-

sidered to be present at the end of 2013 was40, of which 18 males, 20 females and 2of undetermined sex (see Graph 2) (M-Fsex ratio 1:1.11 - n=38).

However, one of these bears is an adultfemale which is known to be present, butwhich has not been identified genetically: itcould indeed be F9 or KJ1G1, who are of dif-

ferent ages. Bearing this in mind all the ta-bles and graphs in this report (with the ex-ception of Graphs 5 and 6) refer to the 39bears identified individually, as there are nu-merous variables which would change onthe basis of the (40th) individual taken intoconsideration.

This last female bear will be included incalculations in the future, if and when itsidentity will be fully ascertained.

Graph 2

Structure of the population at the end of 2013

1918171615141312111098765 sexual maturity of males4 sexual maturity of females321

Dan

iza

Gas

per

KJ1

KJ2

MJ2

MJ4

MJ5

BJ1

MJ2

G1

JJ4

DG

3M

6M

1M

3M

4 F2 F3 F4 F5 M7

M24 F7 F8

M11

M15

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21

M22 F13

F14

F16

F17 ?

F15

F18 ?

females

males

sex not determined

Ag

e (

years

)

Bears

2013 BEAR REPORT

20

In this context one can note that the over-all increase in the population in the threeprevious odd-numbered years - 2007, 2009and 2011 - was relatively limited (+3) ifcompared with the total recorded in even-numbered years - 2008, 2010 and 2012(+20). As regards this see Graph 10.

In 2012 there were a large number of cubs(17 including those sighted and detectedgenetically, plus one which died in thesame year, bringing the total to 18), whichas expected were not easy to detect againin the subsequent year (12 out of 17 weredetected). This is indeed the age groupmost difficult to identify (see Graph 4) andwith the lowest survival rate (see Graph15). No less than five of the missing bearssince 2013 alone are cubs born in 2012.Thus in 2013 the percentage of bears pres-ent but not detected could be higher thanaverage.

On the other hand, it can be observed thatthe effective population (Ne), namelythe number of sexually mature bears capa-ble of reproducing in that season year, wasessentially unchanged in 2013, which is apositive signal (see Graph 16).

2013 saw a marked increase in the aver-age age of the population; this is also a fac-tor which in this demographic phase isevaluated positively (greater reproductioncapacity, higher likelihood of survival, ingeneral a lower tendency to adopt behav-iour defined as problematic).

It is also necessary to take into due consid-eration the first case of poaching ascer-tained (the male bear M2, shot with a riflein the Val di Rabbi) and the sudden disap-pearance of M11 from Monte Baldo. Theseare facts which should not be underesti-mated and which suggest that the cases ofbears found dead for unknown reasons ordisappearing, both in Trentino and neigh-bouring regions, should be viewed in a dif-ferent light. It would appear possible to sur-mise a link between these cases (or at leastsome of them) and the poor social toler-ance seen above all in certain environmentsand as a result of the so-called problemat-ical behaviour of a few bears.

Ultimately, the demographic data for 2013would still appear to be insufficient to sug-gest that there has been a reversal in thetrend, despite the figures. However, thisnew signal will be monitored and recon-sidered carefully in the light of the resultsof forthcoming censuses.

The acquisition of consolidated demo-graphic data over time also makes it possibleto evaluate the efficacy of genetic monitor-ing in retrospect, comparing the number ofindividuals identified year by year with theindividuals shown by monitoring in subse-quent years to be actually present in thesame period (see Graph 3).

The efficacy of the monitoring was

Graph 3

Percentage of bears identified 2002-2012

100% 90% 100% 83% 95% 96% 89% 83% 74% 73% 77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

The average annual growth in the bearpopulation in the 2002-2013 period, with

reference to the minimum certain popula-tion, was 13.8%.

therefore shown to be good, but falling overtime, in relation to the progressive increasein the number of bears present in the area.

Graph 4 shows the average percentage ofgenetically identified bears in comparison tothe bears actually present in the 11 yearsfrom 2002-2011 period (contactability),with reference to the whole population, fe-males and males and to the three agegroups (adults, young bears and cubs).

There was therefore a reversal in thepopulation trend in 2013 (see Graph 5). Inthis graph the figures for previous years nolonger show the range which characterises2013, as the relative minimum certain num-bers have been updated and supplementedusing data acquired in subsequent years.

For example in 2012 we now know thatthe number of bears present, estimated thatyear as between 43 and 48, was at least 47.

2013 BEAR REPORT

21

11 10 15 18 22 23

27 29 39 40

47 40

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

not detected in the last year aloneminimum certain number

49

Graph 5

Population trend 2002-2013

Graph 4

Percentage of bears identified - 2002-2012:total, by gender and age groups

87% 92% 82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

total females males

95% 86% 75%

adults young bears cubs

No

. o

f b

ears

Year

ReproductionIn 2013 the presence of 2

litters during the year was as-certained, with a total of 3 cubs, one litter being madeup of two cubs and the otherof a single cub. One was ob-served in the southern Brentaarea and the other in the cen-tral-eastern Brenta and Pa-ganella-Gazza areas. Genetictesting made it possible toidentify 2 of the 3 cubs (twofemales).

It is possible that a furtherlitter was present in thenorthern Brenta area duringthe year, as suggested by atleast a couple of sightings.However, it was not possibleto obtain any objective evidence (images or ge-netic data) and thus it has not been includedin this report.

By combing genetic monitoring and cam-era traps, it was also possible to ascertain thatthe female bear MJ2 had a further cub in2012, in addition to the single cub ascertained

genetically in the same year (Photo 2).

36 litters have therefore been ascer-tained to date in Trentino (34 geneticallyand 2 only observed, in 2011) in the lasttwelve years, and at least 77 cubs havebeen born (37 males, 30 females and 10 of

2013 BEAR REPORT

22

Graph 6 shows the evolution in the aver-age annual growth rate in the 2002-2013 pe-riod.

Following an initial period, during whichthe growth rate was even higher than 20%,

the rate has settled down and decreased in thelast year, arriving at the current level of13.8%. This is nevertheless positive whencompared with the data on the species in ex-isting reference material.

Photo 2 - The female bear MJ2 with two cubs born in 2012, in the Valle dello Sporeggio(Matteo Zeni - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department archives

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2002-2004 2002-2005 2002-2006 2002-2007 2002-2008 2002-2009 2002-2010 2002-2011 2002-2012 2002-2013

Graph 6

Average growth rate in the minimum certain population 2004-2012

Avera

ge g

row

th r

ate

(%

)

Year

unknown gender) - (see Graph 7), M-F sexratio 1:0.81 (2002-2013, n=67).

In the first four years, from 2002 to 2005,6 litters were thus recorded (with an averageof 1.5/year), in 2006-2009 there were 12 lit-ters (an average of 3/year), while in 2010-2013 there were 18 litters (an average of4.5/year). The number of litters per yearclearly represents a relatively important indi-cation. It has been observed in other Euro-pean and North American bear populationsthat by multiplying the average number of lit-ters/year by 10 one can obtain an estimate ofthe number of individuals present in the area.

The data collected in Trentino to date wouldseem to confirm this rule.

6 of the 34 litters (18%) for which bothparents have been genetically identifiedwere the result of mating between bloodrelatives (between father and daughter inthree cases, between mother and son in onecase and between bears with only the fatherin common in the other two cases).

Reproductive animalsAs mentioned above, two mothers were

identified through genetic testing in 2013.They were F2, (aged 6, reproducing for the 2ndtime), accompanied by a cub (F15) (Photo 3),

litter

male cub

female cub

cub sighted but not determined genetically

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

20102009 20132011 20122006 2007 20082002 2003 2004 2005

Graph 7

Litters and cubs 2002-2013

N

of

cu

bs

an

d l

itte

rs

Year

2013 BEAR REPORT

23

Photo 3 - The mother bear F2 with her cub in the Val delle Seghe (APT Forestry and Wildlife Department - MuSe archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

24

while the second female, ac-companied by two cubs (F18and a cub of undeterminedsex) was F8, with her firstlitter (Photo 4).

The fathers of the two lit-ters were M6 (with F2), a 7-year-old male for the firsttime ascertained to have re-produced, and JJ5 (with F8),reproducing for the secondtime shortly before dying inJune 2012.

To date 15 females and 7males have therefore repro-duced (2002-2013).

There were 9 sexuallymature males and 13 sexu-ally mature females presentin 2013.

Footage of bears courtingand mating was filmed forthe first time in 2013 (Photos5 and 6).

The first substantial datacoming from sightings andcamera traps show that the

Photo 5 - Bears during courtship in the southern Brenta area (A. Caliari - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department archives)

Photo 6 - Bears during mating in the southern Brenta area (A. Caliari - APT Forestry andWildlife Department archives)

Photo 4 - The mother bear F8 with her cubs in the Val Dor (A. Caliari - APT Forestry andWildlife Department archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

25

mating season in the alpine environment goesfrom April to July.

It is particularly interesting to note that thefemale bear Daniza and the male M2 wereobserved together in spring, during the mating

season in the Val Nambrone. Both bears wereequipped with GPS radio collar and thismade it possible to document this importantphase in the biology of the bear in a waythat has not previously been possible (seebox 2).

BOX 2 - M2 and Daniza: a love story in the Val Nambrone

Since 2002 at least 36 cases of reproduction have been documented in the province of Tren-to; recording births has by now become a habit. However, never before has it been possible todetermine what happens in the mating season, in the spring before the birth of the litter.

In 2013 Daniza and M2, both equipped with GPS radio collars, were in the Val Nambronein the mating season, spending more than two weeks together and making it possible to doc-ument their movements, and to some extent their behaviour, on a daily basis (see Figure A).

Daniza, a 19-year-old female bear introduced from Slovenia in 2000, normally frequentsthe area between the Val Rendena and the Giudicarie, whereas M2, a 6-year-old male, hasmoved between the Val di Sole and the Val di Non for some time, with occasional visits tothe southern Brenta and the Paganella-Bondone mountains. The central points of their re-

Figure AMovement towards and away from the mating area (in the box) by the two bears

Movement towards and away fromthe mating area by the two bears

0 1 2 3Km

DanizaM2

2013 BEAR REPORT

26

spective territories lie approximately 25 km away from the location of their rendezvous asthe crow flies, while thanks to GPS data it is possible to affirm that at least since July 2012(when M2 was also fitted with a radio collar), the two bears had never come into contact.

On 22 April 2013 the two animals were still distant from one another, with Daniza inthe Val Rendena on the slopes of the right-hand bank of the Sarca above Strembo and M2in the Val dAlgone, specifically in the deep Vallon gorge.

In the next 48 hours Daniza moved north, crossing the river Sarca di Genova at theopening of the valley of the same name, then the Sarca di Nambone, beginning to climb uptowards Clmp, above S. Antonio di Mavignola, in the early hours of 24 April. She travelledaround 16 km, always moving at night, in the early hours or at dusk.

On 23 April M2 was still in the Vallon, but in the evening (certainly after 5 pm) in histurn he began to move rapidly towards the north, crossing the upper Val dAlgone, the Bregnde lOrs pass ("Bear spring" pass, where bears have always passed), the slopes of the Dos delSabin above Pinzolo, up to the confluence of the Sarca di Campiglio and the Sarca di Nam-brone, which he too crossed in order to climb up towards Clmp. He also travelled around16 km, but in a much shorter time than Daniza (around 8 hours).

It is there that he probably smelled Danizas presence, following her trail until he en-countered her, probably on the slopes above Clmp, in the early hours of 24 April. From hereit is likely that the two animals travelled around 1-2 km together, venturing into the woodson the left-hand side of the valley, stopping at around 8 oclock in the morning on the wildsteep slopes under Dosso del F, at an altitude of 1620 m (Photo A).

Photo A - Area frequented by Daniza and M2 during the mating season (C. Groff - APT Forestry and Wildlife Departmentarchives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

27

From this moment thetwo bears remained togetherconstantly, mating repeat-edly, without ever movingmore than a few metresaway from one another(Photo B) for 17 days, until11 May.

During the 17 days inwhich the two bears were to-gether, they remained in aterritory of only 10 hectares,moving frequently but forvery short distances (1.3 kmin total, namely 76 metresa day on average), at an al-titude of between 1620 and1830 metres (Figure B).

On the afternoon of the11 May the two bears trav-

Photo B - Daniza and M2 during the mating season (R. Rizzoli - APT Forestry andWildlife Department archives)

Figure BPositions of the two bears during the mating period

Positions of the two bearsduring the mating period

0 0,1 0,2 0,3Km

DanizaM2

2013 BEAR REPORT

The average age of primiparous femalesin the period 2006-2013 (n=10) was 3.6.

The average gap between consecutivelitters for the same female, recorded in theperiod 2002-2013 (n=19 gaps, referring to 10females), is 2.1 years.

The average number of cubs per litter is2.11. To date the number of cubs per litterhas essentially been related to the age of themother, with 2 or less cubs for females aged3-7 and 3 for females aged 8 or over (seeGraph 8).

28

elled a significant distance, (more than 4 km), for the first time after their meeting, mak-ing their way down the slopes from whence they came, up to the confluence of the Sarca diCampiglio and the Sarca di Nambrone, where they arrived around midnight. It is likelythat it was M2 who continued to follow Daniza in this period, but it is not possible to es-tablish this with certainty.

At all events, that night the bears separated: in the remaining hours of darkness Danizaclimbed up the slopes of the Dos del Sabin and headed south. 24 hours later (midnight of12 May) she was in the Val Algone, on the right-hand side of the slopes above the Ghedinarefuge, after having travelled for around 14-15 km. M2 instead headed rapidly towards thenorth: Valagola, Vallesinella, Passo del Grost, Val di Tovel, heading down the valley to ar-rive in the woods of the Val della Roccia after 24 hours (midnight of 12 May), coveringaround 33 km.

The data is interesting and new for Trentino, but essentially in line with what has beenreported in the bibliography regarding this important phase in the biological cycle of the bear.It also offers a chance to take a discreet glimpse at the bears life, a glimpse which illus-trates the major distances covered by these animals, their ability to find each other, althoughthere are only a few of them in a vast area, their elusiveness (almost nobody saw them inthis period) and their great knowledge of the area. It also offers new and stimulating ques-tions about the ability of a solitary species which has a very low population density to cre-ate a network of relations (olfactory first of all) which is probably much more importantand complex than one could imagine.

R = 0,55615

0

1

2

3

4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

(n=5) (n=4)

(n=3) (n=7) (n=3)

(n=3) (n=3) (n=2)

(n=1)

(n=1)

(n=1)

(n=1)

N= number of recorded births

Graph 8

Average no. of cubs/mother's age

Avera

ge n

o.

of

cu

bs

Age of mothers (in years)

2013 BEAR REPORT

29

This data refers to 34 litters out of 36, nottaking into consideration the two litters in2011 whose mothers are still not known.

The link between the average number ofcubs per litter and the age of the mother isrepresented with a certain degree of approxi-mation by the red polynomial regression linein the graph, with a coefficient of determina-tion of 0.5562.

Graph 9 shows the fertility rates of fe-males by age groups (conception under theage of 4, between the ages of 4 and 8 and over8) and refers to 62 possible reproductiveevents, giving rise to 34 ascertained litters.

Rediscovered bearsDuring 2013, no bears were rediscov-

ered genetically (see definitions in page 18).However, the presence of a new male

bear (M24) was detected genetically. Thiswas the son of BJ1, probably born in 2010.The figures assume that this date of birth isvalid.

Furthermore it should be recalled thatone further bear, already detected geneti-cally in 2012, but not considered in the cal-culations as there was not sufficient evidencein the field to clarify his mother (see page 16of the 2012 Bear Report), was also detectedagain in 2013, once again genetically(namely the male bear M21). It was there-fore considered appropriate to include him

in the calculations, despite the uncertain at-tribution as regards his parents.

Bears undetected in 2013 alone No less than nine bears present in 2012

were undetected for the first year in 2013:5 cubs born in 2012 and a further 4 bears(one adult and three young bears). They havenot yet been classified as missing bears (seedefinitions on page 18), as there is a concretepossibility that they are still present.

Missing bearsIn 2013 it was possible to confirm the two

known cases of emigration,with reference to the malebear KJ2G2, who has beenbased in the area of the Di-naric-Balkan bear population(a frontier area between Italy,Austria and Slovenia) since2011, and M8, who insteadmoved east in 2012 (see Box4 on page 20 of the 2011Bear Report for further de-tails).

Both were identified ge-netically in 2013 in the east-ern part of Friuli Venezia Giu-lia and have probably alsomoved over the neighbouring

Austrian and Slovenian fron-tiers (2013 genetic data for the two neigh-bouring countries was not available when thisReport was printed).

The 4 bears born in 2011 but not geneti-cally recorded (four cubs born that year) wereagain not identified genetically in 2013 (aswell as in 2012). They must therefore be con-sidered to be missing from this year.

When calculating the number of missingbears in 2013 it is also necessary to consider2 bears that died during the year. The male M13, aged 3.5, was shot down

on 19 February 2013 in the Val Poschiavoby the Swiss authorities (Canton Grigioni -SVI) because he was considered to be dan-gerous due to over-confident behaviour, de-spite numerous attempts to scare the bear.

33%

53%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< Under 4 (15) aged 4-8 (38) > 8 (9)

Graph 9

Fertility rates

2013 BEAR REPORT

30

The male M2, aged 5.5 (Photo 7) wasfound dead in the Val di Rabbi on 28 Sep-tember 2013, having been shot by apoacher with a rifle. Currently (February2014) investigations by the Public Prosecu-tors office are underway to identify the per-son responsible.

During 2013 it was also possible to genet-ically identify the bear found dead due to un-known causes in the province of Brescia on

22 September 2012 (see page 16 of the 2012Bear Report). It was ascertained that this wasthe male bear DJ1G1, who was 5.5 years oldat the time of his death.

Thus by the end of 2013 there were 17dead bears (8 found dead and 9 killed acci-dentally or deliberately), 17 bears unde-tected genetically for at least the last twoyears, 2 taken into captivity and two emi-

grated bears.Hence there were a total

of 38 missing bears at theend of 2013. As regards thisdata, see the considerationsin the survival rates sectionon page 32.

Graph 10 shows the bal-ance between births-redis-covered/missing bears yearby year. In 2013 there was anegative balance (-1). Thiswas the result of 3 births, 3newly detected bears (M21,M24 and the second cub ofMJ2), 3 deaths and 4 newmissing bears.

20

19

18 born-immigrating-rediscovered

17 missing

16 balance

15

1413

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2006 2007 2008 2009++ 1122

2002 2003 2004-- 22

2010 2012-- 112013

++ 22 ++ 11 ++ 44 ++ 33 ++ 332011

++ 44++ 772005

++ 44 ++ 22

N

of

bears

Year

Photo 7 - The carcass of the male bear M2 (A. Stringari, APT Forestry and Wildlife De-partment archives)

Graph 10

Population balance 2002-2013

2013 BEAR REPORT

31

In the year of their disappearance themissing bears included 13 adults, 20 youngbears and 5 cubs (see Graph 11).

Of the missing bears (n=38), 17 havedied, 2 have been taken into captivity, 2 haveemigrated and 17 have not been detected ge-netically for at least two years (Graph 12).

The dead bears (n=17) belonged to the

following age groups: cubs (5), young bears(7) and adults (5), the percentages beingshown in Graph 13.

The deaths (Table A) were the result ofnatural causes in 4 cases, unknown in 4 casesand the result of action by man in the other 9cases (Graph 14).

Graph 11

Missing bears: age groups(2002-2013 - n=38)

Graph 12

Missing bears: causes(2002-2013 - n=38)

Graph 14

Dead bears: causes(2002-2013 - n=14)

Graph 13

Dead bears: age groups(2002-2013 - n=17)

Cubs (5)13%

Adults (13)34%

Young bears(20) 53%

Cubs (=1)Young bears (aged 1 to 3/4)Adults (3/4)

In captivity (2)5%

Emigrating (2)5%

Deaths (17)45%

Undetected for atleast 2 years (17)

45%

Cubs (5) 34%

Adults (5)30%

Young bears (7)41%

Natural causes (4)24%

Unknown causes (4)24%

Human causes (9)52%

Cubs (=1)Young bears (aged 1 to 3/4)Adults ( 3/4)

year natural causes poachingroad

accidentshot down formanagement

management accident

unknown causes

total deaths

2002 0

2003 1 cuc 1

2004 0

2005 0

2006 1 cuc, 1 ad 1 juv* 3

2007 0

2008 1 cuc 1 juv** 1 juv 3

2009 0

2010 1 cuc 1

2011 1 ad 1

2012 1 cuc 2 juv 1 ad 1 juv, 1 ad 6

2013 1 ad 1 juv** 2

TOTAL 4 1 3 3 2 4 17

Table 1Cause of death * in Germany ** in Switzerland, ad=adult, juv=young bear, cuc=cub

2013 BEAR REPORT

32

Survival ratesThe new data available makes it possible to

update the survival rates for the three differ-ent age groups (cubs, young bears and adults,according to the definitions on page 18), dif-ferentiated for the two sexes (Graph 15).

The data refers to a period of 12 years(2002-2013), during which it was possible torecord the survival or death of 83 different

bears, with 355 passages from one year to an-other (355 bear-years). The mortalities cat-egory, considered in the broader sense, also in-cludes bears undetected in the last two yearsor taken into captivity, confirming the criteriaused for missing bears. The data regardingany emigrating bears is instead only consid-ered up to the time that they leave their orig-inal population.

The natural survivalrate, thus excluding anybears killed, dying or re-moved by choice or due tomanagement accidents, in-creased slightly for youngbears (from 88.9% to91.0%) and for adults (from92.1% to 93.9%).

Structure of the population

At the end of 2013 thecertain population was madeup of 22 adults (9 males and13 females), 14 young bears

81,8

90,2 92,3

90,2 88,2

91,7

86,5 88,9

92,1

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

cubs young bears adults

Graph 15

Survival rates by age group (2002-2013)

% s

urv

ival

Age groups

Females Males General

2013 BEAR REPORT

33

(9 males, 4 females and 1 of undeterminedsex) and 3 cubs (2 females and 1 of undeter-mined sex).

Graph 16 shows the trend for the differentage groups in the 2002-2013 period. It shouldbe noted that the figures for each year againinclude data acquired thanks to monitoring insubsequent years; thus all data, even if relat-ing to previous years, is constantly updated inrelation to the new knowledge provided bycontinuing monitoring. This graph also shows

the effective population (Ne) recorded an-nually, namely the number of bears capable ofreproducing in that year. In the case of thebear this is made up of the adult males, plushalf of the female bears recorded (given thatthey generally give birth in alternate years).The data shows that there has been a markedincrease in this important demographic pa-rameter since 2008, which has tripled in thelast five years, after the first six years in whichit was relatively stationary.

The percentage of bearsin the three age groups(adults 56%, young bears36% and cubs 8%) in theperiod 2002-2013 is shownin Graph 17.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

adults

young bears

cubs

Ne

Graph 16

Age groups

N

of

bears

Eff

ecti

ve p

op

ula

tio

n

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Adults 8 6 7 8 7 8 9 13 16 18 21 22Young bears 1 3 3 6 5 12 11 13 12 16 9 14Cubs 2 1 5 4 10 3 7 3 11 6 17 3Total 11 10 15 18 22 23 27 29 39 40 47 39Effective population (Ne) 5 3,5 4,5 5 4,5 5 5,5 8 11,5 13 15,5 15,5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Adults Young bearsCubs

Graph 17

Age groups by percentage

%

Year

It is also interesting to note the evolutionin the average age of the bear populationover the 12 year period examined (see Graph18). In 2013 there was a marked increase inaverage age (now 5.08). This was due aboveall to the small number of cubs recorded thisyear, together with a good survival rate.

Finally, it may be noted that the averageage of bear at the time of their disappear-ance (as a result of their death, disappear-ance or having been taken into captivity)was significantly lower (3.55 years 30%)as compared to the average age of the pop-ulation. This confirms on the one hand thegreater vulnerability of younger bears (seeGraph 15) and on the other that the increasein average age recorded for some time is apositive factor in this phase.

Use of the territoryAll the 39 bears detected and believed to

be present at the end of 2013 frequented theterritory of Trentino (32 Trentino alone, 7also neighbouring provinces/countries).Thus no bears living entirely outside theprovince were detected genetically. All the 7bears also detected outside the province in2013 were males: 3 adults and 4 youngbears.

6 bears also frequented the province ofBolzano, all being present on slopes goingfrom the right-hand side of the Val dUltimoto the right-hand side of the Adige, up to theborder with Trento (M1, M20, M17, MJ4,M22 and MJ2G1), while 1 bear was alsopresent in Veneto at Cadore-BL (MJ4) and

1 in Lombardia, in theprovinces of Sondrio andBergamo (M7).

2013 BEAR REPORT

34

5,64 6,00

5,00 4,67

3,77 4,13 4,33

4,37 4,16

4,53 4,34

8,00

9,50

4,80 4,00

3,50 4,10 4,07

3,53 3,40

4,00 3,77

4,75

5,13 5,10 5,20

4,00 4,17

4,62 5,29 5,12 5,24 5,05

5,08

4,75

5,47

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

General MalesFemales

Graph 18

Average age of bears

Avera

ge a

ge

Year

2013 BEAR REPORT

35

The 896 area fixes related to the pres-ence of bears collected within the provinceduring 2013 (all recorded indicators of pres-

ence, with the exception of those comingfrom satellite monitoring of three bears) areshown in Figure 1.

Figure 1Reports of bears in the province of Trento in 2013

Indicators of the presenceof bears in 2013

0 5 10 15Km

(excluding radiotelemetric data)

n 896

2013 BEAR REPORT

36

Figure 2Area occupied by bears in the central Alps in 2013 (in light blue), highlighting the area within this occupied by the females (in pink).

Area occupied by the populationConsidering also the longest journeys made

by young males during 2013, the populationof brown bears present in the central Alps,which is mainly centred around westernTrentino, was distributed over a theoreticalarea stretching out over 14,572 km in 2013(Figure 2).

The area occupied by the females in a sta-

ble manner is decidedly smaller (919 km),still entirely situated within the province.

The areas occupied were estimated usingthe minimum convex polygon method, appliedto 100% of the fixes available. This also leadsto the inclusion of vast areas which are not suit-able and/or not actually used, especially withinthe macro-area including the movements ofyoung males.

Population density The population density in the area fre-

quented by the bears in a more stable mannerin 2013 was 3.9 bears/100 km (36 bears, in-cluding cubs born during the year, within thearea occupied by the females, namely 919km). This data should be considered bearingin mind the following: the territory also includes areas which are

unsuitable and effectively used little or notat all (e.g. valley floor with urban develop-

ment and rocky peaks); population density is calculated on the basis

of the number of bears present in the areaover a certain period of time (almost a solaryear) and therefore the number of bearspresent in the area at a certain moment,which would represent a figure closer to thereal density, is on average lower;

no less than 10 out of the 15 males centredaround the area taken into considerationhave also frequented areas outside it.

Total bear territory in 2013

0 8 16 24Km

males 14,572 km

females 919 km

DispersionIn the period 2005-2013 it was possible to

document dispersion (understood as move-ment outside western Trentino, see the defini-tion on page 18) involving 24 bears (allmales). However, 4 of these remained in areasstraddling the province of Trento (northernborder) and thus adjacent to the area fre-quented by the population in a stable manner.

Therefore 20 bears are effectively consid-ered to have been involved in roaming. 6 ofthese have died (3 killed following manage-ment decisions in Switzerland and Bavaria, 2 run over in the province of Bolzano and 1found dead in the province of Brescia), 1 dis-appeared in 2005 in the frontier area betweenSwitzerland and the province of Bolzano, 2have been absent since 2013 and 2 have cur-rently emigrated to the Dinaric-Balkan bearpopulation. Finally, 9 have returned to the areafrequented by the females, remaining there ina more or less stable manner.

Thus 9 out of 20 bears (45%) died or dis-appeared before being able to return (al-though 2 have only been missing since 2013)and a further 9 (45%) are still present. Theother 2 (10%) have emigrated.

In this context it is interesting to recall thecase of the male MJ4, previously described onpage 30 of the 2012 Bear Report. This year,starting once again from the Belluno area

(Photo 8) he again returnedto western Trentino in May(Paganella area), remainingthere at length, probably allyear, frequenting all the areasused by the females in a sta-ble manner (data obtainedfrom genetic monitoring).

The tracks found in the inthe Adige valley, along theriver Adige between Nave S.Rocco and the town of Zam-bana Nuova, in May veryprobably belong to this bear(Photo 9).

The bear probably cros -sed the river at this point (byswimming, given that thereare no bridges nearby). Hethen continued west, head-ing up the slopes of the Pa-

2013 BEAR REPORT

37

Photo 8 - MJ4 filmed by a camera trap in the Belluno area before making the journey toTrentino (C. Sacchet -Provincial Police in Belluno)

Photo 9 MJ4s footprint close to Nave S. Rocco (APT Forestryand Wildlife Department archives)

2013 BEAR REPORT

38

ganella (Photo 10), having crossed the mo-torway, either by using the underpass or byclimbing over the fence and crossing the

road directly. To date no dispersion of fe-males born in Trentino has been docu-mented.

Photo 10 - Journey made by MJ4 to cross the Adige valley (C. Groff APT Forestry and Wildlife Department archives)

Other monitoring activities in 2013

Radiotelemetry and satellite telemetry During 2013 3 bears were monitored using

satellite telemetry: Daniza, M2 and M6.The relative home ranges (HR), calcu-

lated using the minimum convex polygon(MCP) method, are given in Table 2 andshown in Figures 3, 4 and 5.

Bear Home range km2Monitoring

periodNo.

of fixes

Daniza 2101/1/2013 -

31/12/20131,166

M2 1.493 1/1/2013 -21/9/2013 1,424

M6 15827/9/2013 -

31/12/20131,011

Table 2Main telemetry data for 2013

Figure 3Main telemetry data for 2013

Daniza 1/1 - 31/12/13 210 km2 - no. of fixes 1166

0 1 2 3Km

GPS fix wint. site 2012-2013

documented route

presumed route

2013 BEAR REPORT

39

The genetic monitoring conducted with-out interruption since 2002 has made it pos-

sible to follow most of the bears in a contin-uing manner, confirming their presence over

time and the home-rangesused, at least partially. Theseare recorded year by year foreach individual animal. Asan example, below we givethe home-ranges (MCP) ofthe male Gasper and the fe-male Daniza from 2004 to2013 (Figures 6 and 7).

Naturally this data is veryapproximate and in no waycomparable with that ob-tained from the radiotele-metric monitoring of ani-mals, probably leading tosignificant underestimationin comparison to telemetricdata.

Figure 4Home-range of M2 in 2013 (MCP)

Figure 5Home-range of M6 in 2013 (MCP)

Figure 6Home-range of Gasper in the 2004-2013 period

M2 27/9 - 31/12/13158 km . no. of fixes 1011

0 1 2 3Km

GPS fix capture site

M2 1/1 - 31/12/131493 km . no. of fixes 1424

0 2 4 6

Km

GPS fix wint. site 2012-2013

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2013 BEAR REPORT

40

Figure 7Home-range of Daniza in the 2004-2013 period. The dotted lineshows the 2013 home-range resulting from satellite fixes

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

gps 2013

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2013 BEAR REPORT

41

By now APT has gained more than thirtyyears experience as regards compensationand prevention of damage caused by brownbears. Indeed, since 1976 100% of the mate-rial value of assets damaged has been reim-bursed and it is possible to acquire preventionworks (mostly consisting of electric fences).The relative regulations, dealt with in article33 of provincial law no.24/91, have been re-vised and updated several times over theyears, also on the basis of directives imposedby the provincial government with the afore-mentioned resolution no. 1988 of 9 August2002. With Resolution no. 697 of 8 April 2011the provincial government further reviewedthe regulations for damage compensation,also providing for compensation of ancillaryexpenses and extending 100% compensationto damage caused by lynx and wolves.

Bearing in mind the provisions of existingregulations, the Forestry and Wildlife Depart-ment also promotes the prevention of dam-age to beekeeping and livestock through theadoption of electric fences or other suitableprotective measures, with the scope of reduc-ing the damage caused by brown bears. Thistakes place in two main ways: funding cover-ing up to 90% of the cost of works and/orgratuitous loans of prevention works, de-signed mainly to protect sheep and goats orbeehives, along with support and consultancyprovided to farmers by technical experts suchas the livestock liaison officers.

Compensation for damage causedby bears

In 2013, 194 reports of damage caused bywild predators were forwarded to the Forestryand Wildlife Department. 173 cases of dam-age were attributed to brown bears (170 inwestern Trentino and 3 in eastern Trentino).In 4 cases the predator was identified as awolf (Lessinia area), in 5 cases the damagewas attributed to foxes, in 1 case to stray dogsand in 2 cases to mustelidae (marten family),whereas in 9 cases the responsibility of pred-

ators was excluded or was not possible to as-certain.

174 claims for compensation were re-ceived by the department, of which 156 wereaccepted (149 regarding bears, 4 wolves, 2foxes and 1 mustelidae) and 18 rejected (4 re-garding bears, 2 foxes, 1 stray dogs, 1 mustel-idae, 5 not attributable, 5 no preying in-volved). The remaining 20 claims were eithernot followed up by the claimant or a cumula-tive claim was presented by the damagedparty for the damage suffered.

In 87% of cases of damage, inspectionswere carried out by forestry staff, who wereresponsible for drawing up a report.

Overall, 128,218.65 compensation for damage caused by brown bears and 6,930.00 compensation for damage causedby wolves was paid out.

As regards the damage caused to livestockby bears, it is underlined that in the last twoyears there has been an increase in preying oncattle and equines (see Table 3).

36,505.97 of this damage was causedto cattle (28% of overall compensation) and10,338.70 to equines (8% of overall com-pensation). On analysing the genetic and ra-diotelemetric data available, it would appearthat the aforementioned damage to cattleand equines was caused exclusively by adultmale bears (M4, M2 and M6), with the soleexception of the male bear M11 (a youngbear) who preyed on two young calves andtwo newborn calves. As far as the wolf isconcerned, the damage concerned cattle (6

2. Damage compensation and prevention

LivestockYear

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Sheep and goats 32 31 56 16 36 30

Cattle 1 0 0 0 4 13

Equines 0 2 1 2 7 8

Table 3Damage to livestock in the last six years

2013 BEAR REPORT

42

animals) and equines (2 an-imals).

For the sixth consecutiveyear the lynx was present inthe province (a single docu-mented individual) withoutcausing any damage.

In 58 cases, namely around40% of all incidents recordedinvolving bears, genetic moni-toring made it possible to de-termine the identity of thebear/s involved with certainty.

This data, together withother parameters, such asthe areas in which the dam-age took place, radiotele-metric monitoring of ani-mals with radio collars andcamera traps made it possible to identifybears causing a significant amount of dam-age. These were the adult male M4, respon-sible for 8 cases of damage on the Trentinoside of Monte Baldo and 7 incidents on theVerona side, almost all involving cattle, theadult male M6, responsible for 6 cases ofdamage to cattle, equines and crops in theMonte Bondone, Stivo and Paganella area,the adult male M2 (fitted with a radio col-lar), who was responsible for at least 5 cas-es of damage to equines and cattle in the ValRendena and the Val di Tovel (Photo 11)and the young male M11, who was responsi-

ble for at least 4 attacks on cattle and sheep,again on Monte Baldo.

M6 was fitted with a radio collar lastSeptember in order to allow more intensivemonitoring and possible activities to deterthe bear, M2 was killed in the Val di Rabbi,while M11 disappeared suddenly from theMonte Baldo area last spring.

Graph 19 shows the long-term trend interms of compensation paid for damage causedby brown bears, whereas graphs 20 and 21show the chronological distribution of thisdamage in 2013 and in the period 2002-2013.

Photo 11 - Donkey preyed on by M2 in the Val di Tovel (C. Groff - APT Forestry and Wil-dlife Department archives)

0

50

100

150

200

250

-

20,000,00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

140,000.00

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Euro

N of cases

Graph 19

Damage compensated from 1990 to 2013

Eu

ro

N

of

cases

Year

2013 BEAR REPORT

43

The geographical distri-bution of reported damagecan be seen in Figure 8.

Prevention of damage by bears

As has already been re-ported, since 2011 the Dis-trict Forestry Offices haveseen to the distribution ofprevention works in the formof gratuitous loans, while theWildlife Office has dealt withapplications for the fundingof prevention works.

Overall, the new systemhas made it possible to im-prove the service and in par-

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul lug Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

LIVESTOCK

BEEHIVES

CROPS

OTHER

Graph 20

No. of cases of damage documented by type in 2013

N

of

cases

Month

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

LIVESTOCK

BEEHIVES

CROPS

OTHER

Graph 21

No. of cases of damage documented by type in 2002-2013

N

of

cases

Year

Figura n. 8Distribuzione geografica dei danni da orso registrati nel 2013

Tipologia dannianno 2013

0 5 10 15

Km

zootecnicoagricolo

apisticoaltro

2013 BEAR REPORT

44

ticular to improve contact between users andthe staff responsible for distributing materials.Indeed, in many cases it is forestry stationstaff who suggest that applicants request pre-vention works or ask for consultancy or an in-spection before deciding whether to presentan application. A preliminary inspection alsomakes it possible to suggest the type of pro-tection most suitable for the users needs, torecommend specific measures to improve theefficacy of works and to raise awareness of thevarious problems linked to the care and main-tenance of the works among users.

Close contact with users also allows eval-uation of the validity of the materials suppliedover time and of whether they respond to theoperational needs of users. Last but not least,

an awareness of the siting ofprevention works by localforestry staff allows more ef-fective control of their use.

During the year, a total of114 applications for preven-tion works to protect assetsfrom damage by brown bearswere presented. Of these 100were provided by the DistrictForestry Offices in the formof gratuitous loans (districtoffices: Mal 9, Tione 43,Trento 13, Cles 23, Rovereto12), 65 of which designed toprotect beehives (541 in totalsince 2002) and 35 livestock

(394 in total since 2002). The remaining 14 applications concerned

cattle and equines and were dealt with by theWildlife Office. Of these, 7 were acceptedwith funding of 60% of admissible expendi-ture, 5 were rejected and 2 cancelled as theprevention works were not implemented ordid not comply with the construction criteriarequired.

The overall expenditure borne by the De-partment, also thanks to funds from the LifeArctos project (which covered 60% of ex-penditure) amounted to a total of around 45,000.00.

Below it is possible to see the long-termtrend for the distribution of prevention works(Graph 22) and the different types of works

Photo 12 - Electric fence around beehives (P. Zanghellini - APT Forestry and Wildlife De-partment archives)

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Euro

Total n of works

Graph 22

Prevention works funded from 1989 to 2013

Eu

ro

N

of

wo

rks f

un

ded

Year

in the period 2002-2013 (Graph 23), with ref-erence to livestock and beekeeping.

The geographical distribution of the worksset up in western Trentino in 2012 can beseen in Figure 9.

Checks on prevention worksIn order to check that the prevention works

were functioning effectively and at the sametime to raise the awareness of users as regardsthe active and correct use of the works, a spotcheck of 102 works distributed after 2007was carried out in 2013. To see whether theelectric fences were active during the periodof greatest activity for bears, the forestry sta-tions were instructed to carry out checks inthe spring-summer, in the evening, at night orearly in the morning.

In 69 cases (67%) the electric fence hadbeen installed, whereas the remaining 33fences (33%) were not present. As regards theelectrification of the 69 works installed, 56fences were active, 4 were without a batteryand in 9 cases the battery was flat. Of the 69works present, 15 had been installed in amanner defined as excellent, 37 good and 10adequate, whereas in 7 cases the installationwas considered to be inadequate in terms ofprotecting the assets for which funding hadbeen provided.

Thus ultimately only 52 (51%) of the 102works checked were operational and cor-rectly installed, while the remaining 50 (49%)were considered to be unsuitable for the pur-pose. It should however be stated that in somecases the failure to use the fence or its tem-porary unsuitability were partially justifiedfollowing the explanations given by the bene-

2013 BEAR REPORT

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Beehives

Livestock

Graph 23

Prevention works funded from 2002 to 2013 by type

N

of

wo

rks f

un

ded

Year

Figure 9Location of prevention works distributed in 2013

Prevention works in 2013

0 4 8 12

Km

beehives livestock

2013 BEAR REPORT

46

ficiaries. At all events, the inspections high-lighted once again a lack of awareness and at-tention with which prevention works are used.

This is a major problem, to which it is nec-essary to respond in order to alter the currentsituation.

Meetings with stakeholdersIn 2013 the relations already started up for

some time with the economic sectors most af-fected by the presence of bears and otherlarge carnivores continued.

Once again this year, a Round table withrepresentatives of stakeholders was organ-ised, the meeting being held on 27 Novem-ber 2013. During the meeting the provincialadministration underlined on the one hand itsdesire to constantly inform and update therelevant categories as regards the system forcompensation and prevention of damage cur-rently adopted, and to evaluate the experi-ence of previous years, while on the other itexpressed its intention to listen to the needsand proposals of those involved and to gatherany possible comments and suggestions thatmay emerge during consultation.

Among other things, the need to promotepossible forms of support for the use of preven-

tion works was agreed, alsothrough the use of the RuralDevelopment Plan (Piano diSviluppo Rurale - PSR).

Shepherds supportThe presence of the shep-

herd and the adoption ofmore appropriate systems forpreventing damage, alongwith fair compensation, arefundamental in guaranteeingcoexistence between largecarnivores and livestockreared in the mountains.Bearing this in mind, one ofthe objectives of the provin-cial administration is to en-courage shepherds to stay athigh altitude with theirflocks, also by providing tem-

porary shelters. These objectives are also pur-sued through the act