AUTONOMUS PROVINCE OF TRENTO

www.orso.provincia.tn.it

BEAR REPORT 2012WITH APPENDICES ON THE LYNX AND THE WOLF

BEAR REPORT2012

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

AUTONOMUS PROVINCE OF TRENTO

FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

General coordination and supervisionRuggero Giovannini - Wildlife Office Director

CoordinationClaudio Groff

Edited byNatalia BragalantiClaudio GroffRenato RizzoliPaolo Zanghellini

With the contribution ofMuseo delle Scienze

Reference citationsThe information contained in this report may be quoted, making due reference to:Groff C., Bragalanti N., Rizzoli R., Zanghellini P. (editors), 2013 2012 Bear Report, Forestry and Wildlife Department of the Autonomous Province of Trento

Cover pageMother bear with two cubs in the Val di Tovel, August 2012Photo by Matteo Zeni - Adamello Brenta Nature Park

Back coverMother bear with three cubs in the upper Val Ambiez, August 2012Photo by Michele Baldessari - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives

PhotosIn the absence of captions: C. Groff (landscapes)

Layout and graphicsAPT Wildlife Office - Publistampa arti grafiche

Printed byPrint centre of the Autonomous Province of TrentoTrento, April 2013

CONTENTS

Presentation page 5

Introduction page 6

1. Monitoring page 7

2. Damage compensation and prevention page 36

3. Management of emergencies page 45

4. Communication page 55

5. Training page 59

6. National and international links page 60

7. Research and conferences page 62

Appendix 1 - The lynx page 63

Appendix 2 - The wolf page 68

BEAR REPORT 2012

Presentation

Management of the brown bear in Trentino is carried out on the basis of consolidated op-erational guidelines approved by the provincial government. The administration has assignedthe Forestry and Wildlife Department with the task of acting as the organisation of referencein relation to carrying out specific programmes of action.

With the drawing up of this sixth issue of the Bear Report, supervised by the Wildlife Office,it is intended to confirm the choice made at the very beginning, namely to provide a completeand in-depth annual report, including detailed technical documentation on the results of man-agement and progress of the project.

This report has been made possible with the support of all those involved, in various ways,in carrying out the activities involved in the project programmes, and to whom we would liketo direct our most sincere thanks; these include the forestry and technical staff of the Forestryand Wildlife Department, the staff of the Museo delle Scienze (MdS), the Adamello Brenta Na-ture Park, (ABNP), the Istituto Superiore per la Protezione and la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA),forest wardens, the gamekeepers of the Associazione Cacciatori Trentini (ACT) and numerousvolunteers. Special thanks must go to the Autonomous Province of Bolzano and to the ad-ministrative Regions in the alpine area (Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Lombardia), whichalso participate in the project in order to put the programmes into effect and to gather andmake available some of the data contained in this report.

Following further success at biological level in terms of the population, which has con-tinued to increase, in 2012 the project entered a decidedly critical phase, demanding wide-spread changes in a relatively short time.

While the number of bears is indeed by now close to the Minimum Vital Population thresh-old estimated by the feasibility study drawn up by ISPRA, with around 50 bears, this has beenaccompanied by a marked fall in the level of social acceptance, despite specific measuresadopted in 2012. These included approval of the new provincial law no. 6 of 24 April 2012:Modifications to the provincial law on hunting in relation to compensation for damage causedby wild animals and the positive experience of the round table with the categories most ex-posed to the presence of bears. Hence the unavoidable need to update management measures,within an operational context which has undoubtedly changed since these measures weredrawn up.

It is essentially a question of redefining the types of problem behaviour manifested bybears (both in relation to dangerous behaviour and excessive damage that may take place)and the consequential controlling action provided for by the PACOBACE (Plan of Action for theConservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps). This may also take place by giv-ing the local authorities called on to manage the species the possibility of acting with the nec-essary operational autonomy, in the context of common and predetermined criteria, withthe authorisation of the Ministry of the Environment.

It is clear that this new phase must necessarily be based on the indispensable constructiveand participatory contribution of the Ministry of the Environment and ISPRA, and thosecalled on to operate in the field on a daily basis have every trust that this will take place.

DOTT. MAURIZIO ZANINManager of APTs Forestry and Wildlife Department

5

BEAR REPORT 2012

The brown bear has nevercompletely disappeared fromTrentino, which is thus theonly area in the Alps that canproudly affirm the continu-ous presence of bears.

However, protection ofbears, which began in 1939,has not eliminated the risk oftheir becoming extinct.

Direct persecution byman and, to a lesser extent,environmental changes tak-ing place in the last two cen-turies, reduced the originalpopulation, bringing it to thethreshold of extinction. Atthe end of the 1990s therewere probably no more thanthree or four bears remain-ing, confined to the north-eastern Brenta area. How-ever, just when all seemedlost, there was turn in for-tunes, originating in the ac-tion taken by ABNP, whichstarted up the Life Ursusproject together with the Au-tonomous Province of Trento(APT) and ISPRA (formerlyINFS), co-funded by the Eu-ropean Union. Between 1999and 2002 this led to the re-lease of 10 bears (3 males and 7 females), giv-ing rise to the population to which this reportrefers. The release of the bears was precededby a detailed feasibility study supervised byISPRA, which ascertained the environmentalsuitability of a sufficiently large area to playhost to a viable bear population (40-60 bears),which is the ultimate aim of the project. Thisarea extends well beyond the confines of theprovince of Trento, also involving neighbour-ing regions and countries.

Following the conclusion of the phase in-volving the release of the animals, the phase

dedicated to the conservation and standardmanagement 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. In particular, six pro-grammes of action were identified (Monitor-ing, Damage Management, Management ofEmergencies, Staff Training, Communicationand National and International Links), whichrepresent the underlying structure followed inthis report.

Introduction

Photo 1 - Bear and lynx tracks in the snow. Campa mountains, April 2012 (C. Groff, APTForestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

6

Monitoring of the bear has been carriedout continuously by the Autonomous Provinceof Trento for almost 40 years. Over time, tra-ditional survey techniques in the field havebeen supplemented by radiotelemetry (amethod first used in Eurasia, in the secondhalf of the 1970s), automatic video controlsby remote stations, camera traps and finally,since 2002, by genetic monitoring.

The latter technique is based on the col-lection of organic samples (hairs and excre-ment) and takes place using two methodscommonly described as systematic monitor-ing, based on the use of traps with scent bait,designed to capture" hairs using barbed wire,and on opportunistic moni-toring, which is based on thecollection of organic samplesfound in the area duringroutine activities. In the lastfew years, genetic monitor-ing has represented the mostcrucial technique for collect-ing information regardingthe bear population presentin the province.

Genetic monitoring wascoordinated for the eleventhconsecutive year by APTsForestry and Wildlife Depart-ment, with the collaborationof ISPRA, ABNP, the MdSand volunteers.

It is nevertheless implicitthat the monitoring techniques cited do notguarantee that all the bears present will bedetected, so the data in this report must beread bearing in mind this intrinsic limitation.

Finally it should be recalled that monitor-ing of the other two species of large carnivoresin the Alps (the Eurasian lynx and the wolf)began following their reappearance in theprovince, hence from the end of the 1980s forthe lynx and since 2009 for the wolf. Themonitoring of these two species also involvedthe use of traditional survey techniques in the

field, camera traps, radio-tracking and geneticmonitoring.

In 2012 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, while the data is val-idated using population genetics software. Theorganic samples collected may be analysed ac-cording to the standard procedure (549 in2012), or in more urgent cases (15 in 2012),using a faster system, providing results withina couple of weeks from receipt of the sample.The methods developed, in accordance with

the provisions of PACOBACE (Plan of Actionfor the Conservation of the Bear in the Cen-tral-Eastern Alps), provide for amplification often different genomic regions (DNA mi-crosatellites) and molecular sexing of all thehair and faeces samples collected by staff andsent to the institutes laboratory. The high riskof error associated with analysis of samplescollected using non-invasive techniques demands the use of laboratory procedures designed to minimise the risk of genotypingerrors. With this scope the multiple amplifica-

BEAR REPORT 2012

1. Monitoring

Photo 2 - Staff busy in field monitoring (C. Groff, APT Forestry and Wildlife DepartmentArchives)

7

BEAR REPORT 2012

tion approach has been adopted, involving re-peating a series of tests until a genotype con-sidered to be reliable is obtained. Reliabilitywas established using statistical evaluation,carried out using the Reliotype programme.This calculates the likelihood of the particu-lar genotype observed effectively belonging tothe population, based on the allele frequencyobserved in the population of reference andon the number of repeat tests providing con-cordant results. If the reliability of the geno-type arrives at or exceeds 95% it is acceptedand the sample identified is added to the data-base. Following processing of the initial resultsof genetic 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.

A total of 646 organic samples frombears (226 from rub trees, 169 at damage sitesand 251 elsewhere) were collected using theopportunistic system in the province of Trento

in 2012, of which 564 samples were sent toISPRA for genetic testing (403 samples ofhair, 156 of excrement, 4 of tissue and 1tooth), bringing the total number of organicsamples collected and subjected to genetictesting since 2002 to 4,952. Some of thesamples collected (82) were not sent for test-ing, as they were duplicates (or further re-peats) of samples already positively identified.The fact that genetic monitoring has nowbeen carried out for eleven consecutiveyears makes the Trentino case particularlyinteresting, as the medium-long termtimescale for these activities (generally diffi-cult to keep up and hence rare, perhaps with-out precedent), makes certain types of analy-sis possible which would be unthinkable withmore fragmentary monitoring.

The 646 samples were collected by thestaff of the Autonomous Province of Trento(414; 64%), ABNP (180; 27.8%) and by vol-unteers (52; 8%).

Further samples were collected outside theprovince, contributing towards determiningthe total number of bears from this popula-tion identified; the data was kindly providedby the Autonomous Province of Bolzano,

8

BEAR REPORT 2012

Sistematic

Opportunistic

Total

Graph 1

N of organic samples collected by method

the Lombardia Region, the Veneto Regionand the Autonomous Region of FriuliVenezia Giulia.

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

9

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOT.Opportunistic 45 125 319 193 228 205 290 311 514 587 646 3463Systematic 4 227 464 154 255 135 83 - 167 - - 1489TOTAL 49 352 783 347 483 340 373 311 681 587 646 4952N of traps 4 39 41 42 47 17 57 - 57 - -

During 2012, alongside traditional oppor-tunistic monitoring and with the collaborationof ABNP, the Forestry and Wildlife Departmentagain carried out monitoring of rub trees,namely plants on which bears leave signs oftheir presence by leaving their odour and hairon the bark. This monitoring activity began in2010 and for the first time it took place in astandardised manner, as described belowand with the results summarised below.

Monitoring of a total of more than 100trees equipped with barbed wire was carriedout systematically, with the scope of collect-ing organic samples, assessing the possible sig-nificance of the use of these trees by bears andconsequently understanding how useful theymay be in monitoring the population. Thechecks, carried out every three weeks fromApril until November, on a total of 11 occa-

sions, provided for the collection of samplesof organic material from each positive rub tree(collected exclusively from the barbs of thebarbed wire). In order not to change thehabits of bears, no lures were used. Identifi-cation and monitoring of the sites was possi-ble thanks to the local knowledge of staff fromthe Wildlife Office, the park wardens of theAdamello Brenta Nature Park, the staff of theTrentino Forestry Service and forest wardens.

During the season 226 hair samples werecollected, representing around a third of theorganic samples collected in an opportunis-tic manner during the year. A total of 13bears were genotyped; 7 males and 6 fe-males (representing 27% of males and 35%of females known to be present in the areastudied in 2012, also considering all thecubs). Of these 11 were adults, 1 a young and

N

of

sam

ple

s

Years

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

BOX 1 - Photographic monitoring of rub trees

Following promising exploratory use of camera traps in 2010 and 2011 and the agree-ment signed by APT and the Museo delle Scienze, in collaboration with ABNP, standardisedcamera trap monitoring of rub trees commenced for the first time in 2012.

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 sex-es and age groups and during different seasons. Secondly, the camera traps made it possi-ble to obtain importantinformation on season-al variations and theactivities of bears ingeneral, along with in-formation about thenumerous other speciescaptured on film.

20 IR-plus cam-era traps were used(Photo A). These areactivated by infraredsensors following thepassage of animals,recording a video orphotographic image af-ter a trigger time ofaround 1 second fromthe time the animalcomes within the field of the sensor.

The cameras were attached to trees opposite the chosen rub tree, at a height of around2 metres and an average distance of around 4 metres. They were set to video mode, with

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

1 a cub. In the three years of monitoring(2010-2012), a total of 16 bears actively fre-quented the rub trees.

The significant difference between thesexes in the use of rub trees was confirmed:males made considerably more visits to rubtrees than females and these visits were con-centrated in the spring-summer months (dur-ing the reproductive season). The use of rubtrees by females would instead appear to bemore sporadic and mostly limited to the au-tumn months. Furthermore, young bearswould appear to make only marginal use ofrub trees in comparison to adults: all this sug-gests that bears may use the activity to estab-

lish a sort of social hierarchy, in order to avoiddirect conflict.

Sampling bears by collecting hairs left nat-urally 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.

Photographic monitoring of rub treeswas also commenced in a standardised man-ner for the first time in 2012 (Box 1).

10

BEAR REPORT 2012

continuous filming(sequence lasting 20seconds) and the dateand time of thefootage impressed onthe image. They wereequipped with a 4 GBmemory card makingit possible to recordhundreds of videos, al-so thanks to the exten-sive operational auton-omy guaranteed by anexternal battery, in ad-dition to the internalbatteries.

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

20 of the morethan 100 rub treesidentified and moni-tored, uniformly dis-tributed in the areafrequented by bears,were chosen for moni-toring with cameratraps (Figure A).

The sites chosen, inaddition to being uni-formly distributed inthe area, were knownto be used regularly bybears, a fundamentalrequisite for maximis-ing the data acquired.Photographic samplingwas carried out from6 May to 19 Novem-ber 2012, with a total of 3,022 camera days in terms of effective operation (an averageof 151 days per camera). The sampling was not quite as extensive as expected, due to re-duced operation by some of the cameras because of full memory cards or problems with bat-teries, and to the theft of three cameras. However, over and beyond this, all the camerasworked effectively and the sampling carried out was nevertheless significant.

Figure ALocation of the camera traps and the relative number of bears passing

11

BEAR REPORT 2012

Results (bears)The cameras recorded a total of

4,736 videos of animals and men, in-cluding 128 of bears (Photos B and C).For the purposes of analysis, individualevents relating to the passage of bears(or other species) were established, join-ing together sequential videos becausethey referred to a single event (such as abear checking and using a rub tree for ex-ample), or in the event that the same an-imal spent a long time in front of thecamera, leading to several videos withina standard time interval (established as 1hour). In this way 110 (out of a total of128 recordings) individual events (orseparate events independent of eachother) resulted for bears, with an averageof 5.5 per camera (from a minimum of 0to a maximum of 20).

Graph 1 shows the seasonal changesin the presence of bears recorded by thecameras, expressed as the % of camerascapturing images of bears, in relation tothe total number of cameras. The trendalso provides information about changes in the activity of the species in general, given thatthe rub trees are situated along paths or forest roads used by bears: one can note a peak inMay, coinciding with the reproductive season, decreasing up to July-August and with a re-covery in terms of activity in September before pre-hibernation lethargy.

12

Photo B - Bear filmed by a camera trap at the foot of the rub tree(Andalo forestry station - APT Forestry and Wildlife DepartmentArchives)

Photo C - Bear marking a rub tree (C. Sartori - APT Forestryand Wildlife Department Archives)

Graph 1 - Seasonal changes in the activity of bears 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 monitored with camera traps

Seasonal changes in activity

Pro

po

rtio

n (

%)

of

sit

es r

eco

rdin

g

the p

resen

ce o

f b

ears

100

80

60

40

20

0May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov

BEAR REPORT 2012

13

The bears behaviour at rub trees was assigned to one of 4 categories: (1) indifferent (beardid not stop at tree), (2) checking of tree, (3) checking of tree and rubbing, (4) only rubbing.Graph 2 shows the percentages for these different categories of behaviour in terms of the 110overall events recorded, also by age group and sex. Overall, 41% of events involved indiffer-ent bears (Photo D), whereas the remaining 59% involved checking the tree (40%), check-ing and rubbing (12%),or just rubbing (7%).One interesting result isthat the bears rubbingthemselves against thetree were mostly maleadults, as shown in theimages (in 18 eventsout of 21), while the 3remaining events in-volved individuals ofunidentified gender (sothe effective proportionof males is probablyhigher).

Proportion (%) of individual events by categoryNone of the adult females filmed rubbed themselves against the trees, however most ofthose ascertained to be females checked the rub tree (5 out of 8 individual events). Thisdata confirms the results of genetic monitoring, providing further information about the

use of rub trees: onlya small proportion ofmales was indifferentto the rub trees (6 outof 35 individualevents). As regardsdifferentiation accord-ing to age groups, it isinteresting to observethat in almost 45% ofcases of passing cubs(5 out of 11) the cubschecked the rub tree,

but none of them rubbed themselves; their behaviour is similar to that of youngs (41%checked trees), with the difference that there was one case of a young bear rubbing him-self against the tree. In this context it should be underlined that youngs were necessarilyidentified in an empirical manner, based on the markedly smaller size of young ascompared to adults. They were classified in a conservative manner, so it is possible thatsome young were considered to be adults, whereas the opposite is unlikely.

It can be noted that active behaviour (checking and rubbing + rubbing categories) re-gards above all adult males. The other undetermined bears group relates to bears whose sizedid not make it possible to determine the sex or age group.

Photo D - Bear with indifferent attitude to the presence of the rub tree (M. Tiso - APT Fo-restry and Wildlife Department Archives)

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

Behaviour at rub trees90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0checking checking and rubbing indifferent

MM adults (N=35)

FF adults (N=8)

Undetermined adults (N=4)

CUBS (N=11)

YUNGS (N=22)

Other Undetermined (N=30)

Pro

po

rtio

n (

%)

of

ind

ivid

ua

l e

ve

nts

by

ca

teg

ory

BEAR REPORT 2012

Analysis of seasonalchanges in behaviour atrub trees (Graph 3) re-veals an interestingtrend for adult malebears, with a markedpeak in activity in May,namely during the re-productive season, ascompared to subsequentmonths. This further re-inforces the theory thatrub trees have a funda-mental role in inter-spe-cific communicationlinked to reproduction.

The behaviour of other species at rub trees was also analysed. There was widespread indif-ference to the trees, however active use (marking with urine) by the pine/beech marten and foxwas recorded in a limited number of cases (6.5%), along with passive use (checking) by fourungulates (5.2%). The trend was only partially similar to the trend for use by bears, howeverit has emerged that rub trees also have a role in the social behaviour and intra-specific com-munication of other species. The overall results for events involving the use of rub trees for allmonths did not show any statistical link between the bear and other species, or any link betweenmarking and checking species.

In addition to the use of rub trees, the results revealed other interesting aspects regarding thehabits of bears. In particular, by plotting events by time bands, it is possible to arrive at a pro-file for daily activities (Graph 4). This shows the typical trend for a nocturnal and crepuscularspecies, 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).

14

0

2

4

6

8

14

10

12

May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov

Num

ber o

f eve

nts

(mal

e be

ars)

checkschecks and rubs/rubs

Graph 3 - Trend in the behaviour of adult male bears at rub trees over time. The datarefers to individual events recording the passage of bears (N=29)

Behaviour trend over time

0

2

4

6

8

10

14

16

18

20

00-02 02-04 04-06 06-08 08-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24

% fr

eque

ncy

of e

vent

sca

ptur

ed o

n fil

m

Daily time bands (intervals of 2 hours)

Graph 4 - Daily activity of bears, in terms of events in which passing bears were filmed by camera traps (the graph shows the% of events by time band out of the total, N=110)

Daily activity

BEAR REPORT 2012

Results (all species)In addition to the bear, a further 13 species of medium-large mammals were captured on

film, including man. In Graph 5, the species are placed in order of the overall number of eventsrecorded, allowing straightforward comparison of the results for different species. It is inter-esting to observe that man is the species most frequently captured on film (2,080 events, notincluded in the graph in order to better appreciate the differences between the other species).The variety of species filmed shows the usefulness of camera traps in monitoring a wide rangeof mammals. The following animals were recorded more frequently than the bear, in order offrequency: roe deer, red deer, alpine chamois, fox and pine/beech marten (the latter were oftennot distinguishable as nocturnal images are in black and white).

Analysis of the data, in order to assess any possible links related to avoidance or asso-ciation between the presence of the bear and other species, did not show any specific rela-tionships. For example, there is no documentation supporting the theory that the presenceof the bear may influence the behaviour of ungulates, limiting their numbers.

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 informa-tion (changes in coat, beginning and end of activity, daily pattern of activity, interaction be-tween individuals and species, consistency between genetic and morphological data etc.).

As confirmed by many studies, camera traps are however only suitable for individualidentification in the case of species with a specific coat, such as felines; recognising individ-uals on the basis of incidental marks or individual peculiarities is occasionally possible, butthis is an exception, meaning that the method cannot be considered as an effective moni-toring tool. Even the additional information provided by genetic testing in the specific caseof rub trees does not usually allow visual identification of the individual which can also beused on other occasions.

by Francesco Rovero and Natalia Bragalanti

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roe d

eer

Red d

eer

Alpine

cham

ois Fox

Pine/b

eech

mart

enBe

ar Dog

Badg

er

Squir

rel

Europ

ean h

are

Moun

tain h

are

Mouff

lon

Linx (

N=1)

Num

ber

of in

divi

dual

eve

nts

invo

lvin

g pa

ssag

e

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

Species sampled

15

BEAR REPORT 2012

16

Status of the population in 2012Processing of the data collected provided

the information given subsequently regard-ing the identification of the bears sampled,estimation of the minimum population, thenumber of litters during 2012, the trends interms of population development and the useof the area by the animals.

It should be noted that starting from thisedition of the report, the graphs regardingdemographic aspects have been updatednot only in relation to 2012, but also withdata regarding previous years that monitor-ing in 2012 has made it possible to recover(for example in relation to so-called redis-covered bears ). This explains the differ-ences which can sometimes be found be-tween the graphs in previous reports and thisyears report. This therefore leads to ongo-ing updating of the data available and therelative graphs, which must therefore be con-sidered to substitute previous ones, bearingin mind the greater reliability of the back-ground information and hence the relatedanalysis.

Definitions cubs: bears aged between 0 and 1; youngs: males between the age of 1 and

5 and females between the age of 1 and 3; adults: males over the age of 5 and fe-

males over the age of 3; detected bears: bears whose presence

has been ascertained during the last year,either genetically or on the basis of un-equivocal and repeated observations;

undetected bears: bears which were notdetected in the 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, with-

out them reaching the territory habituallyfrequented by bears belonging to the Di-naric-Balkan bear population;

emigration: the abandoning of the pop-ulation present in the province by bearsreaching the territory habitually frequentedby bears belonging to the Dinaric-Balkanbear population;

immigration: the arrival in the provinceof bears coming from the Dinaric-Balkanbear population.

Overall 43 animals were detected ge-netically in Trentino and neighbouringprovinces and regions during 2012. All ofthem were detected using opportunistic ge-netic monitoring. At least 7 cubs belongingto four different litters must be added tothese, as they were repeatedly observedand/or filmed in the company of their moth-ers (all genetically detected) during the year,although the cubs were not identified genet-ically.

It is however necessary to subtract 7bears from the total: 5 of these died and 2were considered to have emigrated as theywere recorded in Friuli Venezia Giulia, in theeastern part of the region. The stable pres-ence of a group of bears has been ascertainedin this area, representing the most north-westerly ramification of the Dinaric-Balkanbear population.

Finally, it should be recalled that on theone hand a further bear was found dead inthe province of Sondrio on 22 September2012, which however had not been geneti-cally identified at the time this report wasprinted (so for the moment it is has not beenconsidered in the analysis which follows),while on the other hand a further bear wasidentified through genetic monitoring. Theresults suggested this was the son of DJ3,taken into captivity in 2011 (see the 2011 re-port for details). However, the presence ofthis last bear has not been confirmed by ob-servations in the field (DJ3 was monitored atlength with a radio collar) nor by known dataon the reproduction of the bear in question.So for the moment it has not been included

BEAR REPORT 2012

17

in the calculations, but may be included sub-sequently should elements clarifying the sit-uation emerge in the future.

Hence a minimum of 43 bears are consid-

ered to have been present at the end of 2012,of which 22 males, 14 females and 7 of un-determined sex (Graph 2) (sex ratio M-F1:0.4 - n=36).

151413

181716

121110987654321

Dan

iza

Gas

per

KJ1

KJ2

MJ2

MJ4

MJ5

MJ2

G1

BJ1

DJ1

G1

DG

2JJ

4

DG

3

M6

M2

M1

M3

M4 F2 F4 M7 F5 M9

M13 F7 F8 M11 F12

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M22 F13 ? ? ? ? ???

females

males

sex not determined

sexual maturity of males

sexual maturity of females

Graph 2

Structure of the population at the end of 2012

Once again this year it is very likely thatthe genetic monitoring carried out in theprovince did not detect all the bears makingup the population. Considering the presenceof individuals not detected in the last yearalone (5, including 4 cubs that were not de-tected in 2012, although present in 2011) aspossible, and excluding those missing for twoor more years (13), the estimated popula-tion in 2012 was from 43 to 48 bears. Itshould be underlined that the minimum num-

ber (43) represents the number of bears cer-tainly present, whereas the maximum (48) isexclusively an evaluation of probability, basedon specific criteria shown to be essentiallyvalid to date, but which have intrinsic limita-tions. The 43 bears therefore represent aminimum population estimate, which is dif-ferent from a genuine population esti-mate, requiring the use of demographicmodels involving capture, marking and re-capture (CMR).

Ag

e (

years

)

Bears

BEAR REPORT 2012

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 of

individuals identified year by year with the in-dividuals shown by monitoring in subsequentyears to be actually present in the same pe-riod (Graph 3).

100%90%80%

60%70%

50%40%

20%30%

0%10%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

100% 100%90% 83% 89% 83% 78% 76%95% 96%

Graph 3

Percentage of bears identified - 2002-2011

18

Graph 4 shows the average percentage ofgenetically identified bears in comparison tothe bears actually present in the 2002-2011 period, with reference to the whole

population (89%), females and males(93% and 83% respectively) and the threeage groups (adults 97%, youngs 88%,cubs 79%).

100%

90%

80%

60%

70%

50%

40%

20%

30%

0%

10%

total adults youngs cubs

89%

females

93%

males

83% 88% 79%97%

Graph 4

Percentage of bears identified 2002-2011: total, by gender ad by age groups

BEAR REPORT 2012

19

The population trend was once again con-firmed to be positive in 2012 (Graph 5). Inthis graph the figures for previous years nolonger show the range which characterises

2012, as the relative minimum certain num-bers have been updated and supplementedusing data acquired in subsequent years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N o

f bea

rs

Years

not detected in the last year aloneminimum certain number

11 10 1518 22 23

27 2937 38

43

548

Graph 5

Population trend 2002-2012

The average annual growth in the bearpopulation in the 2002-2012 period, withreference to the minimum certain popula-tion, was 15.6% and saw an increase lastyear.

Graph 6 shows the evolution in the av-erage annual growth rate in the 2004-2012

period. Following an initial period, duringwhich the growth rate was even higher than20%, the rate has gradually settled aroundthe current level of 15-16%. This is never-theless positive when compared with thedata in existing reference material as regardsthe species.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

35%

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

Ave

rage

gro

wth

rate

(%)

Years

Graph 6

Average growth rate in the minimum certain population 2004-2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

20

ReproductionIn 2012 the presence of 7 litters during the

year was ascertained (genetic monitoring pluscertain sightings), with a total of 16 cubs. Inthree cases the litters were made up of threecubs, in a further three cases there were twocubs, whereas in the last case there was a sin-gle cub (3+3+3+2+2+2+1). However, it isnot possible to exclude the possibility of othercubs being present in the case of the litter witha single cub, so this is not taken into consider-ation in the calculations, for example with re-gard to the average number of cubs per litter.

Genetic testing made it possible to iden-tify 9 of the 16 cubs (7 males and 2 females),along with a further cub (F12) probably bornto F2 last year (2011), whose presence wasalready known but not accompanied by ge-netic identification.

There have therefore been 34 litters as-certained to date in Trentino (32 geneticallyand 2 repeatedly observed in 2011) in the lasteleven years, and at least 69 cubs have beenborn (33 males, 25 females and eleven of un-known gender) (Graph 7), M-F sex ratio1:0.76 (2002-2012, n=58).

N o

f cub

s an

d lit

ters

Years

13121110

161514

987654321

20102009 2011 20122006 2007 20082002 2003 2004 2005

litter

male cub

female cub

cub sighted but not determinedgenetically

Graph 7

Litters and cubs 2002-2012

5 of the 30 litters (17%) for which bothparents have been genetically identified werethe result of mating between blood relatives(between father and daughter in three cases,between mother and son in one case and be-tween bears with only the father in commonin the fifth case).

Reproductive animals As mentioned above, all seven of the moth-

ers in 2012 were identified through genetic

testing, combined with direct sighting orfootage with camera traps (such as the photoon the cover page, showing the female BJ1 ac-companied by two cubs born during the yearand not yet genetically identified). They wereDaniza, KJ1 and KJ2 (Photo 3) (3 cubseach), F4, JJ4 and BJ1 (2 cubs each) andMJ2 (apparently with a single cub). This isthe 5th ascertained birth for Daniza, the 4th forKJ1 and KJ2, the 3rd for MJ2, the 2nd for BJ1and JJ4 and the 1st for F4.

BEAR REPORT 2012

Photo 3 - The mother bear KJ2 with her cubs (I. Bommassar - published in the Trentino on 14.05.2012)

21

There were three recognised fathers forthese litters: Gasper (three litters), M4 (one)and MJ5 (one). Information about the fathersand cubs of the other two litters is not avail-able.

14 females and 5 males have therefore re-produced in the period 2002-2012.

There were 7 sexually mature males and10 sexually mature females present at theend of 2012.

The average age of primiparous femalesin the period 2006-2012 (n=9) has to datebeen 3.67.

The average gap between consecutive

litters for the same female, recorded in theperiod 2002-2012 (n=18 gaps, referring to 9females), is 2.11 years.

The average number of cubs per litter is2.06 (2002-2012, n=33), a figure to be con-sidered in relation to the average age ofmothers, which is 7.2.

The number of cubs per litter to date hasessentially been related to the age of themother, with 2 or less cubs for females aged 3-7 and 3 for females aged 8 or over (Graph 8).

This data refers to 31 litters out of 34, nat-urally not bearing in mind the two litters in2011 whose mothers are not currently known,

n = number of recorded births

R2 = 0,669

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

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

Age of mothers (in years)

Ave

rage

no.

of c

ubs

(n=4) (n=2) (n=7) (n=3)

(n=3) (n=2)

(n=2)

(n=1) (n=1)

(n=1)

(n=4)

(n=1)

Graph 8

Average number of cubs/ mothers age

BEAR REPORT 2012

22

nor MJ2s litter this year, for which the num-ber of cubs is unknown.

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 0.616.

Rediscovered bearsDuring 2012, 3 bears, all males, which

had not been identified for at least two years,were rediscovered genetically (M7, M1 andDJ1G1, not detected for 2, 3, and 4 years re-spectively). In the past this had only hap-pened with one bear. All three bears were re-discovered outside the province.

Bears undetected in 2012 Only one bear present in 2011 was unde-

tected for the first year in 2012 (F3, a fe-male who would now be five years old). Shehas not yet been classified as a missing bear(see definitions on page 16), as there is a con-crete possibility that she is still present.

Missing bearsAs mentioned previously, once again in

2012 it was possible to document cases ofemigration, with reference to the male bearKJ2G2, who was already based in the area ofthe Dinaric-Balkan bear population (a frontierarea between Italy, Austria and Slovenia) dur-ing 2011, and M8, who instead only movedthis far east this year (see Box 4 on page 20 ofthe 2011 Bear Report for further details of thecase).

The case of the 7-year-old male bearKJ2G2, who has spent the last 6 years awayfrom his original population, is particularlyworthy of note: in 2007, just after leaving hismother, he reached the southern part ofMonte Baldo (VR) (2007 Bear Report, page11), the following year he crossed the AdigeValley (the first documented crossing, to thesouth of Bolzano), making his way across theVallarsa and the foothills of Vicenza to the Asi-ago tableland (2008 Bear Report, page 15). In2009 he continued to move north and east,

crossing the whole length of the province ofBelluno and entering eastern Tyrol in Austria(2009 Bear Report, page 20). In 2010 KJ2G2was detected in Friuli Venezia Giulia and forthe first time also further east in Carinthia,south of Villach, a short distance away fromthe Slovenian border. In 2011 KJ2G2 was stillin the area, specifically around Tarvisio (2011Bear Report, pages 21-22). Finally, this yearthe bear was followed, again through genetictests, on a long journey taking him from thefrontier with Slovenia further north-east toStyria in central Austria, to then return to thefrontier area between Italy, Austria and Slove-nia (Georg Rauer, pers. comm.). Thus he hasprobably made the longest documented jour-ney in the Alps for a bear (around 1,000 lin-ear km over the six years taken into consider-ation, estimated however exclusively on thebasis of genetic data, which is much more lim-ited than the data provided by radioteleme-try).

Two new bears (the female F9 and themale M10) are instead considered to be miss-ing, as they have not been genetically de-tected in the last two years.

When calculating the number of missingbears in 2012 it is also necessary to considerthe death of 5 bears: The female F10, aged 2.5 (Photo 4), found

on 20 September 2012 on wooded slopesabove the town of Caderzone in the Val Ren-dena, on the right-hand side of the RiverSarca.

Photo 4 - The carcass of the female bear F10 (V. Calvetti - APTForestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

BEAR REPORT 2012

23

The condition of the carcass (severalmonths old) meant that it was not possibleto establish the cause of death. The autopsy,carried out at the Istituto Zooprofilatticodelle Tre Venezie in Trento, did not showany signs of firearms, the remains of bulletsor any traces of poison.

A cub born during the year (aged 3-4months), female, called F11, whose remainswere found in the Val di Nambrone on 26April 2012. Once again it was not possibleto establish the cause of death, which is inany case very likely to be from naturalcauses (Photo 5).

M14 and M12, two two-year-old brothers,who met with a very similar fate, both beingkilled in road accidents in the province ofBolzano, respectively on 22 April 2012 inthe Val dIsarco on the main road near PonteGardena and on 8 June 2012 on the Me-Bo road near Terlano. There is a thirdbrother, M13, who is the only one still aliveand who spent most of 2012 in Swiss terri-tory (see Box 2).

The male bear JJ5, aged 6, who died of suf-focation during an attempt to capture himon 12 June 2012 near Monte Terlago (seethe section regarding captures for details).

Thus by the end of 2012 there were 13bears undetected genetically for at leastthe last two years, 14 dead bears (7 corpsesfound and 7 bears killed accidentally or de-liberately), 2 taken into captivity and twoemigrating bears.

Hence there were a total of 31 missingbears at the end of 2012. As regards this data,see the considerations in the survival ratessection on page 25.

Graph 9 shows the balance betweenbirths-rediscovered-immigrating/missingbears year by year. In 2012 there was a verypositive balance (+11). This was the result of16 births in 2012, 3 rediscovered bears, 5deaths, 1 new emigrating bear and 2 newbears classified as missing.

Photo 5 - Carcass of the cub F11 (E. Bonapace - APT Forestry andWildlife Department archives)

13121110

9876

20191817161514

54321

Years

N o

f bea

rs

+ 22002

+ 12003 2006

+ 7 + 112012

+ 22009

+ 42008

+ 42010

+ 32011

- 22007

+ 42004 2005

+ 3

born-immigrating

missingbalance

Graph 9

Population balance 2002-2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

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

24

Graph 10

Missing bears: age groups (2002-2012 - n=31)

Graph 11

Missing bears: causes (2002-2012 - n=31)

Graph 13

Dead bears: causes (2002-2012 - n=14)

Graph 12

Dead bears: age groups (2002-2012 - n=14)

In the year of their disappearance themissing bears (n=31) included 10 adults, 16youngs and 5 cubs (Graph 10). Of the miss-ing bears, 14 have died, two have emigratedand thirteen have not been detected geneti-cally for at least two years, (see definitions onpage 16), (Graph 11).

The dead bears (n=14) belonged to the fol-lowing age groups: cubs (5), youngs (6) andadults (3), the shares being shown in Graph 12.

The deaths (Table 1) were the result ofnatural causes in 4 cases, unknown in 3 casesand as a result of action by man in the other7 cases (Graph 13).

Year natural causes road accident shot down for management management

accident unknown total deaths

2002 0

2003 1 cub 1

2004 0

2005 0

2006 1 cub,1 ad 1 juv* 3

2007 0

2008 1 cub 1 juv** 1 juv 3

2009 0

2010 1 cub 1

2011 1 ad 1

2012 1 cub 2 juv 1 ad 1 juv 5

TOTAL 4 3 2 2 3 14

Cubs 16% Adults

32%

Youngs52%

Cubs (=1 year)Youngs (aged 1 to 3/5)Adults ( 3/5 years)

In captivity6%

Emigrating6%

Deaths46%

Undetect for atleast 2 years

42%

Cubs 36%

Adults21%

Youngs43%

Natural causes29%

Unknown causes21%

Human causes50%

BEAR REPORT 2012

25

Survival ratesThe new data available makes it possible

to update the survival rates for the three dif-ferent age groups (cubs, youngs and adults,according to the definitions on page 162) ascompared to 2011, differentiated for the twosexes (Graph 14).

The data refers to a period of 11 years(2002-2012), during which it was possibleto record the survival or death of 64 differ-

ent bears, with 291 passages from one yearto another (291 bear-years). The mortali-ties" category, considered in the broadersense, also includes bears undetected in thelast two years or taken into captivity, con-firming the criteria used for missing bears.

The data regarding any emigrating bearsis instead only considered up to the timethat they leave their original population.

94,6

76,9

91,2 91,2

86,2

91,9

91,392,9

81,8

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

cubs youngs adults

Age groups

% s

urvi

val

FemalesMalesGeneral

Graph 14

Survival rates by age group

Excluding the four bears killed or re-moved following management decisions andreferring thus exclusively to naturalcauses of death, one can note an increasein the survival rate for young males (from91.9% to 94.3%) and adult females (from91.2% to 92.4%).

Cubs are therefore confirmed as the cat-egory with the lowest survival rate (around4 out of 5 cubs reach their first birthday).Furthermore, it should also be consideredthat it is very likely that the calculation ex-cludes a number of cubs born and dyingwithin the first year of life without theirpresence being detected through geneticmonitoring. The survival rate for young andadult bears (over 90%) instead shows thataround one out of 10 individuals (young/adult bears) disappears from the populationeach year.

Structure of the populationAt the end of 2012 the certain population

was made up of 17 adults (7 males and 10females), 11 youngs (8 males and 3 fe-males) and 15 cubs (7 males, 1 female and7 of undetermined sex). Graph 15 shows thetrend for the 2002-2012 period.

It should be noted that this again showsthe figures for each year including data ac-quired thanks to monitoring in subsequentyears; so all the data, even if relating to pre-vious years, is constantly updated in relationto the new knowledge provided by continu-ing monitoring.

This graph also shows the effective pop-ulation (Ne) recorded annually, namely thenumber of bears capable of reproducing inthat year, made up of adult males plus halfthe female bears recorded (given that theygenerally give birth in alternate years).

BEAR REPORT 2012

26

504540

3035

2520

1015

05

14

8

10

12

6

4

2

02002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N o

f bea

rs

Years

AdultsYoungsCubsNe

Graph 15

Age groups

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Adults 8 6 7 8 7 8 9 11 12 16 17Youngs 1 3 3 6 5 12 11 15 16 16 11Cubs 2 1 5 4 10 3 7 3 9 6 15Total 11 10 15 18 22 23 27 29 37 38 43Ne 5 3,5 4,5 5 4,5 5 5,5 6 7,5 11 12

The percentage of bears in the threeage groups (adults, youngs and cubs) inthe period 2002-2012 is shown in Graph 16.

Graph 16

Age group by percentages

80

60

70

50

40

20

30

0

10

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%

Years

AdultsYoungsCubs

It is also interesting tonote the evolution in theaverage age of the bearpopulation over the 11 yearperiod examined (Graph17). In 2012 there was aslight fall in average age(now 4.38), after severalyears in which it had risen.This was due above all to thehigh number of cubsrecorded this year. It shouldbe noted that to calculate theaverage age for males and fe-males the gender of cubsborn during the year was at-tributed arbitrarily, respect-ing the M/F proportions inthe known population.

BEAR REPORT 2012

27

Graph 17

Average age of bears

5,275,60

4,734,44

3,593,96

4,194,38

4,32

4,66

4,38

6,67

7,50

4,00

3,50

3,103,73 3,79 3,53

3,65

4,19

3,68

4,75

5,13 5,10 5,20

4,00

4,174,62

5,29 5,32 5,245,35

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

2001 2002 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Ave

rage

age

Years

GeneralMalesFemales

BEAR REPORT 2012

Use of the territory36 out of the 43 bears detected in 2012were present within the territory ofTrentino (34 only in Trentino, 2 also inneighbouring provinces/countries). Theother 7 were present only in neighbouringregions: 2 in the province of Bolzano (M1and MJ2G1), 2 in Veneto (DG2 and M4), 3in Lombardia (DJ1G1,M7 and M9). All 9

bears identified as also or completely pres-ent outside the province in 2012 were males.

The 882 area fixes related to the pres-ence of bears collected within the provinceduring 2012 (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 2012

Area occupied by the populationConsidering also the longest journeys made

by young males during 2012, the populationof brown bears present in the central Alps,which is mainly centred around westernTrentino, was distributed over a theoreticalarea stretching out over 19,425 km in 2012(Figure 2). The area occupied by the females

in a stable manner is decidedly smaller(1,052 km), still entirely situated within theprovince. The areas occupied were estimatedusing the minimum convex polygon method,applied to 100% of the fixes available. Thisalso leads to the inclusion of vast areas whichare not suitable and/or not actually used, es-pecially within the macro-area including the

28

BEAR REPORT 2012

Figure 2Area occupied by bears in the central Alps in 2012 (in light blue), highlighting the area within this occupied by females in a stable man-ner (in pink). Data from outside the province provided by the Lombardia and Veneto regions and the Grigioni Canton (CH)

29

movements of young males. Furthermore, asregards Figure 2, it should be emphasised thatit shows genetic fixes for adult males (in darkblue) and young (in light blue), highlightingthe greater links of the former with the areasfrequented by the females.

The only clear exception would appear tobe the fixes in the most easterly sector of theterritory (in the province of Belluno), whichhowever refer to only two adults, one of whom(MJ4) in any case returned to the femalesarea during the mating season.

Population density The population density in the area fre-

quented by the bears in a more stable mannerin 2012 was 3.2 bears/100 km (34 bears, in-cluding cubs born during the year, within thearea occupied by the females, namely 1,052km). It should be considered that this figure isto some extent underestimated, given that theterritory also includes areas which are unsuit-able and not actually used (e.g. valley floor withurban development, rocky peaks). At all events,it is essentially in line with the data present inthe bibliography in relation to the alpine envi-ronment and the forecasts of the feasibilitystudy preceding the Life Ursus project.

RoamingIn the period 2005-2012 it was possible to

document roaming (understood as movementoutside western Trentino) involving 21 bears(all young males). 4 of these have died (2killed following management decisions in for-eign countries and 2 run over in the provinceof Bolzano), 1 disappeared in 2005 in thefrontier area between Engadina (CH) and theprovince of Bolzano and 2 are currently con-sidered to have emigrated to the Dinaric-Balkan bear population.

The other 14 were still present in 2012:some (6) have returned (although it is notpossible to say whether definitively or not) or

BEAR REPORT 2012

30

have remained in areas straddling theprovince of Trento, whereas 8 are currentlyoutside the province.

In this context it is interesting to recall thecase of the male MJ4 who left the Bellunoarea in spring and returned to westernTrentino (Paganella area), to then return tothe province of Belluno a few weeks later(data obtained from genetic monitoring). Thetraces found in the Val dei Mocheni (easternTrentino) in May (Photo 6) very probably be-long to this bear.

To date no roaming of females born inTrentino has been documented.

Other monitoring activities in 2012

During 2012 3 bears were monitoredusing satellite telemetry: Daniza, M2 andM13.

M11 (see Box 3 on page 15 of the 2011Bear Report) was instead monitored using ra-diotelemetry (through ear tags).

The 2012 home-ranges of Daniza andM2, calculated using the minimum convexpolygon method, stretched respectively over346 km and 408 km (respectively 1,031

and 391 GPS fixes in the periods 1 January -31 December 2012 and 1 July -31 December2012) and are shown in Figures 3 and 4. M13instead spent almost the whole of the yearoutside the province. See Box 2 as regards this.

Photo 6 - Bear tracks in the Val dei Mocheni, at SantOrsola(F. Zambotti)

Figure 3Home-range of Daniza in 2012 (MCP)

Figure 4Home-range of M2 in 2012 (MCP)

BOX 2 - M13

M13 was born in January 2010 in the Paganella-Gazza mountain range, in the mu-nicipality of Terlago (Tn). Only the following year was it possible to ascertain, thanks togenetic monitoring, that he was the son of KJ2 and Gasper and the brother of M12 andM14.

The young male spent the whole of 2010 and part of 2011 with his mother and broth-ers in the area around the Paganella and Monte Bondone. In May 2011 M13 left hismother, a new mating season beginning for her, and headed first south towards Garniga(Monte Bondone) and Monte Stivo (mu-nicipality of Arco), exploring an area fur-ther south than the one he had previouslyfrequented with his mother. M13svagabond nature, typical of males of hisage, soon led him to move on again, thistime heading north, first to the mountain-ous area near Cles and then to the Val diSole. In autumn he established himself inthe Maddalene mountains, causing somedamage to sheep in the Val dUltimo (right-hand bank). These events led the staff ofthe Autonomous Province of Bolzano, withthe support of APT personnel, to decide thecapture of the bear, which was fitted with aGPS radio collar on 16 October 2011(Photo A).

Immediately after his capture M13 re-turned to Trentino, more specifically to the Val di Bresimo, where he was sighted and filmedon several occasions in January 2012, together with another bear, subsequently identified,thanks to genetic tests, as his brother M14. Shortly afterwards M13 also spent time withhis other brother, M12, confirming that in some cases bears from the same litter can main-

tain a bond even after leaving theirmother and roaming to other areas.

On 7 February 2012, M13s collar wasfound by APT staff in the Val di Bresimo,the fastening screws having broken. Fromthat moment on, the bear was followedthanks to genetic tests and sightings, alsofacilitated by the frequent presence of hisbrother M12, making it possible to at-tribute sightings to the two male bears.In March the two brothers headed north-west, to the frontier between the provinceof Bolzano and Austria, in the Spiss area(Inn valley). Subsequently M13 contin-ued alone, heading south down the samevalley and crossing the frontier into

BEAR REPORT 2012

31

Photo A - Awakening of M13 following capture in the Val dUl-timo (D. Righetti - Autonomous Province of Bolzano Archives)

Figure AHome range of M13 in 2012 (MCP) KORA Ecology of carnivoresand management of wild fauna Hunting and Fishing Office of theGrigioni Canton (CH)

Switzerland, where he was filmed near Scuol on at least one occasion. Following damagecaused by the bear, the Swiss authorities decided to equip him with a new GPS radio col-lar. The transmitter was fitted on 12 April 2012. Shortly afterwards, on 1 May 2012, M13met with an accident, being hit by a train in Switzerland in the Inn valley, fortunatelywithout serious consequences. However, the impact caused the GPS radio collar to break.

On 30 June the Swiss authorities saw to once again capturing and fitting a transmit-ter, which made it possible to follow the bear throughout the summer and autumn. In thisperiod M13 adopted a specific method for moving between Bormio (SO), Poschiavo (CH)and the Val Camonica (BS). Indeed the young bear crossed very high mountains no lessthan four times, remaining at high altitude for over 24 hours, during which he crossedglaciers and passes over 3,000 metres high in the Ortles-Cevedale, Adamello and Berninaranges (Figures B, C, D and E).

On one occasion he arrived at an altitude of 3,405 metres, the highest altitude everdocumented for a bear in Europe.

M13 then decided to spend the hibernation period in the Poschiavo area, his homerange in 2012 having covered an area of 3,701 km2.

As this report was about to be printed we learned that M13 had been shot down on 19February 2013 in Val Poschiavo (CH) by gamekeepers in the Grigioni Canton.

M13s satellite telemetry data was kindly provided by KORA - Ecology of carnivoresand management of wild fauna, and by the Hunting and Fishing Office of the GrigioniCanton (CH).

BEAR REPORT 2012

Figure B - First crossing of glaciers in the Ortles-Cevedale range KORA - Ecology of carnivores and management of wild fauna - Hunting and Fishing Office of the Grigioni Canton (CH)

32

BEAR REPORT 2012

33

Figure C - Crossing of glaciers in the Bernina rangeKORA - Ecology of carnivores and management of wild fauna - Hunting and Fishing Office of the Grigioni Canton (CH)

Figure D - Second crossing of glaciers in the Ortles-Cevedale range (13 Cime area)KORA - Ecology of carnivores and management of wild fauna - Hunting and Fishing Office of the Grigioni Canton (CH)

BEAR REPORT 2012

34

The genetic monitoring conducted withoutinterruption since 2002 has made it possibleto follow most of the bears in a continuingmanner, confirming their presence over timeand the home-ranges used, at least partially.These are recorded year by year for each in-dividual animal. As an example, below we givethe home-ranges (MCP) of the male Gasperand the female Daniza from 2004 to 2012(Figures 5 and 6). Naturally these figures areindicative and not in any way comparablewith those obtained from radiotelemetricmonitoring of animals, as compared to whichthey are likely to be significantly underesti-mated.

Figure 5Home-range of Gasper in the 2004-2012 period

Figure E - Crossing of glaciers in the Adamello rangeKORA - Ecology of carnivores and management of wild fauna - Hunting and Fishing Office of the Grigioni Canton (CH)

BEAR REPORT 2012

35

Figure 6Home-range of Daniza in the 2004-2012 period. The dotted lineshows the 2012 home-range resulting from satellite fixes

BEAR REPORT 2012

36

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 resolutionno. 1988 of 9 August 2002. With Resolutionno. 697 of 8 April 2011 the provincial govern-ment further reviewed the regulation of dam-age compensation, also providing for com-pensation of ancillary expenses and extending100% compensation to damage caused bylynx and wolves.

During 2012 new regulations were ap-proved on the compensation of damagecaused by wild animals, particularly brownbears, lynx and wolves (L.P. no. 6 of 24 April2012), modifying previous regulations in or-der to assure better guarantees of compensa-tion for those suffering damage.

The process of approving these regulationswas the result of three different bills, one ofpopular origin, which came together in a sin-gle proposal, leading to a new bill which in-troduced article 33 bis into Law no. 24/91 andalmost entirely cancelled the old article 33.

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 fencing or other protec-tive measures considered suitable, with thescope of reducing the damage caused bybrown bears. This takes place in two mainways: funding covering up to 90% of the costof works and/or gratuitous loans of preven-tion works mainly to protect livestock or bee-hives, along with support and consultancyprovided to farmers by technical experts, suchas the livestock liaison officers.

Finally, in the context of reducing bureau-cracy for the administration and the public,the forms relating to processes for damagecompensation, the granting of funding forprevention works and for reporting bearsand other large carnivores were reviewed andupdated in 2012.

Compensation for damage causedby bears

In 2012, 201 reports of damage caused bywild predators were forwarded to the Forestryand Wildlife Department. 191 cases of dam-age were attributed to brown bears (187 inwestern Trentino and 4 in eastern Trentino),with an increase of 55% as compared to 2011(123 cases of damage). In 1 case the predatorwas identified as a wolf, in 2 cases the dam-age was attributed to dogs, whereas in 7 cas-es the responsibility of predators was exclud-ed.

172 claims for compensation were re-ceived by the department, of which 169 havebeen processed (164 accepted and 5 reject-ed), while 3 are currently being examined.The remaining 29 reports were either not fol-lowed up by the claimant or a cumulativeclaim was presented by the damaged party forthe damage suffered.

In 82% of cases of damage, inspectionswere carried out by forestry staff, who wereresponsible for drawing up a report.

Overall, 97,800.29 compensation fordamage caused by brown bears was paid out,whereas no claim for compensation was pre-sented in the only case of damage attributedto a wolf.

The considerable increase in the numberof cases of damage as compared to the previ-ous year would once again appear to be linkedto the availability of wild fruit and nuts, giventhe scarcity in 2012, particularly in relation tobeechnuts.

In 56 cases, namely around 29% of all in-cidents recorded, genetic monitoring made itpossible to determine the identity of the

2. Damage compensation and prevention

bear/s involved with certainty. The animalscausing most damage were, as in 2010 and2011, M6 (in 9 cases - 16% of damage in

which the bear responsible was identified ge-netically), JJ5 and M2 (with 8 cases of dam-age - 14% each). However the bear causingthe most damage was Daniza, one of thefounding bears, accompanied by her 2 cubs.Once she had been fitted with a radio collar,through GPS fixes it was possible to attributeno less than 16 cases of dam-age to her (29% of the total),for an overall value of15,400 euro (16% of the to-tal compensation in 2012).

Thus almost three quar-ters of the damage (73%)which can be attributed to aknown animal involved justfour bears.

Daniza, together with an-other female bear (KJ1), ac-companied by 3 cubs, can al-so be attributed with one ofthe two most serious situa-tions involving damage in2012. This took place in theVal Ambiez with the killingof at least 24 sheep over a pe-

riod of around fifteen days (Photo 8). The twobears made several attacks on a flock protect-ed by a single electrified fence, which the

bears broke through severaltimes. In order to reduce theproblems caused to the shep-herd by the constant pres-ence of the bears and to en-courage him to remain nearthe flock at night, an accom-modation unit was trans-ported up the mountain us-ing a helicopter and intensemonitoring activities werecarried out by the emergencyteams. This interventionmade it possible for the shep-herd to better supervise hisflock and reduce the preda-tory activity of the bears,which only took place onone further occasion, whenthe sheep were taken to an

area of pasture where it was not possible forthe shepherd to remain overnight.

The second particularly problematical sit-uation linked to damage was caused by thebear called M2, who was attributed with prey-ing on around ten donkeys in the Val Rende-na and Val di Rabbi, (Photo 9) and a number

BEAR REPORT 2012

37

Photo 7 - Damage to a beehive (APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

Photo 8 - Preying on sheep in the upper Val Ambiez (M. Baldessari - APT Forestry andWildlife Department Archives)

BEAR REPORT 2012

38

of cows. Given the type of prey and in somecases the vicinity to inhabited areas, these in-cidents were given a great deal of publicity inthe local media and had a considerable impactat local level. As a result of the problems

caused by M2, he was captured (see specificchapter), with the scope of better followinghis movements and improving the efficacy ofpossible deterrent measures or eventually toremove him.

Photo 9 - A donkey preyed on by M2 (R. Calvetti - APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

Graph 18 shows the trend for damagecaused by brown bears and for which com-pensation has been paid since 1990, whereas

graphs 19 and 20 show the chronological dis-tribution of this damage in 2012 and in theperiod 2002-2012.

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

N o

f inc

iden

ts

Euro

Years

EuroN of incidents

Graph 18

Damage compensated from 1990 to 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

39

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

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

N o

f inc

iden

ts

Mounth

LIVESTOCKBEE-HIVESCROPSOTHER

Graph 19

No. of incidents ascertained by type in 2012

N o

f inc

iden

ts

Mounth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

LIVESTOCKBEE-HIVESCROPSOTHER

Graph 20

No. of incidents ascertained by type in 2002-2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

40

Prevention of damage by bearsFollowing internal reorganisation of the

Forestry and Wildlife Department, since 2011the District Forestry Offices have seen to thedistribution of prevention works in the formof gratuitous loans, while the Wildlife Officehas dealt with applications for the funding ofprevention works.

Overall, the new system has made it pos-sible to improve the service and in particularto improve contact between users and thestaff responsible for distributing materials. In-deed, in many cases it is forestry station staffwho suggest that applicants request preven-tion 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 ofthe various problems linked to the care andmaintenance of the works among users. Closecontact with users also allows evaluation ofthe validity of the materials supplied overtime and of whether they respond to the op-erational needs of users. Last but not least, anawareness of the siting of prevention worksby local forestry staff allows more effectivecontrol of their use.

During the year, a total of 128 applica-tions for prevention works to protect assetsfrom damage by brown bears were present-ed. Of these 113 were provided by the Dis-trict Forestry Offices in the form of gratu-itous loans (district offices: Mal 32, Tione

The geographical distribution of recorded damage can be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 7Geographical distribution of damage by bears recorded in 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

41

46, Trento 20, Cles 13, Rovereto 2), 62 ofwhich designed to protect beehives (476 intotal since 2002) and 51 livestock (359 in to-tal since 2002). The remaining 15 applica-tions concerned cattle and horses and weredealt with by the Wildlife Office. Of these, 6were accepted with funding of 60% of ad-

missible expenditure, 6 were rejected and 3cancelled as the prevention works were notcarried out or did not comply with the con-struction criteria required.

The overall expenditure borne by the Department, also thanks to funds from

the Life Arctos project(63.24% of the expendi-ture) amounted to a total ofaround 52,500 euro.

Below it is possible to seethe trend in the distributionof prevention works over anumber of years (Graph 21)and the different types ofworks in the period 2002-2012 (Graph 22), with refer-ence to livestock and bee-keeping.

Photo 10 - An electric fence around beehives (APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

- -

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

N o

f wor

ks fu

nded

Euro

Years

Euro

N of incidents

Graph 21

Prevention works funded from 1989 to 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

N o

f wor

ks fu

nded

Years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

LIVESTOCKBEE-HIVES

Graph 22

Prevention works funded from 2002 to 2012 by type

42

The geographical distribution of the worksset up in western Trentino in 2012 can beseen in Figure 8.

Figure 8Location of prevention works distributed in 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

43

Meetings with farmers and businesses

In 2012 the relations already started upfor some time with the sectors and farmersmost affected by the presence of bears andother large carnivores continued.

Once again, a Round Table with repre-sentatives of breeders, farmers and bee-keepers was organised, the meeting beingheld on 20 September 2012. During themeeting the provincial administration under-lined on the one hand its desire to constant-ly inform and update the relevant categoriesas regards the system for compensation andprevention of damage currently adopted, andto evaluate the experience of previous years,while on the other it expressed its intentionto listen to the needs and proposals of thoseinvolved and to gather any possible com-ments and suggestions that may emerge dur-ing consultation.

Intervention to support shepherds and protect livestock

The constant presence of the shepherd andthe adoption of more appro-priate systems for preventingdamage, along with fair com-pensation, are fundamentalin guaranteeing coexistencebetween large carnivores andlivestock reared in the moun-tains. Bearing this in mind,one of the objectives of theprovincial administration isto encourage shepherds tostay at high altitude withtheir flocks, also by providingtemporary shelters, and en-courage them to make use ofprevention works. These ob-jectives are also pursuedthrough the activities carriedout by the livestock liaisonofficers, which take the formof support and consultancy,mainly during the period ofalpine pasture. The main objective of the live-stock liaison officer is thus to establish collab-

orative relations with shepherds and to pro-vide training and information.

The organisation of the department cur-rently provides for subdivision of the provin-cial territory within which brown bears arepresent in a stable manner into 6 homoge-neous areas, with one person taking respon-sibility for each area. In 2012 a total of 43flocks with almost 17,000 sheep and 800goats overall were supervised or assisted.

The shepherds requesting assistance weresupplied with a total of 95 fences and 21fence electrifiers of adequate power (2.6joules), with rechargeable batteries fuelled bysolar panels.

Furthermore four prefabricated struc-tures (accommodation units) (Photo 11)were transported to the mountains to allowshepherds to remain close to their flocks dur-ing the night. In areas not reachable by othermeans, the material necessary for mountainpasture activities, the prevention works andthe accommodation units were transported tothe mountains by the helicopter unit of theFire and Civil Defence Service.

On at least 50 occasions the livestock liai-son officers or forestry staff from the relevant

Photo 11 - Transport of an accommodation unit to the mountains (APT Forestry andWildlife Department Archives)

BEAR REPORT 2012

44

areas carried out visits tosupport and control moun-tain pasture activities.

In 2012 there were 9 in-cidents involving damageby brown bears to the 21flocks protected (around14,000 sheep) (Photo 12).Overall, the deaths of 30sheep (0.2% of the livestockprotected) can be attributedto brown bears, 24 of thesheep being killed duringfour attacks on the sameflock.

As in 2011, the systematicadoption of prevention works (electric fences)and the constant consultancy and support pro-vided to shepherds by the livestock liaison of-ficers contributed towards reducing attacks bybears and the rapid solution of difficult situa-tions, despite the problems noted above.

In the overall context, a significant problemwhich has remained relevant regards the hir-ing of shepherds from Eastern Europe by theowners of flocks, relations sometimes provingdifficult, also due to language problems. Fur-

thermore there are unsolved, and probably un-solvable issues, at least in the short term,linked to specific situations in which thefarmer does not wish to accept the adoptionof prevention measures and management sys-tems compatible with the presence of largecarnivores. Ultimately it is believed that thesupport of figures such as the livestock liaisonofficers is indispensible for guaranteeing thecoexistence of livestock in the mountains withbrown bears.

Photo 12 - Flock of sheep (APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

BEAR REPORT 2012

45

The Law of 11 February 1992 no. 157 in-cludes the brown bear among the speciesgranted special protection (article 2, para-graph 1).

The D.P.R. of 8 September 1997 no. 357(subsequently amended and supplemented byD.P.R. 120/03), implementing the 92/43/EECdirective (Habitat Directive) regarding theconservation of natural and semi-natural habi-tats and wild flora and fauna, includes thisspecies in enclosure B (species of communityinterest, whose conservation requires the des-ignation of special areas of conservation) andD (species of community interest which re-quire strict protection), thus considering thebrown bear as a priority species.

The current national legal frameworktherefore forbids the disturbing, capture andkilling of large predators (D.P.R. 357/97, ar-ticle 8).

However, action may be taken to controlproblem bears in critical situations, in accor-dance with the provisions of national regula-tions (D.P.R. 357/97, article 11, paragraph 1;L. 157/92, article 19, paragraph 2; L. 394/91,article 11, paragraph 4 and article 22, para-graph 6), regional and provincial regulations.

Indeed, in order to avoid conflict with hu-man activities and for reasons of public safe-ty or for other compelling reasons of relevantpublic interest, the possibility of an exceptionto the ban on the capturing or killing of ani-mals is provided for, subject to the authorisa-tion of the Ministry for the Environment, Landand Seas, having consulted ISPRA, on condi-tion that there are no other practicable solu-tions and that departure from the rules doesnot prejudice the satisfactory conservation ofthe populations of the protected species,(D.P.R. 357/97, article 11 paragraph 1).

In the province of Trento the manage-ment of emergencies represents a field of ac-tion in which it has only been necessary to op-erate in the last few years, given theconsiderable expansion in the bear populationand more specifically as a result of the pres-

ence of a few animals considered to be prob-lematic.

In July 2003, the Autonomous Province ofTrento, in agreement with the Ministry for theEnvironment, Land and Seas, had already pre-pared a specific Protocol for action regardingproblem bears and intervention in critical sit-uations, in accordance with D.P.R. 357/97and subsequent amendments. Together withthe Plan of Action for the Conservation of theBrown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps, it rep-resents the document of reference for the op-erational programme.

This protocol provides the technical guide-lines on the basis of which the Forestry andWildlife Department, which represents theprovincial organisation of reference, has iden-tified, trained and equipped the staff in chargeof intervening in these situations. Operationalmanagement in Trentino is based on the useof staff from the Provincial Forestry Service(PFS), to which the Forestry and Wildlife De-partment makes recourse, through the settingup of a special unit which is on call.

This has been operational since 2004 andis active each year from March to November.In 2012 it was made up of 9 coordinators,who have the support of an emergency teamof two people, also on call in turn within agroup of specially chosen and trained staffmade up of 14 members. When necessary theteam is joined by veterinary staff from theprovincial health services (given special train-ing since 2008).

Activities of the emergency teamIn 2012 the activities of the emergency

team took place from 5 March to 3 December. During this period the coordinators re-

ceived 413 calls of various kinds, of which344 during the day (from 7.00 to 20.00), 18at night (from 20.00 to 7.00) and 51 at un-specified times. In addition to these, therewere an unspecified number of calls receivedand passed on in order to organise inspectionsto ascertain damage, set in motion and coor-

3. Management of emergencies

BEAR REPORT 2012

46

dinate the emergency team, inform the de-partment in more critical cases or simply toinform or reassure users.

The calls came from forestry service staffpresent in the area (227), directly from pri-vate citizens (105), forest wardens (14), theFire Service (5), the Wildlife Office (23), theforest emergency unit (4) or other parties(7), while 28 calls were of unknown prove-nance.

The calls mainly concerned the reportingof possible damage (211), sightings of bearsor the finding of signs of their presence (97),presumed problematical situations (33) orother aspects (72).

In numerous cases (160) no inspectionswere necessary, whereas in the other cases di-

rect intervention was requested: by forestryservice staff responsible for ascertaining dam-age (in 160 cases), by staff at the relevantforestry stations responsible for the area (66),by the staff of the emergency team (16) andby bear dog handlers (3).

In 2012 the emergency team was calledinto action 37 times (Graph 23), in most cas-es following reports of damage or the sightingof bears close to facilities frequented by manor inhabited areas (Photo 13). The activitiesof the team were mostly limited to watchingover and informing the population, while on-ly 7 cases (19% of call outs) involved visualcontact with the bear, during 6 of which thestaff carried out direct intervention to de-ter the animal.

N o

f cas

es o

f int

erve

ntio

n

Years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

The number of cases of direct intervention on bears is given in brackets

(1)

(5)

(0)

(7)

(15)

(2)

(6)

(4)

(6)

Graph 23

Emergency team call-outs in the period 2002-2012

The most significant cases requiring theintervention of the emergency team con-cerned: the Valle dei Laghi (Terlago area above all),

due to two bears (JJ5 and M6), who fre-quented farmyards close to dwellings, atnight, preying mostly on poultry. The unitintervened on a number of occasions todeter the bears and one of the two animals(JJ5) was subsequently captured in the

same area and died as a result of theanaesthesia (see chapter on captures onpage 49);

the Val Rendena and Val di Rabbi, wherefollowing repeated preying on donkeys andcows also close to inhabited areas, staff in-tervened to deter and capture the malebear M2;

the area at the Ballino pass (Tenno), wherebear dogs were used to deter Daniza and her

BEAR REPORT 2012

47

cubs while she was close to the carcass of ananimal she had killed.

The experience gained to date certainly re-inforces the theory that deterrence gives better

results if carried out on young and that it mustbe intensive and continuing. Furthermore, itshould undoubtedly be accompanied by theadoption and correct use of prevention works.

Photo 13 - Intervention by the emergency team (APT Forestry and Wildlife Department Archives)

The location of intervention by the emer-gency bear team in 2012 is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9Location of intervention by the emergency team in 2012

BEAR REPORT 2012

48

Close encounters with motherbears defending their cubs

There were a number of particularly sig-nificant incidents linked to so called falseattacks taking place during 2012 and in-volving female bears accompanied by theircubs.

On 24 May there was a close encounterbetween a mother bear accompanied by twocubs born during the year and three peoplein the woods above Carisolo.

Tests of organic samples collected andsatellite collar data made it possible to as-certain that the bear involved in the false at-tack was Daniza.

The incident was characterised by theclassic charge of the bear towards the peo-ple, to then return to her cubs once the dan-ger to them had been overcome. In this caseit should be noted that in order to defendhimself one of the people even hit the bear aglancing blow with a stick.

On 2 August two people met a motherbear accompanied by at least one cub bornduring the year in the area betweenSpormaggiore and Castel Belfort. In thiscase the bear bounded up to the protagoniststwice in rapid succession