Brown bear Ursus arctos - Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

ADOPTED 

By the Minister of Environment 

Precept No. . 

2009 . 

Action Plan 

For the Conservation of Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Latvia 

Photo by V. Vītola © 

Produced by: Latvian State Forestry Research Institute „Silava” 

Authors: Jānis OZOLIŅŠ, Guna BAGRADE, Agrita ŽUNNA, Aivars ORNICĀNS and 

Žanete ANDERSONE-LILLEY 

Salaspils 

2009 (2003) 

1

Contents 

LATVIAN SUMMARY .................…………….……………………………………….. 

SUMMARY …………………………….……….………..………………………………. 

INTRODUCTION ………………………….……….………..……………………………... 

1. SPECIES DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 

1.1. Taxonomy and morphology …….……….………..……………………………. 

1.2. Ecology and habitat ..………….…………………...………………………….. 

1.3. Species distribution .……………………………………………………..………………… 

1.4. Species status ...............………………………………..……………………… 

1.5. Current research and monitoring in Latvia and abroad ...……………………. 

2. REASONS FOR CHANGES IN THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT ………………. 

2.1. Factors affecting the population………………………………………………… 

2.2. Factors affecting the habitat …………………………………………………... 

3. CURRENT CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES AND ITS HABITAT ............................. 

3.1. Legislation .............................................…………………………………….. 

3.2. Species and habitat conservation measures .………………………………………… 

3.3. Bear conservation plan in relation to other species and habitat conservation plans … 

3.4. Risk analysis of implementation of the current Species conservation plan …….. 

4. GOALS AND TASKS OF THE SPECIES CONSEVATION PLAN …………………… 

5. SPECIES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION MEASURES ..................................... 

5.1. Legislation and nature conservation policy ………………………………………..... 

5.2. Species conservation measures ...........................……………………………………….. 

5.3. Habitat conservation measures ....................…………………………………… 

5.4. Species research and monitoring ………………………………………………………….. 

5.5. Awareness-raising and education ...................………………………………………………... 

5.6. Review of the implementation table ………………………………………………….... 

6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN ………………… 

7. REFERENCES ……………………………………… 

APPENDICES 

……………………………………………………………… 

2

Kopsavilkums 

 

Aizsardzības politika 

Sugas aizsardzības plāns ir izstrādāts saskaņā ar Sugu un biotopu aizsardzības likuma (izsludināts 

05.04.2000.) 17. panta prasībām un paredzēts lāču ilgtermiņa aizsardzības nodrošināšanai Latvijā un 

Baltijas populācijā. 

 

Populācijas stāvoklis 

Latvijā dzīvojošie brūnie lāči pieder Baltijas populācijai, kas ir apmēram 6800 indivīdu liela, taču 

izvietota galvenokārt uz ziemeļiem un austrumiem no mūsu valsts robežām. Latvijā lāči biežāk sastopami 

valsts austrumu daļā: Aizkraukles, Alūksnes, Balvu, Gulbenes, Jēkabpils, Limbažu, Ludzas, Madonas, 

Ogres, Rīgas, Valkas un Valmieras rajonos. Viens vai daži lāči uzturas arī valsts rietumos – Kurzemē. 

Lāču skaits Latvijā ir svārstīgs un vērtējams 10-15 indivīdu robežās. Nav pierādījumu, ka lāči Latvijas 

teritorijā vairotos. Populācijas eksistencē izšķiroša loma ir lāču ieceļošanas iespējām no kaimiņvalstīm. 

Lāču skaits un izplatība valstī ir salīdzinoši nemainīga kopš 20. gadsimta septiņdesmitajiem gadiem. 

 

Stāvoklis likumdošanā 

Brūnais lācis ir īpaši aizsargājams dzīvnieks saskaņā ar Sugu un biotopu aizsardzības likumu 

(05.04.2000) un Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 627 Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2000. gada 14. 

novembra noteikumos Nr. 396 “Noteikumi par īpaši aizsargājamo sugu un ierobežoti izmantojamo īpaši 

aizsargājamo sugu sarakstu” (14.11.2000) 1. pielikumu. Par brūnā lāča nogalināšanu vai savainošanu 

jāatlīdzina zaudējumi 40 minimālo mēnešalgu apmērā par katru indivīdu. 

 

Saglabāšanas mērķis 

Netraucēt dabiskos procesus, kas risinās vienotā Baltijas valstu un Krievijas rietumdaļas (Baltijas) 

brūno lāču populācijā, tajā skaitā dabisku izplatīšanos Latvijas teritorijā, neveicot pasākumus, lai mākslīgi 

paplašināt lāču areālu Latvijas teritorijā vai radītu vairoties spējīgu vietējo populāciju. 

 

Saglabāšanas prioritātes 

Uzturēt monitoringa sistēmu, lai iegūtu zināšanas par populācijas stāvokli un aizsardzībai turpmāk 

nepieciešamajiem pasākumiem. 

Sekot sabiedriskās domas tendencēm saistībā ar lāču populācijas stāvokli un interešu konfliktu 

biežumu. 

Savlaicīgi izplatīt objektīvu informāciju par lāčiem un ar tiem saistītiem notikumiem masu saziņas 

līdzekļos, neveicinot mītu, nostāstu un pārspīlējumu rašanos. Organizēt izskaidrošanas darbu par 

faktoriem, kas kavē lāču atgriešanos Latvijā, un nosacījumiem, kas jāievēro, lai droši sadzīvotu ar šo 

apdraudēto savvaļas sugu. 

Samazināt tiešu traucējumu laikā, kad lāči meklē vietu ziemas midzenim un ziemas guļas periodā (no 

1. novembra līdz 31. martam). Pasākums veicams, pamatojoties uz pierādījumiem par lāču atrašanos 

3

konkrētajā teritorijā un panākot vienošanos ar attiecīgās teritorijas apsaimniekotājiem. Neieviest 

bezkompromisa prasības, kas padara neiespējamu iedzīvotāju līdzšinējo saimniecisko darbību vai atpūtas 

tradīcijas un tādejādi noskaņo sabiedrību pret sugas atjaunošanu Latvijā. 

 

Veicamie pasākumi 

Jāuztur elektronisks lāču izplatības faktu reģistrs (datu bāze), ko iespējams aktualizēt un papildināt gan 

profesionāliem speciālistiem, gan brīvprātīgiem ziņotājiem. 

Ievācot materiālu no Latvijas lāčiem (apmatojums, svaigi ekskrementi), jāturpina ģenētiskie pētījumi par 

dzīvnieku izcelsmi sadarbībā ar Igaunijas speciālistiem. 

Informācija par lāču izplatīšanās ceļiem jāizmanto, izvērtējot vides prasības Latvijas transporta tīkla 

rekonstrukcijai un attīstībai. 

Jāuztur kontakti un informācijas apmaiņa ar Latvijas biškopības biedrību. 

Jāsadarbojas ar medību tiesību lietotājiem, mežu īpašniekiem un apsaimniekotājiem, tos informējot par 

lāču izplatības faktiem un aizsardzības aktualitātēm. 

Jāorganizē izglītojošs darbs skolu jaunatnei. 

Konfliktu gadījumos lēmumu par lāča bīstamību jāpieņem vienu un to pašu speciālistu grupai vai 

pārstāvim neatkarīgi no konflikta vietas un rakstura. 

Nākošā rīcības plāna aktualizācija veicama 2014. gadā. 

4

Summary 

 

Conservation policy 

Species Action Plan is elaborated according to Clause 17 of the Species and Habitat Protection Law 

(issued on 05.04.2000.). It is designed for the long-term conservation of bears in Latvia and the whole 

Baltic population. 

 

Population status 

Latvian brown bears belong to the Baltic population consisting of about 6800 individuals, most of who are 

found to the north and east from the Latvian border. In Latvia, bears are most common in the eastern part of the 

country: in Aizkraukle, Alūksne, Balvi, Gulbene, Jēkabpil, Limbaži, Ludza, Madona, Ogre, Rīga, Valka 

and Valmiera districts. The numbe of bears in Latvia fluctuates about 10-15 individuals. There is no 

evidence of breeding in the territory of Latvia. Immigration of bears from the neighbouring countries is 

critical for the Latvian bear population’s existence. The number and distribution of bears in the country is 

relatively unchanged since the 1970s. 

 

Legislation. 

According to the Species and Habitat Protection Law (05.04.2000.) and to Annex I of the Regulations No. 

396 of the Cabinet of Ministers „Regulation on the species list of especially protected species and of species 

of limited use” (14.11.2000.), brown bear is a specially protected species. The fine for killing or injuring a 

brown bear is 40 minimum salaries for each individual. 

 

Conservation objective 

Not to disturb natural processes happening in the joint Baltic brown bear population (comprising the 

Baltic States and western part of Russia), including natural dispersal of bears in the territory of Latvia 

while at the same time not undertaking any special measures in order to artificially increase bear 

distribution in Latvia or to establish a local breeding population. 

 

Conservation priorities 

To maintain the monitoring system in order to obtain data on the population status an necessary 

conservation measures. 

To follow trends in public opinion in relation to the brown bear population status and the frequency of 

interest conflicts. 

To timely spread objective information on bears and related issues in the mass media, preventing 

rumours and exaggerations. To explain factors preventing the return of the brown bear to Latvia and 

preconditions for a safe co-existence with this species. 

To reduce direct disturbance during the time when bears are looking for winter dens as well as during 

hibernation (1 November – 31 March). This should be base done the evidence of bear presence in a given 

area achieving the agreement with the appropriate territory managers. Not to introduce non-compromising 

5

equirements that make the existing activities and territory uses impossible, thus creating a negative 

attitude towards species renovation in Latvia. 

Measures 

To maintain an electronic database on bear distribution that could be updated by both professionals and 

volunteer reporters. 

To collect samples from the Latvian bears (hairs, fresh scats) in order to continue genetic research of the 

individuals’ origin in cooperation with the Estonian experts. 

Information on bear dispersal routes should be used when assessing environmental requirements for 

reconstruction and development of the Latvian road network. 

To keep in touch and exchange information with the Latvian beekeepers’ society. 

To cooperate with users of hunting rights, forest owners and managers, informing them about bear 

distribution and conservation news. 

To organise awareness-raising among schoolchildren. 

In case of conflicts, the decision about whether a bear poses a threat to the public should always be taken 

by the same group of experts regardless of the location and nature of the conflict. 

The next update of the plan to be carried out in 2014. 

6

Introduction 

Despite its rarity in modern Latvia, brown bear Ursus arctos is a typical mammal species of the East 

Baltic that came to the territory of Latvia after the last Ice Age, i.e., about 9,000-11,000 years ago 

(Tauriņš 1982; Timm et al. 1998). In the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century, the Latvian 

brown bear population was totally destroyed and there is no evidence of breeding in the territory of Latvia 

for more than 100 years. Looking at this fact superficially, it is unclear why there are so few bears in the 

country that on the whole still has got very rich biodiversity while in neighbouring Estonia bear 

population is so big that it should be regulated by hunting. At the same time, it is possible that the 

absence of bears in the habitat has a smaller impact on other species compared to other large carnivores – 

wolves, lynx and wolverines (that are extinct in Latvia). Bear’s ecological niche is not so unique and 

overlaps with other, more numerous species, such as badger, pine marten and wild boar. Besides, these 

food competitors of the brown bear breed much quicker and adapt to the human presence much easier. 

As the largest European predator with a relatively long life expectancy and seasonally divided life cycle, 

bear has a lot of specific requirements in relation to its environment. These requirements are related to the 

rest of the natural environment, human activities and also such environmental factors as climate. Due to 

the scarcity of bears in Latvia, the inventory of these requirements in Latvia is still not finished, therefore, 

we are unable to provide any specific recommendations for habitat conservation and improvement, 

including establishment of new protected areas which is usually the most essential measure in rare species 

conservation. It is much more important at the moment to carefully monitor population development and 

to ensure cooperation between the relevant institutions as well as to inform and raise awareness amongst 

the general public. 

The most important task at the moment is to assess as fully as possible human – bear coexistence. This 

assessment should be based both on the local and international experience. At the same time one has to 

realise that if the bear conservation is successful and its protection regime is increased, it is likely that 

these animals will come into contact with humans more and more often and that will be the determining 

factor for the brown bear’s future in our country. 

The goal of the updated bear action plan is to provide the existing species conservation system with 

the newest scientific information and experience obtained since 2003. The most significant difference 

in the updated plan is a broader, more regional approach and a stronger emphasis on species 

conservation measures in Latvia in close connection with the status on the Baltic population level. 

7

1. Species description 

1.1. Taxonomy and morphology 

Brown bear is a mammal that belongs to the order of carnivores (Carnivora), bear family (Ursidae). 

There are 8 bear species in the world (Kruuk 2002) of those brown bear along with the polar bear are the 

largest ones (Гептнер и.д.1967). Various taxonomists published very different division into sub-species. 

However, according to any of those divisions, it is the Eurasian brown bear Ursus arctos arctos that is 

found in Latvia and the neighbouring countries. Body length of an adult brown bear male can reach 

200cm, its weight – 300hk. Some individuals can reach even up to 480kg (Новиков 1956). Females on 

average are smaller: about 70% of male’s length (Гептнер и.д.1967) and about 200kg (Kojola, Laitala 

2001). Sex dimorphism can also be seen in the growth rate – males grow faster but after 10 years the 

difference between sexes in the weight growth rate stops. Skull measurements in Sweden show that males 

continue growing in length up to the age of 5-8 years, females – up to 3-4 years (Iregren et al. 2001). 

There are no other significant signs of sexual dimorphism amongst bears. According to the body size and 

especially skull measurements in relation to the age it is possible to judge the geographic and population 

origin of an individual (Iregren, Ahlström 1999). 

The body is massive, with a big head, long muzzle and short, thick neck (Fig. 1). In poor light 

conditions, it is possible to mistake a bear for a wild boar that can be the reason of non-premeditated 

killing of a bear by hunters. 

The fur is long and thick. Pelt colour varies from greyish- or yellowish-brown to dark brown or 

almost black (Tauriņš 1982). In Belarus, young animals with a white collar zone or white spots on the 

chest and shoulders are described (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

The main indirect signs of bar presence (Clevenger 1994) are footprints (Fig. 2), scats and claw marks 

on trees. Russian scientists regards the width of the front paw’s print a sure individual sign that strongly 

correlates with the body weight, it exceeds 13.5cm in adult specimens (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

8

Fig.1. A silhouette of a subadult bear (by V. Vītola). 

Fig. 2. The print of a brown bear’s front paw (left) and hind paw (right). 

1.2. Ecology and habitat 

Brown bears are not as fussy in habitat selection as it is often believed. The main requirements 

towards the environment are plentiful food and safe hibernation and breeding places. In Latvia, such 

conditions can be best ensured by non-fragmented forest massifs with little human disturbance as well as 

islands in big peat bogs. 

9

Brown bears are omnivores and feed mainly by picking food from the ground, digging it from the soil, 

tearing the bark off trees and stumps as well as grazing and browsing on plants. However, in certain parts 

of its distribution range and in certain seasons, hunting (by stalking) is also important as well as fishing in 

sites of fish concentrations (Новиков 1956, Гептнер и.д.1967, Сабанеев 1988, Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993, 

Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Plant food constitutes a high proportion of its diet: In the Pskov oblast, bears 

often feed the fields of oats or mixture of oats/peas (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). In early summer, bears 

browse on young tree shoots and leaves, especially aspens. In mid-summer and its second half, wild 

berries become a staple food. In the autumn, acorns are consumed. However, seasonally, especially in the 

northern part of the bear distribution range (Новиков 1956), meat plays an important role in the bear diet. 

Bear can prey on big animals. In northern Scandinavia, in spring and summer, the staple food for bears 

are adult moose and reindeer, in the second half of the summer they switch to wild berries, although still 

consume a lot of wild ungulates - up to 30% of the energy consumed (Persson et al. 2001). Wild boar is 

preyed upon rarely. Bears also attack livestock, especially horses and cattle. Animals that learned to look 

for food in human settlements, also attack chickens and other domestic birds. It is concluded that in the 

NW of Russia, bear attacks on livestock almost ceased when in the second half of the 20 th century moose 

density increased and small farms were destroyed by collectivisation. Also in Estonia, livestock damage 

is very infrequent. In spring, carcasses (especially those of moose) of animals that died due to injuries by 

hunters or fell through the ice are a significant part of the diet (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Ants and their 

larvae play an important role in the bear diet. In order to get them, bears actively excavate anthills. In 

Sweden, it was found out that ant remains form up to 16% of scat volume. Ants are especially important 

to bears in springtime when other foods are scarce and ants, due to low temperatures, are sluggish and 

concentrate in the upper part of the anthill (Swenson et al. 1999). Also in Belarus, bears actively excavate 

anthills after snowmelt (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

In Eurasia, brown bears normally pose no threat to humans. Even mother bears, when defending 

their cubs, usually scare a human away with a series of snarls and short chase instead of direct attack 

(Новиков 1956). Some cases are known from Russia when bears displayed aggressive behaviour even 

towards tractors, although such situations usually have some explanation (Κорытин 1986). An injured 

bear can be very dangerous. Attacks on humans are much more common for the North American subspecies 

of the brown bear – grizzly bear (Floyd 1999, Kruuk 2002). 

Daily activity is not particularly cyclic (Гептнер и.д. 1967). In Latvia, bear observations can 

happen during any time of day but the damage to beehives is usually done during the night. 

Brown bear does not truly hibernate. Its body temperature decreases by 3-5˚C only, and bears 

keep the ability to synthesise all the necessary amino acids (Hissa 1997). Observations from Russia show 

that in the first phase of hibernation the bear can quickly leave the den if disturbed or if it smells food, 

e.g., a moose approaching (Сабанеев 1988). For hibernation, bears choose undisturbed sites, e.g., 

windfalls, islands in the bogs or lakes. In NW Russia, 70% of the known bear dens were situated in 

spruce growths (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). According to the Swedish data, female bears on average spend 

181 day in a den. Females that give birth to cubs during that winter “sleep” about a month longer than 

single females. Hibernation period starts in the end of October, although even before that females attend 

the den site more often than the rest of their home range. Starting from the 6 th week before hibernation, 

female bears decrease their level of activity and hang around the den site. If disturbed in the beginning of 

hibernation, females do not come back to the den but choose a new site up to 6km away from the previous 

one (Friebe et al. 2001). 

Although there have been several reports on finding bear hibernation dens in Latvia (Pilāts, 

Ozoliņš 2003), we did not succeed in checking those cases. On 23 January 2005, during wild boar hunting 

with beaters in the Beja forestry unit (Alūksne district) a big male was disturbed in its den (Ozoliņš 2005). 

10

The bear quickly left the den, did not attack the dogs and ran across a clear-cut. It urinated on the run and 

the position of urine on both sides of the track was an indication that it was a male bear. The den was 

situated about 5m from the western edge of the clear-cut between small (up to 3m high) spruce trees. 

There was a slight depression that was covered by spruce twigs obtained from the nearby young spruce 

trees. The biggest spruce tree (trunk diameter 9cm) was broken in such a way as to cover the den from the 

western side. The den was only about 400m form a frequently used forest track. The clear-cut was wet, 

with water puddles, overgrown by 2-5m tall birches and some spruces, aspens and willows. A few metres 

away, an older den, possibly used by the bear during the previous winter, was found. In the vicinity, there 

were lots of signs of moose and wild boar. A print of a front paw was found nearby, its size (17.5cm) 

showed that the bear was a big adult male (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). This incident proves that the opinion 

from the Latvian Red Data Book (Andrušaitis 2000) that Latvian bears do not hibernate is not correct and 

is most likely due to the data on the winter activities of the individuals that were woken up from 

hibernation by disturbance. 

Brown bear is polygamous. Males live separately and do not take part in raising cubs. The mating 

season takes place in early summer – June-first half of July. Bears mature sexually at the age of 5-8 years. 

Females mate only every second year as cubs stay with the mother up to 2 years (Гептнер и.д. 1967, 

Tauriņš 1982, Lõhmus 2002). Cubs are born during hibernation in the second half of winter. Their weight 

does not exceed 500g at birth (Новиков 1956). In the Novgorod and Pskov oblast, the average litter size 

is 2.23 (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). In Estonia, the average litter size is 1.8 (Lõhmus 2002). Potential 

fecundity of bears can be much higher – up to 6 cubs but such cases are rare (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

Usually, mother bear does not defend cubs in the den and abandon them when escaping but in spring and 

summer, after leaving the den, it actively defends cubs, also from humans (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Sex 

ratio at birth is 1:1, though there is a slight male prevalence in the population (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

When dispersing from the central part of the population towards the edge of the homerange and to new 

territories, a different demographic structure forms: the proportion of males increases, especially that of 

sub-adult males 2-4 years old (Swenson et al. 1998). Also, females have smaller litters (Kojola, Laitala 

2000). When studying dispersal differences between male and female grizzly bears, it was concluded that 

this kind of information is very important. It helps planning protected areas in such a way that facilitates 

restoration of the distribution range, decreases inbreeding and animal mortality outside the protected areas 

(McLellan, Hovey 2001). 

Bears do not have natural enemies in Europe and their life span may exceed 30 years (Гептнер 

и.д. 1967). Cubs have a high mortality in their first year. It is known that cubs can be killed by other adult 

bears. It is believed that this is mainly done by immigrant adult males (Swenson, Sandegren et al. 2001). 

According to the Scandinavian research, young bears can be killed up to the age of 3 years. The reasons 

for this phenomenon are unclear (Swenson, Dahle et al. 2001). In Belarus, it is believed that wolves are to 

be blamed for the mortality of cubs and juveniles (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). 

Under favourable conditions, bear numbers can increase relatively quickly. In Scandinavia, it was 

found that in 1985-1995, the annual population increase was 10-15% (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Besides, it is 

typical for bears to disperse outside the main distribution range before the carrying capacity is reached in 

its central part (Swenson et al. 1998). 

Due to a long life span and successful survival of adult individuals, even very small micropopulations 

can survive for a certain period. In the West Pyrenees, on the border between France and 

Spain, only 6 bears live in an area of 1000 km², and in the South Alps in Italy, 4 bears live in an area of 

240 km². Such isolated populations cannot exist in the long term without artificial measures like 

introduction of new animals (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Modelling the development of a grizzly bear 

11

population, it was concluded that the minimum population size should be 200-250, and the area – 8556 – 

17 843 km², depending on the possible density in a given area (Wielgus 2002). 

In Latvia, boreal forests are the most appropriate bear habitat, especially where spruce dominates, 

with admixture of other tree species. It requires diverse forest structure, thick undergrowth, numerous 

rivers and lakes, raised bogs with lots of inaccessible places like windfalls (Новиков 1956, Tauriņš 1982, 

Vaisfeld, Chestin1993). 

1.3. Species distribution 

The brown bear appeared in the territory of Latvia in the early holocene, i.e., around 8000 (Tauriņš 1982; 

Mugurēvičs Ē., Mugurēvičs A. 1999). Estonian researchers mention an even earlier date no later than 

11,000 years ago (Valdmann and Saarma 2001). Excavations show that during the bronze era (1500 BP) 

bear remains constituted 5.3% of all hunting remains in Latvian pre-historic settlements (Mugurēvičs Ē., 

Mugurēvičs A. 1999). Many bears were hunted in Latvia up to the second half of the 19th century. 

Between 19 th and 20 th century, only a few bears remained in the eastern part of Latvia, around Lubāna and 

Gulbene (Grevė 1909). The territory of Latgale was not mentioned in the report on bear distribution at the 

time but it is believed that the remaining individuals in the eastern part of Vidzeme were not isolated from 

the Russian population. Therefore, W.L. Lange (1970) mentions in his distribution map a link between 

the areas of Lubāna and Gulbene and the border with Russia as late as in 1900. The last local bears in that 

area were killed in 1921 – 1926. In the period between two world wars, those bears that periodically came 

to Latvia in the area where the borders between Latvia, Estonia and Russia meet were promptly shot 

between two world wars. Due to this reason, the former Forest Department deliberately did not report the 

known bear observations to the forest rangers (Lange 1970), and bears were not mentioned in the official 

Latvian game statistics before WWII (Kalniņš 1943). Bears began coming from Russia more often 

starting from 1946 (Lange 1970), but only in the 1970s, thanks to the information obtained by J. 

Lipsbergs, it was confirmed that bears are found in Latvia regularly (Tauriņš 1982). In the second half of 

the 20 th century, bear population started recovering throughout Europe, the number increasing almost 

twofold (Mitchell-Jones 1999). In Central Europe, bear return happens mainly in the mountainous areas 

(Kaczensky, Knauer 2001) resulting in a few isolated populations (Fig. 3). 

In Estonia, the bear number in the official statistics exceeded 100 already in the 1950s. The maximum 

(more than 800 bears) was registered in the late 1980s and nowadays the population is estimated to be 

around 600. It should be noted that in the second part of the 1980s, about 60 bears were harvested 

annually for a few years in a row. Data on the bear density in the Pskov oblast in Russia confirm that 

bears are relatively scarce in that area, while around lake Peipsi and the Estonian border zone the bear 

density is 2-3 times higher (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). However, in absolute numbers, the bear population 

in Pskov oblast is strong (>1000 ind.) and is growing in the recent years (Gubarj 2007). In Belarus, bears 

are most common in the north, especially in the Berezin nature reserve. In Lithuania, bears are occasional 

immigrants and they are not regarded as a part of the local fauna (Prūsaite et al. 1988). 

12

Fig. 3. Brown bear distribution in Europe in the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st century (after 

Swenson et al. 2000). 

From March to September 1999, a survey on bear occurrence was carried out in all Latvian head 

forestry units (except the head forestry of Bauska) as well as in all nature reserves. In total, 220 

questionnaires were distributed, and 104 (47.3%) questionnaires were returned. In order to verify the most 

recent data, in summer 1999, 9 expeditions were organised to those forestry units where bears were 

included into the official census or fresh tracks were seen in the last 6 months: Birži, Dviete, Katleši, 

Naukšēni, Nereta, Pededze, Ramata, Viesīte and Zilupe forestry units. During those expeditions, forestry 

workers and local inhabitants were additionally interviewed about bear observations and damage. Also, a 

search was done for fresh bear tracks on forest roads. The majority of questionnaires mentioned 

observations that were older than 3 years. In all 66 questionnaires that mentioned more or less recent 

information on the bear presence, respondents also mentioned the signs that proved bear occurrence. In 57 

cases, bear activity igns were reported, in 37 cases, bears were observed directly. Only in 3 cases bear 

cubs were observed, in other 3 cases also dens were found. Those 66 questionnaires also reported 5 bears 

that got killed in Latvia. Two more cases (after 1999) are known from Alūksne district, and one bear was 

deliberately shot in Valmiera district in order to prevent danger to humans. Relatively little information 

was acquired on bear-caused damage – only 8 cases. In 7 cases, bears damaged beehives, and one 

13

questionnaire mentioned considerable damage to an oat field. A significant case of the damage was 

reported in August-September in Krāslava district, Svariņi municipality when a bear destroyed 6 beehives 

in 4 attacks. In 2005, damage to apiaries in Krāslava district happened again – in total, 8 beehives were 

destroyed on two farms. In 2007, in Alūksne district, Ilzene municipality, 7 beehives and a portable base 

for beehives were damaged. 

BALTIC SEA 

ESTONIA 

? 80 

79 81 80 79 

79 79 72 79 79 

84 

79 

79 

80 78 79 

78 

79 

79 

RUSSIA 

90 79 79 79 

79 77 79 

83 83 

65 

76 78 79 79 77 77 

77 88 

92 84 82 

89 85 84 

78 79 

85 

89 85 

84 

77 85 

77 

82 82 

77 

85 

86 78 

LITHUANIA 

82 

79 

78 

78 

? 

77 

BELARUS 

Fig. 4. Bear observation sites and years (according to the data by J. Lipsbergs). The background shows 

forest cover and borders of head forestry districts in 1990-1999. 

By putting the data on the Latvian forest map, the bear distribution based on the data by 

J.Lipsbergs was obtained (Fig. 4). The map based on the 1999 survey is shown in Fig. 5. Since 2000, the 

situation has not changed significantly, though bears are less often observed on the left bank of Daugava 

in the last few years. One bear was rumoured to be shot a couple of years ago in Lithuania not far from 

the Latvian border (P. Blūzma, personal communication). The most recent distribution data can be seen in 

Fig. 6. 

14

86-87 

BALTIC SEA 

84 

88 

90-93 

96 

92 

85 

ESTONIA 

91 

96 

89 

80 

84 

81 

RUSSIA 

88 

83 95 

95 

92-95 

74 

93-94 

LITHUANIA 

91 

85-96 

93-94 

96 

BELARUS 

Fig. 5. Bear distribution in Latvia based on the survey of 1999. The background shows forest distribution 

and borders of head forestry districts in 1990-1999. 

Bears that were present in Latvia in 1999 

Bears that spend part of the time in Latvia, part in the neighbouring countries 

Bear observations in 1997 or 1998 

95 

Previous bear observations 

15

6. att. Sites where bears were observed most often after 2000 (mainly the data of the State Forest Service). 

When assessing bear distribution data, it should be taken into account that bears cover long distances 

in spring after hibernation in order to find food as well as during the mating season when looking for a 

partner. Such a high mobility caused by the low population density or lack of food can give a wrong 

impression of the increase in the bear numbers and distribution (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993). Even though 

bear distribution in Latvia in the last 20 years can be regarded as stable, it is unclear how their distribution 

is related to the number of individuals, i.e., whether the number of resident bears in Latvia has remained 

stable. The most important bear areas where bears are most often observed are Aizkraukle, Alūksne, 

Balvi, Gulbene, Jēkabpils, Limbaži, Ludza, Madona, Ogre, Rīga, Valka and Valmiera districts (Fig. 6). 

According to the State Forest Service data, bear number in Latvia fluctuates around 3-15 (at the moment 

no more than 12) (Fig. 7). It is still unknown whether bear dispersal westwards is related to the increase in 

the bear density within the country or whether bears observed in the central and western part of Latvia are 

immigrants from the neighbouring countries that have crossed eastern Latvia on the way. 

16

Brown bear population status in Latvia in comparison to the neighbouring countries. 

Table 1. 

Estonia Latvia Lithuania Pskov Belarus 

oblast 

Area (km 2 ) 45,227 64,589 65,200 55,300 207,600 

Humn population 1,35 2,3 3,5 0,7 9,7 

(million) 

Forest cover (%) 45 46* 30 >35 34 

Bear population 

500 10-15 0 1100 50-70 

(expert estimates) 

Number of bears 20-30 - - 23 - 

harvested per year 

Hunting season 01.08.-31.10. - - 01.08.-28.02. - 

Estimate basis Females with 

cubs are 

counted 

Accidental 

observations 

- State 

monitoring 

Expert 

opinions 

* In 2008, it was 50.2% (according to the Forest Register data) 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Fig.7. Bear dynamics in Latvia since 1990 (according to the official statistics of the State Forest Service). 

1.4. Species status 

Bears have been protected in Latvia since 1977. The status of the brown bear in Latvia is still the 

same as described in teh Lavian Red Data Book of 1980 (Andrušaitis 1985): Category 2 – rare species 

which are not endangered but occur in such low numbers or in such a restrictedand specific area that 

they can go extinct rapidly; a special state legilsative protection is necessary. In the new Latvian Red 

Data Book (Andrušaitis 2000) the bear is included in Category 3 (according to the IUCN system) with the 

same definition as in the former Category 2. 

Also in the Red Data Book of the Baltic region (Ingelög et al. 1993) the bear is included in Category 3 for 

Latvia. The Baltic population of the brown bear on the whole can be regarded as “of least concern” 

17

(Linnell et al. 2008). Also on the global scale, the species is not endangered (Least Concern - The IUCN 

Red List of Threatened Species, 2008) 

1.5. Current research and monitoring in Latvia and abroad 

Bear monitoring in Latvia started in the 1970s, when collecting data for the first issue of the 

Latvian Red Data Book (Andrušaitis 1985). The main role here was played by zoologist J. Lipsbergs 

(Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003). 

The best monitoring traditions and experiences are in the countries that have kept their bear 

populations until nowadays or successfully restored them – Russia, Northern Europe, in the Carpathians 

and the Balkans (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999; Zedrosser et al. 2001). On 16-17 May 2002, an international 

workshop on monitoring systems on large carnivores was held in Helsinki. Carnivore experts from 

Northern Europe – Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltics – participated in the workshop. In 

Scandinavia, the following information is used for the bear monitoring: attacks on livestock and semidomestic 

reindeer, occasional observations, harvested or unintentionally killed individuals, genetic 

sample database, hunters’ observations, capture-recapture method and radio-telemetry. In Finland, 

additional information comes from the so-called wildlife census triangles. This method is based on 

registering all found tracks on a triangular route during snow conditions. Such triangles are located 

throughout the country. It is possible to compare track indices (number of tracks per route km) for each 

species both between years and regions. Information on the Russian bear population and monitoring 

methods is summarised in the detailed monograph (Vaisfeld, Chestin 1993), while the most recent 

information can be found in special periodic issues devoted to the assessment of hunting resources 

(Gubarj 2007). For the future work in Latvia, it is important to know that in Russian Karelia, the 

following parameters of the front paw’s print (cm) are used for determining the age structure of the 

population: sub-adult cubs up to 1 year – 6-9, 1-2 year old cubs – 9.5-11.5, older than 2 years – ≥12. Also 

in Estonia, bear population structure is determined by the footprints of the front paws. Information about 

winter dens is an important part of the bear monitoring in Estonia (Lõhmus 2002). In Latvia, scientific 

data analysis is not being done apart from one publication on the population status (Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003). 

Research and data collection on bears along the northern Latvian border took place in 2003-2005 

within a PIN-Matra funded project “Integrated Wetland and Forest Management in the Transborder Area 

of North Livonia” (Ozoliņš et al. 2005). 

Public opinion on bears was studied and compared to the attitude towards the other two species of 

large carnivores – lynx and wolves (Andersone and Ozoliņš 2004). 

Lots of useful information is provided by the bear research and monitoring experience from 

Austria (Proschek 2005, Rauer 2008). This is a country that is by ¼ bigger than Latvia (83,858km 2 ) and 

where the bear population was also totally eradicated in the 19 th century. Some problems are similar to 

those in Latvia. In Austria, no more than 15-20 bears were found in the last few years and they belong to 

the so called Alps population (30-50 bears in total). In 2008, the population in Austria collapsed to only 

two individuals. The first bear immigrated to Austria from Slovenia only in 1972. In the 1990s, WWF- 

Austria arranged a re-introduction of 4 animals (from Slovenia and Croatia) of both sexes. These animals 

were fitted with radio-collars and were closely monitored. These animals (3 of which were females) had 

in total 31 offspring by 2008. Most litters had 3 cubs. Austria has a bear conservation plan. The 

monitoring is carried out in several directions: registering direct observations and footprints, investigating 

conflict situations, telemetry, DNA sampling. All these years, the state and the municipality budgets have 

covered the expense of employing a “bear manager” Dr. Georgs Rauers. He found out that bears in 

18

Austria “disappear” after reaching the age of 1-2 years. There have been some conflict situations during 

the research time but only two “problem bears” had to be destroyed. Only one relatively firm case of 

poaching was found. Potential motivation reasons for bear poaching are the wish to get a trophy, getting 

rid of a competitor for ungulate hunting and mistakenly taking bear for a wild boar. The interaction 

between bear conservation and game management interests is a very delicate issue in Austria as mass 

media and a part of the society use the problem of bear killing as an argument against hunting in general. 

In their turn, hunters and foresters are the main reporters that provide information for the monitoring. 

Methods of bear monitoring are summarised in international publications (Linnell et al. 1998). 

The majority of methods are elaborated and tested in North America. The most appropriate method for 

Latvia would be registering females with cubs as it is done in Estonia (counting the cubs as well) (P. 

Männil, pers.com.). In additions, they collect fresh scats and hairs (from hair traps) in Estonia. This 

material is used for the DNA analysis in order to tell apart individual bears. 

2. Reasons for changes in the species and its habitat 

2.1. Factors affecting the population 

IUCN’s Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) has formulated 4 main threats to the European 

populations of the brown bear (www.lcie.org): 

1. Some populations are too small and isolated for a long-term existence; 

2. There is some concern that in the countries where bear hunting is legal, hunting quotas may be too 

high to allow self-sustainable population; 

3. Bears cause damage to livestock and conflict mitigation is not ensured; 

4. The transport infrastructure fragments bear habitats and is an additional mortality factor. 

5. 

Influencing factors and their significance to Latvia are assessed in Table 2. 

19

Brūno lāču populāciju ietekmējošie faktori Eiropā un to aktualitāte Latvijā* 

Table 2. 

Apdraudējums 

Pagātnē 

(2008) 

1 2 3 4 

Biotopu iznīcināšana vai degradēšana cilvēka darbības rezultātā: 

Lauksaimniecība 

Mežizstrāde 

Infrastruktūras attīstība: rūpniecība 

X ? X 

Infrastruktūras attīstība: 

apbūve 


tūrisms/rekreācija 


ceļu būve 

Ieguve: 

Likumīgas medības un ķeršana 

Nelikumīga vajāšana: 

X 

X 

X 

Nogalināšana ar šaujamieročiem 

Lamatas / cilpas 

X X X 

Indēšana 

Transports: 

Sadursmes uz autoceļiem un dzelzceļiem 

Dabas katastrofas: 

Vētras / plūdi 

Meža ugunsgrēki 

Lavīnas / nogruvumi 

Izmaiņas vietējo sugu sastāvā: 

Konkurenti 

Laupījums / barības bāze 

Slimības / parazīti 

Iekšpopulāciju procesi: 

Ierobežota izplatīšanās spēja 

20

Nepietiekama vairošanās/atražošana 

1 

2. tabulas 

turpinājums 

2 3 4 

Augsta mazuļu mirstība 

Inbrīdings 

Zems apdzīvotības blīvums 

Nepareiza attiecība starp dzimumiem 

Lēns pieaugums 

X X X 

Lielas skaita svārstības 

Ierobežots areāls 

Tieša traucēšana: 

Atpūta / tūrisms 

Pētniecība 

X 

Karš / civilie protesti 

Transporta plūsma 

Mežsaimniecība 

Medības uz citām sugām 

Citi iemesli: 

Kritiski mazs indivīdu skaits 

X 

X X X 

X X X 

ª list of threats offered to the contacts is taken from the IUCN Red List threats authority file 

apdraudējumu uzskaitījums un formulējums aizgūts no Pasaules dabas aizsardzības savienības Apdraudēto sugu komisijas 

dokumentiem (link) 

The fact that there are so few bears in Latvia and most of them belong to one sex are 

probably the main limiting factors that does not allow for an optimisti prognosis for the bear 

population in Latvia. Such a small isolated population of mainly males would be doomed to go 

extinct without any drastic re-introduction efforts. However, considering that Latvia is on the 

periphery of the Baltic bear popualtion of almost 7000 individuals (Linnell et al. 2008) most 

relevant are those factors that prevent bears from staying in Latvia after coming here from 

elsewhere. Intensive forestry, hunting, transport and building infrastructure are common factors 

that threaten the existing bear populations in Europe and there is no doubt that these factors will 

hinder bear population’s restoration in Latvia as well. Particularly worrying is the perspective that 

Latvia as a transport transit country will develop its transport infrastructure significantly. It is 

difficult to give a clear assessment of the impact of recreation and tourism development. Tourism 

21

in Latvia is unlikely to cause habitat degradation or fragmentation as untouched nature and 

environmental education are most likely to be the cornerstones of the future tourism in Latvia. A 

special attention, however, should be paid when planning motorsport-related recreation sites. In 

the future, more relevant could be direct disturbance by humans involved in outdoor sports, 

recreation and mushroom- and berry-picking. As the bear number increases, it is likely that they 

will be more often killed during hunting for other species, and not only due to mistakes but also 

using human safety as an argument. Such situations are not uncommon in Estonia (P. Männil pers. 

com.). A similar argument was tried recently by hunters in Latvia who tried to thus justify killing 

a lynx outside the hunting season, though they received a severe fine. 

2.2. Factors affecting the habitat 

Already K. Grevė (1909) wrote that the main reason for the rapid decline of bears in the 1860s in 

Livonia was not so much direct persecution by humans as introduction of modern forestry. Along with the 

active forestry activities, the total forested area also decreased. Before WWII, only 25% of the Latvian 

territory was forested (Matīss 1987, Priedītis 1999). Large forest massifs can be regarded as bear habitats 

in Latvia, as locations of bear observations concentrate around the most forested parts of the country. 

Both in the 1970s and nowadays, bears have been seen mainly in the east of Latvia. Their distribution is 

at least partly related to distribution of continuous forest massifs (see Fig. 4 and 5). Low forest cover can 

explain the absence of bears from the central part of Latgale (E Latvia). In Kurzeme (W Latvia) that in 

terms of forest cover does not differ from Vidzeme (N Latvia) and Sēlija (left bank of the Rover Daugava 

in the south), it was probably one (maximum 2) animals that was observed there during the 1980s. Data 

by J. Lipsbergs mention two bears (a bigger one and a smaller one) in Vandzene forestry unit (1983) and 

around Babīte (1984). In the early 1990s, these bears either left Kurzeme or died and re-appeared in that 

region only in 2006. Therefore, much more important factor than the forest cover is where a particular 

area is situated in western or eastern part of the country, i.e., in relation to the distance from the 

distribution range core area to the north and east from the Latvian border. Besides, the forested area in 

Latvia has been gradually increasing in the last 50 years (Matīss 1987, Priedītis 1999). Modern forestry 

techniques ensure forest restoration after clear-cuts, therefore, modern forestry can be regarded as less of 

a disturbance factor than clearing forests totally in the late 19 th - early 20 th centuries. Until we have more 

precise date on the impact of the Latvian forest quality on bear distribution, there is no reason to believe 

that bear habitats are endangered. 

In several cases, bear presence was confirmed by the carcasses found in the forest. Carcasses of wild 

animals are an important food source for bears in winter (those that were disturbed in the den and did not 

hibernate) and spring. In Latvia, there are many animals species that can at least theoretically be bear 

trophic competitors: other carnivores and ravens that also quickly consume carcasses of animals that died 

during winter, wild boar that destroys anthills, consumes carrion, acorns and other important bear food 

(Priednieks et al. 1989, Ozoliņš, Pilāts 1995, official census data of the State Forest Service). An increase 

in the number of trophic competitors decreases environmental carrying capacity and can hinder settling of 

immigrant bears in Latvia. 

22

3. Current conservation of the species and its habitat 

3.1. Legislation 

National legislation: 

In Latvia, according to the Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes (05.04.2000) and 

Annex 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations No. 627 Amendments to the Regulations No. 396 “List 

of the Specially Protected Species and the Specially Protected Species Whose Use is Limited” (Cabinet of 

Ministers, 14.11.2000), bear is classified as a specially protected species. According to Clause 4 

paragraph 3 of the Species and Habitat Protection Law and paragraph 40.1 of the Cabinet of Ministers’ 

Regulations No. 281 (24.04.2007.) “Regulations on preventive and reactive measures and the order in 

which the damage to the environment is assessed and the costs of preventive, urgent and reactive measure 

are calculated”, for killing or injuring a brown bear, 40 minimum monthly salaries should be paid for each 

individual. 

The Cabinet of Ministers’ Regulations No. 778 (22.11.2007.) “The order in which land users are 

compensated for damages caused by specially protected non-game species and migrating species” ensure 

that the damage caused to livestock or beehives by bears should be compensated. 

International obligations: 

Washington Convention – “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES)”. The bear is listed under Annex 2 as potentially threatened. This means that 

international trade with this species is limited and may only occur under strict control. 

Bern Convention – “Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats”. 

The bear is listed under Annex 2. That means that countries that signed it (in Latvia – 01.05.1997) ensure 

species protection by banning its exploitation. 

EU Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC On conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora 

(Species and Habitats Directive). The bear is listed under Annex 2 (bear habitats have to be designated as 

strictly protected areas) and Annex 4 (prohibition of exploitation). In addition, the brown bear mentioned 

as a priority species. Upon joining the European Union, Latvia has to abide by several decision of the 

European Parliament (Swenson et al. 2001). 

European Council’s Regula No. Nr. 338/97 “On conservation of wild animal and plant species via 

regulating their trade”. The bear is included in Annex A, which means that trading limitations are 

essential for its conservation, and the regula has a very strict order how bears or their body parts can be 

imported/exported to/from the European Community. 

In 2008, EC accepted “Guidelines for large carnivore conservation plans at the population level” 

(Linnell et al. 2008). It is not a legislative document signed by member states but a document providing 

guidance and recommendations for achieving and maintaining favourable status of large carnivore 

populations. Adherence to these guidelines will depend on the ability of member states to cooperate at the 

international level and their willingness to coordinate their national interests with the species conservation 

requirements including bear management. 

23

3.2. Species and habitat conservation measures 

In the 1970s, a nature sanctuary for brown bear conservation was established in the Smiltene forestry 

unit (Valka district) (Tauriņš 1982, Andrušaitis 1985). Due its small area and isolation, it most liklely did 

not provide signifcant input into bear habitat conservation. The current legislation does not provide for 

special habitat protection measures for the species. In the latest edition of the Red Data Book, there is a 

proposal to protect old growth forests (Andrušaitis 2000). However, the implementaiton of this 

requirement at the legislative level is not realted to any specific bear conservation measures. There is 

alsno no reason to state that insufficient habotat protection has had any influence on bear survival or 

cretaed any direct obstacles to their immigration or settling in Latvia. 

In 2001-2002, the inventory of specially protected nature areas was carried out within the so-called 

EMERALD project, the aim of which was to find out whether the existing network of protected areas is in 

accordance with the NATURA 2000 requirements of the EC Habitat Directive. During that inventory, 

bear presence (at least temporary) was registered in 3 out of 236 areas. A few more areas reported bear 

observations in the past. Only one of the existing 336 NATURA 2000 areas – Teiči nature reserve 

(www.teici.gov.lv) – is big enough (19,649 ha, including about 15,000 ha of peat bogs) to ensure longterm 

conservation of a few bears – a relatively undisturbed hibernation and feeding. The current bear 

distribution and the related bear conservation aspects are relevant to the administration of the following 

protected areas: Slītere National Park, Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve, Teiči un Krustkalni nature 

reserves. A successful initiative was started by the administration of the Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve 

in cooperation with UNDP – they distributed in their territory and other areas in Ziemeļvidzeme that are 

inhabited by bears leaflets for the general public that explain how to behave if one meets a bear in the 

wild (www.biosfera.gov.lv). Even though the total network of protected areas covers 11.9% of the 

Latvian territory (i.e., more than 7000 km 2 ) and it improves the living conditions of bears inhabiting those 

protected areas, this alone cannot guarantee a population increase in the future. Favourable conditions for 

bear conservation should be maintained also outside the protected areas. 

3.3. Species conservation plan in relation to other species and habitat conservation plans 

Theoretically, brown bear conservation in Latvia is facilitated by any conservation measures 

towards forest and peat bog habitats that happen on a sufficiently large scale in eastern Latvia. The most 

visible projects are as follows: Restoration of the hydrological regime of the Teiči bog (Bergmanis et al. 

2002), LIFE project proposal for the North Gauja valley, elaboration of the management plan for the 

Gruzdova forests, PIN-Matra project „Integrated Wetland and Forest Management in the Trans-border 

Area of North Livonia”, inventory of forest key habitats etc. 

IUCN Bear specialist group and the International Bear Association (IBA) are the main 

international organisations dealing with bear conservation in the world (Zedrosser et al. 2001). Besides, 

there is a Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). This initiative was started in 1995 in Italy. It is 

supported by WWF, its partners and individual experts from European countries. The aim of the initiative 

is to create a wide cooperation network for large carnivore conservation, including governments, 

international organisations, conventions’ councils, land owners and managers, scientists and general 

public. Specifically, LCIE works to achieve co-existence of brown bears, lynx, wolves, wolverines and 

humans in Europe nowadays and in the future. 

In co-operation with the EC, the above-mentioned organisations have elaborated “Brown bear action 

plan for Europe” (Swenson et al. 2001). This plan also includes measures relevant to Latvia as a result of 

24

% 

consultations with zoologist Valdis Pilāts. These tasks were taken into account when elaborating the 

national species action plan. 

Other species action plans that can have an impact on the bear conservation in Latvia are the Latvian 

capercaillie action plan (Hofmanis, Strazds 2004) and the Latvian black stork action plan (Strazds 2005) 

as both these plans include forestry ban in the relevant lek and breeding micro-sanctuaries. In relation to 

the brown bear conservation, capercaillie conservation has a smaller impact if there are some biotechnical 

habitat management measures at lek sites. 

3.4. Risk analysis of implementation of the current Species conservation plan 

In accordance with the criteria under paragraphs e) - i) of Clause 1 of the EC Habitat Directive 

and Clause 7 of the Latvian Law on species and Habitat Protection, the current conservation status of the 

brown bear in Latvia cannot be considered as favourable. However, this is not related to insufficient legal 

protection or the lack of suitable habitats. For almost two hundred years, Latvia has been at the edge of 

the species distribution range (Pilāts, Ozoliņš 2003). The probability of bear increase was foreseen 

already in the 1970s-1980s (Tauriņš 1982). Although the most recent information presented in the 

previous chapters does not exclude restoration of the bear distribution across the whole country, one 

should consider that Latvia for a very long time did not have a functional and self-sustainable bear 

population. At the same time, on the Baltic scale, the bear population status is assessed as favourable 

(Linnell et al. 2008). Therefore, the measures discussed in this action plan are required mainly as a 

preparation for the situation if the bear distribution range expands naturally. At the same time, it would be 

unnecessary to carry out measures in order to artificially improve bear living conditions or attract 

individuals from the neighbouring territories. 

It is possible that restoration of the bear population in Latvia will be influenced by the political 

relationships with the neighbouring countries. A fence being built in Belarus along the border with Latvia 

and Lithuania could have a negative impact on the integrity of the Baltic bear population. 

In 2001, with the financial support from WWF-Denmark, as study was carried out in Latvia 

“Investigation of the public opinion about three large carnivore species in Latvia – brown bear (Ursus 

arctos), wolf (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx)” (Andersone, Ozoliņš 2004). The majority of 

respondents thought that bear protection should be continued, 25% were in favour of bear control, 1% 

supported extermination of bears while 5% did not have an opinion. The inhabitants of Riga and Zemgale 

(S Latvia) were most positive towards bears while Vidzeme (N Latvia) and Kurzeme (W Latvia) had the 

highest proportion of those who supported bear control. Also the majority of the hunters surveyed 

(66.2%) (the readers of the hunting magazine MMD) supports bear protection. Young people are most 

supportive towards bear protection (79.6%). 

8. att. Ko darīt ar lāčiem Latvijā? (2001. gada aptauja) 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Rīga Vidzeme Zemgale Latgale Kurzeme MMD lasītāji 

Aizsargāt 

Regulēt 

Iznīcināt 

Nezinu 

25

% 

In 2005, a repeated public opinion survey was carried out (Jaunbirze 2006). The survey showed that 

respondents with a higher level of education and young people are more positive towards bear protection 

(9. att.). 

5. att. Atbilde uz jautājumu „Ko darīt ar lāčiem jūsu dzīvesvietas tuvumā?” atkarībā 

no aptaujāto izglītības (2005. gada aptauja). 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

Pasākumi nav 

nepieciešami 

Lācis 

Jāpārvieto uz citu 

vietu 

Nezinu Jāaizbaida prom Jānošauj 

Pamatskola 

Vidusskola 

Arodskola 

Bakalaurs 

Maģ./Dr 

Despite a relatively high public support, the choice of bear conservation startegy and tasks in 

Latvia is related to the following problems: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The lack of hard evidence of why the bear population in Latvia is not establishing. The amount 

of evidence depends on the number of bears – as the bear number increases, the level of 

knowledge would increase as well. 

If the bear number increases, economic losses and fear-caused conflicts will become an 

inevitable problem. 

Bear living conditions can be improved only by radical measures that would be related to 

unpopular measures with significant restrictions and in some cases a total ban of economic 

(forestry) activities in large areas of forests. 

At present, any conservation measures are of theoretical or experimental nature and there is no 

guarantee that it will result in an increased bear number in Latvia. 

In case if the bear population grows, it would be necessary to include any relevant issues in the 

hunting legislation. Users of hunting rights are most closely related to the species monitoring, 

implementation of species and habitat conservation as well as conflict solving. 

There is a certain risk that due to the bear conservation issues in Latvia, a conflict between 

hunting supporters and anti-hunting campaigners can increase. 

The general public can become more intolerant towards species protection if the education level 

decreases and the average age of people increases. 

4. Goals and tasks of the species conservation plan 

The goal of the bear action plan is to ensure natural processes within the joint brown bear population 

shared by the Baltic States and the western part of Russia, at the same time not setting any specific 

deadlines to increase the bear distribution range in Latvia or to etsablish a self-sustainable local bear 

26

population. In other words, Latvia should not become an obstacle for brown bear dispersal or fluctuations 

of the distribution range related to the population dynamics within the Baltic bear population. 

To achieve the above-mentioned goal, it is necessary to implement the following tasks: 

 

 

 

 

 

To inform politicians, legislative bodies, scientists and other crucial stakeholders about the most 

important brown bear’s habitat requirements. To emphasise the importance of hibernation 

conditions for attracting resident bears. 

To timely disperse objective information on bears and bear-related events in mass media, 

preventing rumours and exaggerations. 

To follow trends in the public opinion in relation to the brown bear population status and the 

frequency of interest conflicts. 

To establish and maintain a system for registering and centralised analysis of the facts in order to 

monitor the bear population status and obtain information for the necessary conservation 

measures. 

To elaborate and stick to a certain action protocol in those cases when conflict risk reduction is 

required. 

The following criteria can be used to monitor the achievement of the goal: 

The Baltic brown bear population’s distribution range is not being fragmented or reduced; 

The areas without bear presence are decreasing; 

There are no areas with regular bear-caused conflicts; 

The public appreciates the presence of bears in the wild, does not regard the bear as an unwanted 

competitor, threat or obstacle for economic activities, is positive towards a chance to see the evidence of 

bear presence and interested to receive information on the bear lifestyle and population status; 

The bear’s function in the ecosystem (feeding, choice of hibernation sites, dispersal possibilities) as as 

natural as possible. 

5. Species and habitat conservation measures 

5.1. Legislation and nature conservation policy 

The legislative status up to date ensures species conservation requirements. No suggestions. 

5.2. Species conservation measures 

Summarising the available data on species biology and ecology, we can conclude that the bear 

conservation status in Latvia could be improved by the following measures (keeping in mind that these 

are only recommendations that do not aim to initiate legislative changes at this stage): 

5.2.1 To decrease direct disturbance in the period when bears are looking for a den as well as during 

the hibernation period (1 October – 31 March). This can be achieved if drive hunts are not organised. 

Also, there should be a minimum distance between sites where forestry activities are taking place 

simultaneously and timber transportation should be banned during the night. These measures would be 

useful in forestry units along the border with Estonia, Russia and Belarus starting with bear observation 

27

sites and later in the whole border area. Introduction of these measures should be done based on an 

agreement with holders of hunting rights and forest owners. 

5.2.2. In the areas of bear occurrence, the State Forest Service, when issuing wild boar licences for 

individual hunts, should warn hunters about the chance of encountering a bear as well as to increase 

control in these hunting grounds doing random checks in places where hunters gather. 

5.2.3. As bear hunting is legal in the neighbouring countries (Russia and Estonia), an increased 

control is recommended over the legitimacy of hunting trophies’ import from these countries. Hunters 

should have a possibility within a certain timeframe to declare bear trophies they possess from the past, 

indicating trophy’s origin and obtaining an appropriate permit. 

5.2.4. An efficient system for eliminating dangerous bears should be established. The decision on the 

level of threat posed by an individual animal should be taken by the same specialist group or an 

individual expert regardless of the site and nature of the conflict. These specialists should be ready to take 

full responsibility for their decision in front of the government institutions and the general public. 

5.3. Habitat conservation measures 

The brown bear is a very appropriate species whose environmental requirments can be used when 

planning at the landscape level and the so called green corridors (crossing points) when reconstructing 

road infrastructure. Latvan experts can find lots of theoretical and practical examples from Southern and 

Central Europe which can be critically asssessed as to their suitability for the Latvian conditions (Hlaváč, 

Andĕl 2002, Kryštufek et al. 2003, Jedrzejewski et al. 2004). The first Latvian experience comes from 

elaboration of the landscape ecological plan of Ziemeļvidzeme biosphere reserve in 2007 (see 

www.biosfera.gov.lv), which should be continued in the rest of Latvia. When organising seminars and 

discussions on large carnivore conservation issues, the Latvian large carnivore experts should invite 

representatives from the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government and other relevant 

planning institutions. 

5.4. Species research and monitoring 

Database on bear occurrence. 

Genetic studies in cooperation with Estonia. 

Continuing public opinion surveys using the questionnaire method. 

5.5. Awareness-raising and education 

To continue involving hunters into large carnivore (wolf, lynx) monitoring which will improve 

contacts and information exchange with the large carnivore experts also on brown bear conservation 

issues. 

Livestock owners and bee-keepers should be informed about preventive measures against bear attacks 

as well as about the risks increasing the probability of such attacks. 

Information on bears should be spread among schoolchildren. 

28

5.6. Review of the implementation table 

Measure (in the order of 

priority) 

1. Population status 

monitoring. 

2. To promote experience from 

other countries regarding 

prevention of bear attacks on 

beehives and livestock 

3. Education events for 

schoolchildren regarding 

brown bears and their 

conservation in Latvia 

4. Anonymous survey of 

hunters about bar numbers and 

unregistered cases of bear 

mortality 

5. Seminars (for experts and 

representatives of relevant 

fields) on bear conservation 

news in Latvia 

6. Spreading research results 

and public education work 

7. To agree on the procedure 

how to solve situations in 

relation to “problem bears” and 

bears that are killed or injured 

illegally 

Who is responsible 

Implemen 

tation 

time 

LSFRI „Silava”? 10 

workdays 

every year 

Latvian Natural History 

Museum, administration of 

specially protected areas 


Museum, State Forest 

Service 

LSFRI „Silava”? 

MSc thesis in the 

University of Latvia or the 

Latvian Agricultural 

University 

Latvian Theriological 

Society 

Latvian Hunters 

Association, 

State Forest Service, 

Latvian Theriological 

Society 


Museum 

Continuou 

sly 

Cost 

estimate 

s LVL 

500 per 

year 

2009. - - 

2012. 3000 ? 

Once a 

year 

during the 

general 

meeting of 

the LTS 

Continuou 

sly, 

During the 

Annul 

Forest 

Days 

events 

Potential 

funding 

source 

Funds for 

scientific 

research 

- Checking 

damage 

locations, mass 

media. 

- - 

- Mass media 

Nature Protection Board 2010. - - 

29

8. Telemetry project with the 

aim to find out the size of the 

home range and its use by 

Latvian bears 

LSFRI „Silava”, 

University of Latvia 

? Within 

universit 

y and 

research 

projects. 

Science 

Council’s 

grants 

The plan’s implementation analysis and task updating to be done in 2014. 

6. Implementation of the species conservation plan 

In order to implement measures prescribed by this plan, there is no need to establish or to reorganise 

any of the existing institutions. The current system should be supported and continued where 

several governmental and non-governmental organisations cooperate such as: 

Forest Resource Department of the Ministry of Agriculture; 

State Forest Service; 

Department of Nature Protection of the Ministry of Environment; 

Nature Protection Board; 

State Environmental Service; 

Latvian State Forestry Research Institute „Silava”; 

University of Latvia; 

Administrations of Gauja National Park, Ķemeri National Park, Slītere National Park, Rāzna National 

Park, Teiči Nature Reserve and North Vidzeme Biosphere reserve; 

Stock company „Latvian State Forests” 

Latvian Natural History Museum; 

Latvian Hunters Association; 

Latvian Theriological Society; 

Latvian Fund for Nature; 

WWF Latvia 

Etc. 

Several measures planned in 2003 are not implemented or only partly implemented (3. tab.). 

30

The results of the implementation of measures planned in 2003 

Table 3. 

Measure 

A group of bear experts established 

Amendments to the Cabinet of 

Ministers’ Regulations on damage 

compensation 

Elaboration and implementation of the 

monitoring system (establishment of a 

centralised database) 

Who is 

responsible 

National 

representative in 

the IUCN bear 

specialist group 

Ministry of 

Environment 

Experts (to be 

clarified during 

the plan’s 

implementation 

discussions) 

Cost 

estimates 

(Ls) 

500 

(costs of a 

seminar) 

Potential funding 

source 

Environmental 

Fund 

Implementa 

tion 

partly, in the 

territory of 

the Ziemeļ - 

vidzeme 

Biosphere 

reserve 

- - Done 

1000 

Per year 

? partly, only 

within 

Natura 2000 

monitoring 

Publicity in mass media Experts - - Done 

To renew cooperation with the border 

guards regarding information on bears 

crossing the border 

Experts - - Partly 

To warn hunting leaders about bear 

presence in their hunting grounds 

Cooperation with hunters and forest 

owners in the areas where bear occur 

regularly. 

To translate into Latvian and publish a 

book by H. Kruuk (2002) 

State Forest 

Service 

- - Partly 

Experts - - Partly, only 

in case of 

conflicts or 

offences 

? 10 000? Environmental 

Fund 

Not done 

due to the 

lack of 

funding 

To carry out a sociological study on 

whether the society is ready to limit 

forest-related management for bear 

conservation. 

To Review plan’s goals and tasks after 5 

years 

Experts 3000 ? Not done, 

due to the 

lack of 

funding and 

lack of 

interested 

contractors 

Experts 1000 Nature Protection Done 

Board 

31

7. References 

Andersone Ž., Ozoliņš J. 2004. Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia. – Ursus, 15(2): 181-187. 

Andersone-Lilley, Z., Ozolins, J. 2005. Game mammals in Latvia: Present status and future prospects. – Scottish Forestry, 

59(3):13-18. 

Andrušaitis G. (red.) 1985. Latvijas PSR Sarkanā grāmata: retās un iznīkstošās dzīvnieku un augu sugas. Rīga: Zinātne. 526 

lpp. 

Andrušaitis G. (red.) 2000. Latvijas Sarkanā grāmata: retās un apdraudētās augu un dzīvnieku sugas, 6. sējums, putni un 

zīdītāji. Rīga: Terras Media. 274 lpp. 

Bergmanis U., Brehm K., Matthes J. 2002. Dabiskā hidroloģiskā režīma atjaunošana augstajos un pārejas purvos. Grām.: 

Opermanis O. (red.) Aktuāli savvaļas sugu un biotopu apsaimniekošanas piemēri Latvijā. Rīga: ULMA. 49.-56. lpp. 

Clevenger A.P. 1994. Sign surveys as an important tool in carnivore conservation, research and management programmes. – 

Environmental encounters 17: 44-55. 

Danilov P.I. 2005. Game animals of Karelia: ecology, resources, management, protection. Moscow: Nauka. 338 pp. (in 

Russian) 

Dečak D., Frkovič A., Grubešič M. et al. 2005. Brown Bear Management Plan for The Republic of Croatia. Zagreb: Ministry 

of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Culture. 90 pp. 

Floyd T. 1999. Bear-inflicted human injury and fatality. – Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 10: 75-87. 

Friebe A., Swenson J.E., Sandegren F. 2001. Denning chronology of female brown bears in central Sweden. – Ursus, 12: 37- 

46. 

Grevė K. 1909. Säugetiere Kur-, Liv-, Estlands. Riga: W. Mellin u. Co. 183 pp. 

Gubarj Yu. P. (ed.) 2007. Status of resources game animals in Russian Federation 2003-2007: Information & analytical 

materials. Game Animals of Russia, Issue 8. Moscow: FGU Centrokhotkontrol, 164 pp. (in Russian) 

Hilderbrand G., Schwartz C.C., Robbins C.T., Jacoby M.E., Hanley T.A., Arthur S.M., Servheen C. 1999. The importance of 

meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. – Can. J. 

Zool. 77: 132-138. 

Hissa R. 1997. Phisiology of the European brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos). – Ann. Zool. Fennici 34: 267-287. 

Hlaváč V., Andĕl P. 2002. On the permeability of roads for wildlife. A handbook. Liberec: Agency for Nature Conservation 

and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic and EVERNIA s.r.o., 58 pp. 

Hofmanis H., Strazds M. 2004. Medņa Tetrao urogallus L. aizsardzības plāns Latvijā. Rīga: LOB, 55 lpp. 

Ingelög T., Andersson R., Tjernberg M. (Eds.) 1993. Red Data Book of the Baltic Region. Part 1. Södertälje: Fingraf ab. 95 pp. 

Iregren E., Ahlström T. 1999. Geographical variation in the contemporaneous populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in 

Fennoscandia and the problem of its immigration. In: N. Benecke (ed.) Archäologie in Eurasien , Band 6, Rahden/Westf.: 

Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh., S. 237-246. 

Iregren E., Bergström M.-R., Isberg P.-E. 2001. The influence of age on metric values in the brown bear cranium (Ursus arctos 

L.). – Animals and Man in the Past, ARC-Publicatie 41, the Netherlands: 21-32. 

IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. < http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23.02.2009 

32

Jaunbirze S. 2006. Eirāzijas lūsis Lynx lynx – sabiedriskais viedoklis – drauds Latvijas lūšu populācijai? Maģistra darbs. Rīga: 

LU. 

Jedrzejewska, B., Jedrzejewski, W. 1998. Predation in Vertebrate Communities. The Bialowieza Primeval Forest as a Case 

Study. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 450 pp. 

Jędrzejewski W., Nowak S., Kurek R., Mysłajek R.W., Stachura K. 2004. Zwierzęta a drogi: Metody ograniczania 

negatywnego wpływy dróg na populacje dzikich zwierząt. Białowieža: Zakład Badania Ssaków Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 84 

pp. (poļu val.) 

Kaczensky P., Knauer F. 2001. Wiederkehr des Braunbären in die Alpen – Erfahrung mit einem anspruchsvollen Groβräuber. 

– Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, Bd.26: 67-75. 

Kalniņš A. 1943. Medniecība. Rīga: Latvju Grāmata. 704 lpp. 

Kojola I., Laitala H.-M. 2000. Changes in the structure of an increasing brown bear population with distance from core areas: 

another example of presaturation female dispersal? – Ann. Zool. Fennici 37: 59-64. 

Kojola I., Laitala H.-M. 2001. Body size variation of brown bear in Finland. – Ann. Zool. Fennici 38: 173-178. 

Kruuk H. 2002. Hunter and hunted: relationships between carnivores and people. Cambridge: University Press. 246 pp. 

Kryštufek B., Flajšman B., Griffiths H.I. (eds.) 2003. Living with Bears: a Large European Carnivore in a Shrinking World. 

Ljubljana: Ecological Forum of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia in cooperation with the Liberal Academy. 367 pp. 

Lange W. L. 1970. Wild und Jagd in Lettland. Hannover-Döhren: Harro von Hirscheydt Vrlg. 280 S. 

Linnell J., Salvatori V., Boitani L. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A 

LCIE report prepared for the European Commission (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2) 

Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E., Landa, A., Kvam, T. 1998. Methods for monitoring European large carnivores – a worldwide 

review of relevant experience. NINA Oppdragsmelding, 549, 38 pp. 

Lõhmus A. 2002. Management of Large Carnivores in Estonia. – Estonian Game No. 8a. 71 pp. 

Matīss J. 1987. Latvijas mežainums. – Latvijas meži, Bušs M., Vanags J. Rīga: Avots, 83-95. 

Männil P. 2006. Large carnivores and LC management strategy in Estonia. – Environmental encounters, No. 60: 49-51. 

McLellan B.N., Hovey F.W. 2001. Natal dispersal of grizzly bears. – Can. J. Zool. 79: 838-844. 

Mitchell-Jones A.J., Amori G., Bogdanowicz W., Kryštufek B., Reijnders P.J.H., Spitzenberger F., Stubbe M., Thissen J.B.M., 

Vohralik V., Zima J. 1999. The Atlas of European Mammals. London, San Diego: Academic Press. 484 pp. 

Mugurēvičš Ē., Mugurēvičs A. 1999. Meža dzīvnieki Latvijā. – Latvijas mežu vēsture līdz 1940. gadam. Rīga: WWF – 

Pasaules Dabas Fonds, 207-247. 

Mysterud I., Mysterud I. 1994. Viewpoint: The logic of using tracks and signs in predation incidents where bears are 

suspected. – J. Range Manage. 47: 112-113. 

Ozoliņš J. 2005. Brūnā lāča Ursus arctos ziemošanas pierādījumi Latvijas ziemeļaustrumos. – Ziemeļaustrumlatvijas daba un 

cilvēki reģionālā skatījumā. Latvijas Ģeogrāfijas biedrības reģionālā konference. Alūksne, 2005. gada 22.-24. jūlijs. (sast. 

Grīne I., Laiviņa S.), Rīga: Latvijas Ģeogrāfijas biedrība, 125.-127. lpp. 

Ozoliņš J., Laanetu N., Vilbaste E. 2005. Prospects of integrated game management in the trans-border area of North Livonia. 

Final report (manuscript). 

Ozoliņš J., Pilāts V. 1995. Distribution and status of small and medium-sized carnivores in Latvia. – Ann. Zool. Fennici 32: 

21-29. 

33

Oetjen R., Ader K. 2000 (unpubl.). Final report on internationally important species in Estonia. Tartu: Estonian Fund for 

Nature. 23 pp. 

Persson I.- L., Wikan S., Swenson J.E., Mysterud I. 2001. The diet of the brown bear Ursus arctos in the Pasvik Valley, 

northeastern Norway. – Wildl. Biol. 7: 27-37. 

Pilāts V., Ozoliņš J. 2003. Status of brown bear in Latvia. – Acta Zoologica Lituanica Vol. 13, No. 1: 65-71. 

Priedītis N. 1999. Latvijas mežs: daba un daudzveidība. Rīga: WWF. 209 lpp. 

Priednieks J., Strazds M., Strazds A., Petriņš A. 1989. Latvijas ligzdojošo putnu atlants 1980-1984. Rīga: Zinātne. 350 lpp. 

Promberger Ch. 2001. The Integrated Management Approach in Wildlife Conservation Field Projects. HACO International 

Publishing. 32 pp. 

Proschek M. 2005. 15 Jahre Bären in Österreich. – Der Anblick, 2: 38-40. 

Prūsaite J., Mažeikyte R., Pauža D., Paužiene N., Baleišis R., Juškaitis R., Mickus A., Grušas A., Skeiveris R., Bluzma P., 

Bielova O., Baranauskas K., Mačionis A., Balčiauskas L., Janulaitis Z. 1988. Lietuvos fauna: žinduoliai. Vilnius: Mokslas. 

295 lpp. 

Rauer G. 2008. Bären in Österreich – Bären für Österreich? – Der Anblick, 10: 34-37. 

Strazds M. 2005. Melnā stārķa (Ciconia nigra) aizsardzības pasākumu plāns Latvijā. Rīga: Ķemeru Nacionālā parka 

administrācija, 70 lpp. 

Swenson J.E., Dahle B., Sandegren F. 2001. Intraspecific predation in Scandinavian brown bear older than cubs-of-the-year. – 

Ursus 12: 81-92. 

Swenson J.E., Gerstl N., Dahle B., Zedrosser A. 2001. Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in Europe (Ursus 

arctos). – Nature and environment 114. 69 pp. 

Swenson J.E., Jansson A., Riig R., Sandegren F. 1999. Bears and ants: myrmecophagy by brown bears in central Scandinavia. 

– Can. J. Zool. 77: 551-561. 

Swenson J.E., Sandegren F., Brunberg S., Segerström P. 2001. Factors associated with loss of brown bear cubs in Sweden. – 

Ursus, 12: 69-80. 

Swenson J.E., Sandegren F., Söderberg A. 1998. Geographic expansion of an increasing brown bear population: evidence for 

presaturation dispersal. – Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 819-826. 

Tauriņš E. 1982. Latvijas zīdītājdzīvnieki. Rīga: Zinātne. 256 lpp. 

Vaisfeld M.A., Chestin I.E. (eds.) 1993. Bears: brown bear, polar bear, Asian black bear; distribution, ecology, use and 

protection. Moscow: Nauka. 519 pp. 

Valdmann H. 2001. The brown bear population in Estonia: current status and requirements for management. – Ursus, 12: 31- 

36. 

Wielgus R.B. 2002. Minimum viable population and reserve sizes for naturally regulated grizzly bears in British Columbia. – 

Biological Conservation 106: 381-388. 

Zedrosser A., Dahle B., Swenson J.E., Gerstl N. 2001. Status and management of the brown bear in Europe. – Ursus, 12: 9-20. 

Данилов, И. И., Русаков, О. С., Туманов, И. Л. 1979. Хищные звери Северо-Запада СССР. Ленинград: Наука, 162 с. 

Гептнер В.Г., Наумов Н.П., Юргенсон П.Б., Слудский А.А., Чиркова А.Ф., Банников А.Г. 1967. Млекопитающие 

Советсково Союза, т. 2: морские коровы и хищные . Москва: Высшая школа. 1004 с. 

Корытин C.A. 1986. Повадки диких зверей. Москва: Агропромиздат. 318 c. 

34

Новиков Г.А. 1956. Хищные млекопитающие фауны СССР. Москва, Ленинград: Изд. АН СССР. 293 с. 

Сабанеев Л.П. 1988. Медведь и медвежий промысел на Урале. - B кн.: Охотничьи звери. Москва: “Физкультура и 

спорт”: c. 238-267. 

Соколов, В. Е. 1979. Систематика млекопитающих. Отряды: китообразных, хищных, ластоногих, трубкозубых, 

хоботных, даманов, сирен, парнокопытных, мозоленогих, непарнокопытных. Москва: «Высшая школа», 527 с. 

Appendices 

Terminu skaidrojums 

areāls – sugas izplatības rajons 

biotops – šajā tekstā lietots gan kā lāčiem nepieciešamo apstākļu kopums teritorijā, gan kā 

sinonīms vārdam ekosistēma 

boreālie meži – pēcledus laikmetā veidojušies meži, kuru sastāvā dominē skuju koki 

dzimuma dimorfisms – raksturīgas atšķirības starp vienas sugas vienāda vecuma indivīdiem 

IUCN – Pasaules dabas un dabas resursu aizsardzības organizācija 

LCIE – Eiropas lielo plēsēju aizsardzības iniciatīva (ekspertu grupa IUCN SSC sastāvā) 

lielie plēsēji – Latvijā vilki, lūši, brūnie lāči, Eiropā arī tiņi jeb āmrijas, dažkārt lielajiem plēsējiem 

pieskaita arī ūdrus 

monitorings – atkārtoti regulāri novērojumi vai pētījumi pēc noteiktas metodikas ar mērķi 

noskaidrot procesus dabā 

populācija – šajā tekstā indivīdu kopums attiecīgajā teritorijā 

SSC – Sugu izdzīvošanas komisija (Pasaules aizsardzības savienības IUCN struktūrvienība) 

telemetrija – datu par dzīvnieka dabisko uzvedību pārraidīšana un uztveršana no attāluma 

35

Brown bear Ursus arctos - Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?