The main threats to the brown bear in the project  are:

Poor household waste management

Bears feeding on garbage is done in most cases by consuming with all the packaging wastes (in 2005 a bear with four cubs died from intestinal obstruction). The existence of domestic waste, determined the formation of deviant behavior of bears, so it was found that in these critical areas the period of hibernation had decrease, bears attending garbage there all winter.

Monitoring specimens attending garbage storage areas showed that most specimens are females with cubs. The latter automatically learns maternal behavior and returns to the periphery with their offspring. Our observations also revealed that some of the specimens attending these areas have common descent.

Unorganized tourism

Although forest legislation provides penalties for entering the forest fund with unauthorized use of motor vehicles is a way of leisure increasingly sought after.

Conflicts with sheepfolds, orchards, apiaries

In the summer sheepfolds located in the mountains generate a large number of human-bear conflicts through domestic livestock predation, causing the killing of bears, due to gaps in the legal framework and damage compensation system. Also, grazing in forests and the use of guard dogs is another cause of losses among domestic livestock. The most common methods of poaching bear specimens are mounted swill in trees or on the ground, poisoning by impregnating sheep carcasses with chemicals or toxic plant extracts, shooting, etc. The same methods are used in conflicts from  orchards and apiaries, their magnitude being lower. The frequency of these cases is higher in summer and autumn.

Trophic supply slowdown

Application in recent decades of silvicultural treatments that promote shade species resulted in diminishing trophic supply for the brown bear.

Poor management of special areas for feeding wildlife helps to reduce trophic supply for brown bear population in the study area, and increase conflict by moving feeding areas near human locations (animal farms, orchards, crops etc.) .

This lack of care work in the areas designed  for feeding wildlife and food security by focusing only on ungulate populations is an important loss of food sources for bears not only in terms of quantitative and qualitative, but especially in terms of diversity.

The Management isn’t up-to-date

Since the elaboration of the management plan, Romania has seen an explosive development of infrastructure.

Holiday homes have increased in numbers so has the land cars, motorcycles, ATV etc. After entering the EU the country has received grants for farms and livestock in bear habitat.

Inclusion in the management plan of all necessary measures to reduce the impact of emergent threats and adapt it to the current situation.

The negative attitude of local communities and farmers

In the project area, many farmers have a negative attitude towards the bear, because of the conflicts that they can generate. Local communities in rural areas are less informed about the conservative status of the bear and the benefits of nature conservation in general.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons