1
IMPRESSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BROWN BEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH ON HOKKAIDO FROM A SCANDINAVIAN BROWN BEAR RESEARCHER
Professor Jon E. Swenson, PhD, Dr.habil.
Leader of the Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project
Department of Ecology and Natural Resources Management
NorwegianUniversity of Life Sciences,
Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
12 September 2005
Introduction
I was invited by the Government of Hokkaido to spend 6 weeks in Hokkaido as a guest researcher during July-September 2005. While in Hokkaido, I attended the Ninth International Mammalogical Congress, a meeting of the Northern Forum’s Brown Bear Working Group, and an Asian Bear Workshop. My major contact person was Dr. Tsutomu Mano, Hokkaido Institute of Environmental Sciences, who did an excellent job of organizing my program so I could get intensive and extensive information about the brown bear situation in Hokkaido. We visited ShiretokoNational Park and learned about bears and bear problems there from Mr. Masami Yamanaka and his colleagues in the Shiretoko Nature Foundation. We also visited the Southern Hokkaido Wildlife Research Station of the Hokkaido Institute of Environmental Sciences in Esashi, OshimaPeninsula, and learned about bear research and bear problems there from Dr. Hifumi Tsuruga and his colleagues, and from Mr. Koichi Waseda, the local bear management biologist. We also visited areas with bear problems in SapporoCity and learned of management problems there from the Environmental Division of City of Sapporo Government. Dr. Mano gave me much information about bear research, monitoring and management in Hokkaido generally and I have read his scientific publications.
During my stay, I gave one lecture for the general public in Sapporo about brown bear management in Scandinavia (about 250 attended). I also gave lectures about bear research, monitoring, and management for personnel of the Hokkaido Government Department of Environment and Life Style, Hokkaido Institute of Environmental Sciences, and Department of Environmental Veterinary Sciences, HokkaidoUniversity, all in Sapporo, Shiretoko Nature Foundation in Utoro, and Southern Hokkaido Wildlife Research Station in Esashi.
I am very grateful for this opportunity and I have learned a great deal about brown bear ecology and management on Hokkaido. This has increased my understanding of the ecology of the species and strengthened my conviction that, although the species is so flexible ecologically, the major brown bear—human conflicts are basically similar throughout the species’ range.
I am impressed with the dedication and level of knowledge of the people working on brown bear research and management in Hokkaido, and with the quality of the research and monitoring that is being conducted. However, I recognize that there are many challenges in the future that must soon be addressed. My impressions and recommendations follow. I hope they are of some use.
Research
a)The research on brown bears being carried out, and that has been carried out in Hokkaido, is of high quality and has contributed to our understanding of the ecology of this highly flexible species. The results of this research also form the basis of the management. As brown bear management becomes more intensive in the future, more research-based knowledge will be required. I recommend that:
b) Research based on radio-marked bears should be conducted in all the major ecological areas in Hokkaido. This is a long-term goal and will require more resources for bear research, but it will be important for future intensive management.
c)Although many research results have been published, other results have not yet been published. It is important that these be published in the scientific literature. I recommend that the population ecology of the brown bear be compared with that of brown bears in Europe and North America. This is because these brown bears differ greatly in population ecology, which greatly affects the flexibility of managers. It appears to me that the brown bears in Hokkaido have reproductive parameters that are intermediate, but more similar to brown bears in Europe. If true, this means that North American harvesting models might be too conservative for managing brown bears in Hokkaido, and that models from Europe might be more important to consider.
d)The Shiretoko Nature Foundation has conducted the greatest amount of field research on brown bears in Hokkaido. As a private foundation, they probably do not have the same possibilities to publish as researchers at a university or government research institute. I recommend that this foundation receive funding to fully analyze and publish the results they have to date, in order to make them fully available for government managers.
e)The research on censusing methods for brown bears using DNA analysis of hairs collected at hair traps has given very promising results. However, this method is very labor-intensive and can only be used in small areas. I recommend that research be conducted to try to obtain DNA from a relatively high proportion of collected fecal samples, under Hokkaido conditions. If so, it would be then possible to test whether one can estimate bear population sizes over large areas using fecal collections, as we have done successfully in Scandinavia (see monitoring and census).
Monitoring and census
a)The present method of population monitoring, using records of observations of bear sign, corrected for effort, by employees of the forest service, university forests, electrical company, etc., seems to be giving important information about trends. However, it is important that this monitoring be carried out every year throughout the island, and that all of these agencies/companies cooperate fully. The Hokkaido Government should encourage all of these agencies/companies to cooperate fully. These data are typically so variable that as much data as possible, collected over a large number of years, is necessary to make valid inferences about trends.
b)The estimates of the number of bears killed each year seem to be good. Very important biological data are gathered from many hunter-killed bears. I would recommend that the government make it mandatory for hunters to send in biological samples from all killed bears, as is done in many European countries and American states. This gives the managers the best possible data for management decisions. Weights should be taken, whenever possible.
c)As it is important to know the numbers and distribution of bears for setting population goals and regulating harvest, I recommend that the government consider a large-scale population estimate based on nuclear DNA in collected fecal samples, which is being used very successfully in Sweden. Of course, this requires the solving of technical genetics problems (see research). If the technique is useable under Hokkaido conditions, I recommend a test in a relatively isolated population where there is good knowledge about the bear population, for example OshimaPeninsula. Such an effort would require excellent cooperation with a large number of people in various interest groups, such as hunters, farmers, forestry workers, electric company employees, in addition to government technicians. Good coverage of the area is important. If it works, the method could be repeated in other areas.
Managing bear-caused problems
Bears are involved in conflicts with humans throughout the world. Hokkaido has a great potential for problems, because so many people and agricultural fields are located adjacent to the forests that are the bears’ habitat. In addition, there is a large population of bears. I understand that the government has dealt with these problems primarily by issuing control permits and paying hunters to hunt bears and paying a bounty after a bear is killed. By only viewing the bear as a pest and using control permits and bounty payments to solve acute problems, the government is not confronting the problem in a long-term sustainable manner. Killing a bear in an acute situation that is prone to annual bear problems will only lead to the annual killing of problem bears (and an annual drain on the bear problem budget). One great problem with this approach is that the rapidly increasing age of hunters and rapid decline in hunter numbers will soon make it impossible to continue this policy. It is necessary for the government to put much more effort into education and prevention. In my view, this would be a wiser investment of bear damage funds.
a)The greatest bear-caused problem is death and injury to humans, which is almost an annual event in Hokkaido. I would recommend that the government expand its information efforts to continually inform people about the dangers, how to avoid meeting bears in the forest, how to manage garbage and other potential bear attractants, and how to act when one meets a bear.
b)I understand that somebear parks in Hokkaido allow tourists to feed bears. Feeding wild bears is a very dangerous activity for humans, and conditions bears to expect food from people. Bears that become habituated to human foods can become a threat to humans. I believe that allowing this behavior at a bear park would be sending the wrong message to the public, and some people may think that it is also acceptable to feed wild bears. It is important that people never get the impression that they can feed bears. I recommend that this not be allowed.
c)I have been very impressed with the trial system of bear field biologists, who work with farmers, local government, and hunters in rural areas to solve bear problems. I think this is an important and viable strategy for the future, probably the only viable strategy, given the decline in number of hunters. I understand that most of the preventative actions they have tried have been successful. I recommend that the government prioritize these preventative measures, such as electrical fencing, and establish more positions for bear field biologists.
d)I work in both Sweden and Norway, and the conflicts with bears are very different. Both countries pay compensation for damages, but Norway does not require farmers to use effective prevention measures. In Sweden, farmers much use such measures to be eligible for compensation. The result is that the level of damage and conflict is very low in Sweden, even though they have over 2000 bears, but the level of damage and conflict is very high in Norway, with less than 200 bears. Each bear costs Norway more than 50 times more in compensation than a bear costs Sweden. I think it is fortunate that the Hokkaido Government does not compensate bear damages to agricultural products. But, the government should consider subsidizing the use of preventative measures. Farmers are sometimes reluctant to do the extra work required by these protective measures, such as maintaining electric fences. The government should consider requiring the farmer to agree to use and maintain effective preventative measures before helping them purchase preventative equipment or perhaps even before approving a control permit. I think it may be important for both the farmers and the government to share the responsibility to solve these problems.
e)It is my impression, based on the data and my experience with an increasing bear population in Scandinavia, that the occurrence of bears within SapporoCity will continue to increase, and that the rate of increase will be greater in the future. I am impressed with the work of the municipal authoritiesto date, but they must prepare for this increase in bear occurrence in the city. One recommendation is to prepare to change the methods of garbage collection in areas near bear habitat, so that bears do not find garbage on the streets. I recommend that the Division of Environment obtain a membership in the “International Association for Bear Biology and Management” ( which will give them valuable information about similar situations throughout the world. Also, some employees should attend the upcoming conference on bear biology and management in NaganoPrefecture in fall 2006.
Again, thank you for the opportunity for me to visit Hokkaido. I wish you all the best in your efforts to manage the brown bear as an important wildlife species that is obviously regarded as one of the symbols of Hokkaido.