Bear A2z

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2008: T41688A121229971
Scope: Global
Language: English
Ursus arctos, Brown Bear

Amended version
Assessment by: McLellan, B.N., Proctor, M.F., Huber, D. & Michel, S.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: McLellan, B.N., Proctor, M.F., Huber, D. & Michel, S. 2017. Ursus arctos. The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species 2017: e.T41688A121229971. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-
3.RLTS.T41688A121229971.en
Copyright: © 2017 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Ursidae
Taxon Name: Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758
Regional Assessments:
• Mediterranean
• Europe
Common Name(s):
• English: Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear
• French: Ours brun
• Spanish: Oso Pardo
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2017
Date Assessed: February 2, 2016
Justification:
The range of the Brown Bear has historically declined in North America, Europe, and Asia, and the
species has been extirpated in North Africa. However, it remains widespread across three continents,
and is still one of the world’s most widely distributed terrestrial mammals. Globally the population
remains large, and is not significantly declining and may be increasing in some areas (Swenson et al.
1998, Schwartz et al. 2006, Mace et al. 2012, Kaczensky et al. 2013, Chapron et al. 2014). There are
many small, isolated subpopulations that are in jeopardy of extirpation, but others, under more
protection and management, are expanding.
Previously Published Red List Assessments

2017 – Least Concern (LC)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T41688A114261661.en


http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41688A10513490.en
1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Ursus arctos – published in 2017. 1
The Brown Bear is the most widely distributed ursid. It once ranged across a large portion of western
North America, including northern Mexico. There is also some evidence of sporadic occurrence (after
retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet) within the eastern half of the continent (Guilday 1968). Populations
on the Ungava Peninsula may have extended to the Atlantic Ocean (Loring and Spiess 2007). They also
ranged throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and across North Africa. A history of prolonged
overexploitation in Europe stretching back centuries resulted in the elimination of brown bears from
many countries. The date of their extirpation from North Africa is uncertain, but they may have existed
as late as the 1500s in the Sinai of Egypt (Manlius 1998) and mid-1800s in Algeria and Morocco
(Hamdine et al. 1998). During the 20th century, Brown Bears (called Grizzly Bears in interior North
America) were intentionally extirpated in Mexico (≈1960), a large portion of southwestern U.S. (Brown
1985, Mattson and Merrill 2002), and most of the Canadian prairies. Bears have been rare in the Middle
East throughout the 1900s, and were believed to have been extirpated by the mid-1950s; however,
recent sightings of tracks and a photo of a bear in western Syria, near the Lebanon border, suggests
either a relict subpopulation, vagrants from Turkey, or released captive animals (Garshelis et al. 2015).
Presently, Brown Bears occupy approximately 5,000,000 km² of the northwestern portion of North
America, 1,200,000 km² of Europe (excluding Russia), and much of northern Asia. Resident populations
are known to exist in 45 range countries. The largest numbers exist in Russia, the U.S. (Alaska), and
Canada. Many populations in Europe and the more southerly portions of Asia and North America are
small and isolated (Servheen et al. 1999, Swenson et al. 2000, Kaczensky et al. 2013). Very small
numbers of Brown Bears still remain in several Asian countries such as Iraq and Nepal (Gurung 2004,
Ridings 2006, Aryal et al. 2012). In Europe, Andorra was reoccupied in 2003 from bears reintroduced
into the French Pyrenees. A few wandering individuals are periodically crossing into Switzerland from a
reintroduced population in northern Italy, and into Lithuania from Latvia and Belarus, but not enough as
yet to be considered as occupied range in these countries.
Country Occurrence:
Native: Afghanistan; Albania; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Canada;
China; Croatia; Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Greece; India; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Italy;
Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Macedonia, the former
Yugoslav Republic of; Mongolia; Montenegro; Nepal; Norway; Pakistan; Poland; Romania; Russian
Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Tajikistan; Turkey; Ukraine; United States;
Uzbekistan
Possibly extinct: Bhutan
Regionally extinct: Algeria; Belgium; Denmark; Egypt; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Israel; Jordan;
Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Mexico; Moldova; Monaco; Morocco; Netherlands; Palestinian
Territory, Occupied; Portugal; San Marino; Tunisia; United Kingdom
Present - origin uncertain: Lebanon; Syrian Arab Republic
Distribution Map
Ursus arctos
Population
The total number of Brown Bears on earth is estimated to exceed 200,000. Reliable population
estimates (derived mainly from mark-recapture or resight, and modifications thereof) exist for several
areas in North America and Europe (Miller et al. 1997, Swenson et al. 2000, Bellemain et al. 2005,
Mowat et al. 2005, Proctor et al. 2010, 2012, Mowat et al. 2013), but few areas in Asia. Russia has the
largest number of Brown Bears, believed to exceed 100,000, while estimates in the U.S. (mainly in
Alaska) are around 33,000, Canada 25,000, and Europe (excluding Russia) 15,400. Whereas the species
is relatively abundant in more northern parts of its distribution, the southern portions of the range are
highly fragmented, with many small subpopulations. In North America, the southern fringe has isolated
subpopulations ranging in size from near 700 bears in and around Yellowstone National Park (Haroldson
et al. 2013) to approximately 25 individuals in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana (Proctor et al. 2004,
Kendall et al. 2016) and even less, likely <10 bears, in some southern areas of British Columbia.
In Europe, Brown Bears occur in 22 countries. Based on the existing data on distribution, as well as a
range of geographical, ecological, social and political factors these can be clustered into 10
subpopulations (Chapron et al. 2014): Scandinavian, Karelian, Baltic, Carpathian, Dinaric-Pindos, Eastern
Balkan, Alpine, Abruzzo, Cantabrian, and Pyrenean. Based on reported and updated census data, the
largest population is the Carpathian population (>8,000 bears), followed by the Scandinavian and
Dinaric-Pindos populations (> 3,400 and 3,040 bears, respectively). The other subpopulations are much
smaller ranging from several hundred (e.g., Baltic ~700, Cantabrian ~200) to less than one hundred (e.g.
Alps ~37 bears). Compared to the last survey, which included data up to 2005 (Bear Online Information
System for Europe, BOIS), the Scandinavian, Dinaric-Pindos, and Cantabrian populations have recorded a
clear increase. The other populations remained stable. The perceived decrease in the Eastern Balkan
subpopulation is likely due to new monitoring techniques. All subpopulation ranges have been relatively
stable or slightly expanding. In the Alpine subpopulation the loss of the central Austrian segment in the
last decade was counter-balanced by the expansion of the north Italian segment in Trentino, due to
translocations from Slovenia. The Pyrenean subpopulation also grew because of translocations from
Slovenia (Kaczensky et al. 2013).
Small subpopulations of Brown Bears are also scattered across many portions of Asia, but relatively little
is known of numbers or degree of connectivity. In Pakistan there are an estimated 15-30 animals in an
isolated subpopulation in the Hindu Kush Range (M. A. Nawaz pers. comm., 2014). Another 130–220
bears are estimated to occur in what is thought to be an isolated subpopulation in the Himalaya
Mountains of Pakistan and India (Sathyakumar et al. 2012, Abbas et al. 2015). There is another
subpopulation of bears in the Karakoram-Pamir Mountains of Pakistan and these are likely joined across
the Wakhan corridor and the Pamirs of Afghanistan, west of the Taklimakan Desert to the Hissaro-Alai
and Pamirs population in southern Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In China, Brown Bears exist in
sparse, poorly defined populations in the west and also in the northeast, with guesstimates of ~6,000
and ~1,000 in each of these regions, respectively (Gong and Harris 2006). Three GPS-collared bears in
the Sanjiangyuan Region of Tibet, two male and one female with cubs, had home ranges of >7,000 km²
and 2,200 km² respectively; these expansive home ranges suggest connectivity (but low density) within
the dry, high mountains and plateaus of Tibet. A much more dense population on Hokkaido, Japan may
have 2,200 or more Brown Bears, although even there, where significant information has been collected
through research and sport harvest returns, reliable population estimates are not available (Mano
2006). There appears to be several isolated subpopulations in the Middle East including bears in the
Elburz and Zagros Mountains of Iran and bordering areas in Iraq (Kurdistan), and what is thought to be
several isolated subpopulations in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Perhaps the most isolated
Brown Bear population in Asia is found in the Gobi desert of southern Mongolia and along the northern
China border (currently 21‒29 bears; Tumendemberel et al. 2015).
In total, 44 subpopulations of Brown Bear have been identified globally; most occur in the southern
portions of their circumpolar distribution across the northern hemisphere. Because many of these
subpopulations are small, isolated, and in need of conservation attention, they have been assessed
individually using the IUCN Red List Criteria for isolated subpopulations following the guidance of
Gärdenfors et al. (2001) and IUCN (2012) (see the Supplementary Material attached to this document).
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Current Population Trend: Stable
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Brown Bears occupy a great variety of habitats from dry Asian steppes to Arctic shrublands to temperate
rain forests. Their range overlaps that of both the American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) and Asiatic
Black Bear (U. thibetanus), and also slightly that of the Polar Bear (U. maritimus). Elevationally they
range from sea level to 5,000 m (Sathyakumar 2006). They occupy a greater diversity of habitats than
any other species of bear and also exploit a large variety of food items. In terms of diet, they fall
between the mainly plant-dependent ursids and the carnivorous polar bear (Mattson 1998, Sacco and
Van Valkenburgh 2004). In North America, Brown Bears (Grizzly Bears) are more carnivorous where
ungulates (especially in Arctic areas) or spawning salmon (coastal areas) are abundant (Mowat and
Heard 2006). The productivity and density of brown bears varies enormously, corresponding with the
productivity of their habitats and availability of salmon. Coastal areas of North America and Eastern
Russia, with concentrations of spawning salmon, have high densities (>100 bears per 1,000 km²) of
Brown Bears (Miller et al. 1997, Seryodkin 2006) with high reproductive rates (Hilderbrand et al. 1999).
Deciduous and mixed forests of the Dinaric and Carpathian mountain ranges of Eastern Europe also host
high bear densities with high reproductive rates (Kusak and Huber 1998, Frković et al. 2001). More
moderate densities of bears (20-50 bears per 1,000 km²) occur across the interior mountain ranges of
North America (McLellan 1994, Schwartz et al. 2003, McLellan 2011), Europe, and Asia where they
forage on a great variety of grasses, herbs, roots, berries, nuts, as well as animal matter such as insects,
mammals, and fish if available. Moderate densities of bears are also found across portions of the boreal
forests of North American, Asia and Scandinavia (Bellemain et al. 2005). Lower densities (5‒15 bears per
1,000 km²) are found in dry, desert-like areas, alpine and sub-alpine areas, as well as areas where
habitat availability and numbers of bears have been reduced by high human and domestic livestock
densities (Nawaz 2007); however, in most of these areas (e.g., northern India, western China) density
estimates are not available.
Breeding occurs during April to July but implantation of the blastocyst is delayed until late autumn.
Cubs, usually in litters of 1 to 3 (rarely 4 or 5), are born in January or early February when the mother is
hibernating. In North America, female bears generally have their first litters at 5 to 8 years of age and
have litters every three or four years thereafter (Schwartz et al. 2003). In some areas of Europe,
however, females generally have their first litter at least one year earlier, and produce litters every two
years (Swenson et al. 2000, Frković et al. 2001). At the other extreme, brown bears in northern Pakistan
produced litters that average only 1.3 cubs every 5.7 years, on average (Nawaz et al. 2008).
Systems: Terrestrial
Use and Trade

Where Brown Bears exist in a large, contiguous population, they are sometimes hunted for sport or
killed for control purposes, and rates may sometimes be unsustainable at least over the short term
(Lamb et al. submitted, McLellan 2015, McLellan et al. submitted). Estimates of sustainable exploitation
are hampered by the difficulty and expense of obtaining reliable estimates of population size, natural
mortality, and reproductive rates. Most countries do not have the resources to develop and implement
adequate monitoring programs and sustainable management plans for Brown Bears. Moreover, even
with such plans in place, illegal or unreported kill may equal or exceed the legal and supposedly
sustainable kill (McLellan et al. 1999, McLellan 2015). This is apparently occurring in the Russian Far East
and China, where brown bears are poached for the commercial trade in gall bladders and paws
(Seryodkin 2006, Servheen 2013, Burgess et al. 2014). In portions of Alaska, the management goal is to
reduce bear populations to encourage Moose and Caribou populations to expand for the benefit of
hunters (Miller et al. 2011).
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Although, as a whole, this species is secure with relatively large numbers and an expansive range, many
small, isolated subpopulations are threatened due to their low numbers and frequent contact with
humans. These small subpopulations tend to be found in remnant wild areas surrounded by more
extensive human development. As wide-ranging omnivores, Brown Bears are attracted to areas with
available human-related foods; being large and somewhat aggressive, these bears may threaten life and
property (often agricultural products) and may be killed as a consequence. Areas of high human use that
attract bears may serve as significant mortality sinks (Nielsen et al. 2004, 2006). Additionally, bears living
near humans may be killed inadvertently (e.g., vehicle or train collisions), poached for parts or products,
or killed by people hunting for other species. Even small numbers of bears removed from small
subpopulations can have adverse effects on population growth (Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004);
conversely, preventing just a few deaths may avert a population decline (Wiegand et al. 1998, Garshelis
et al. 2005). Where Brown Bears exist in a large, contiguous population, they are sometimes hunted for
sport or killed for control purposes, and rates may sometimes be unsustainable at least over the short
term (Lamb et al. submitted, McLellan 2015, McLellan et al. submitted). Estimates of sustainable
exploitation are hampered by the difficulty and expense of obtaining reliable estimates of population
size, natural mortality, and reproductive rates. Most countries do not have the resources to develop and
implement adequate monitoring programs and sustainable management plans for Brown Bears.
Moreover, even with such plans in place, illegal or unreported kill may equal or exceed the legal and
supposedly sustainable kill (McLellan et al. 1999, McLellan 2015). This is apparently occurring in the
Russian Far East, where Brown Bears are poached for the commercial trade in gall bladders and paws
(Seryodkin 2006). In portions of Alaska, the management goal is to reduce bear populations to
encourage Moose and Caribou populations to expand for the benefit of hunters (Miller et al. 2011). In
addition to direct removal of Brown Bears, many other human activities (such as agriculture, plantation
forestry, highways, hydroelectric and wind power developments, and human settlements) eliminate,
fragment, or erode the value of bear habitat (Proctor et al. 2005, Waller and Servheen 2005, Proctor et
al. 2012). Habitat fragmentation is a serious threat that isolates population units with deleterious
demographic and genetic impacts (Proctor et al. 2005, 2012). With increasing human populations, the
value of Brown Bear habitat is being degraded in many areas (e.g., Can and Togan 2004, Nawaz 2007),
while in other areas (i.e., Turkey), fewer people are now living in rural areas and conditions are
improving for Brown Bears.
In Europe, four of ten subpopulations are Critically Endangered. However, the current public interest,
financial investment and management actions, seem to presently secure most populations at least for
their short to midterm survival. Portions of subpopulations in some countries are less secure due to
lower local acceptance and correspondingly high human-caused mortality rates. Almost half of the
subpopulations are currently growing, but to guarantee long-term survival, all present and potential
future threats must be kept in check. The key threats for bears in Europe were identified as: habitat loss
due to infrastructure development, disturbance, low acceptance, poor management structures, intrinsic
factors, accidental mortality and persecution. Most threats were expected to increase in the future
(Kaczensky et al. 2013).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation actions for Brown Bears vary greatly among nations and regions within nations. Large
populations of this species (in Russia, Japan, Canada, Alaska, and parts of eastern and northern Europe)
are legally hunted, and thus managed as a game animal. Hunting regulations, usually designed to ensure
a sustainable harvest of bears, vary among areas but often involve a lottery for a limited number of
permits (a quota system) and restricted season length. Most small populations are protected by national
laws and international agreements, with varying degrees of enforcement. Brown Bear as a species is
listed under CITES Appendix II; the populations in Bhutan (if they exist), China, and Mongolia, and those
classified as the subspecies Ursus arctos isabellinus (northern India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, to Kazakhstan
and Gobi desert) are listed under Appendix I. Furthermore, international trade in bears and bear
products from certain populations in countries of the European Union is restricted by EU regulations. In
parts of the U.S., small populations of Grizzly Bears have increased under protection of the Endangered
Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Reintroductions, population augmentations, and
connectivity management also have helped to restore numbers and geographic range in several
locations in the U.S., southern Canada, and Western Europe (Clark et al. 2002, Kasworm et al. 2007).
There are numerous protected areas around the world with Brown Bears, but few are large enough to
support a viable population; therefore, Brown Bear conservation must be integrated with many other
human land-uses (Herrero 1994, Nielsen et al. 2006). Some countries have rules or management
guidelines designed to reduce human impacts on Brown Bears and their habitat, whereas in other
countries bear management protocols and regulations are limited or non-existent (Servheen et al. 1999,
Zedrosser et al. 2001, Kaczensky et al. 2013).
In Europe most of the bear populations are protected by the Habitat Directive (Habitat Directive;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101&from=EN)
which is compulsory for all EU countries. Portions of populations that fall within EU countries are not
allowed to be classified as game animals. However, Sweden, Finland, Romania, Estonia, Bulgaria,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia currently use derogations under article 16 of the Habitat
Directive to allow a limited kill of bears by hunters. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Norway manage bears
as a game species with annual quotas as they are only limited by the Bern Convention. Trophy hunting
of bears enhances local acceptance of these animals by the public in some populations (Knott et al.
2013). Nearly all European countries have some form of bear management plan, action plan or bear
management strategy. However, in a number of countries these documents have not been adequately
implemented.
Credits
Assessor(s): McLellan, B.N., Proctor, M.F., Huber, D. & Michel, S.
Reviewer(s): Garshelis, D.L.
Contributor(s): Ambarli, H., Ararat, K., Aryal, A., Badamjav, L., Batmunkh, M., Can, O.,
Davletbakov, A., Esipov, A., Galbreath, G., Ghaemi, R., Gong, J., Gutleb, B., Han, S.,
Harris, R., Kaczensky, P., Kubanichbek, J., Lortkipanidze, B., Lukarevskiy, V., Mano,
T., Moheb, Z., Nawaz, M.A., Oromov, B., Paczkowski, J., Puchkovskiy, S., Reynolds,
H., Saidov, A., Sathyakumar, S., Sato, Y., Seryodkin, I., Tserenbataa, T., Tsuruga, H.,
Vaisfeld, M. & Xu, A.
Bibliography
Abbas, F., Bhatti, Z.I., Haider, J., and Mian, A. 2015. Bears in Pakistan: distribution, population biology
and human conflicts. Journal of Bioresource Management 2: 1-13.
Aryal, A., Sathyakumar, S., and Schwartz, C.C. 2010. Current status of brown bears in the Manasalu
Conservation Area, Nepal. Ursus 21: 109-114.
Bellemain, E., Swenson, J. E., Tallmon, D., Taberlet, P. and Brunberg, S. 2005. Estimating population size
of elusive animals with DNA from hunter-collected feces: Four methods for brown bears. Conservation
Biology 19: 150-161.
Brown, D. E. 1985. The grizzly in the southwest. Documentary of an extinction. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Burgess, E.A., Stoner, S.S., and Foley, K.E. 2014. Brought to bear” an analysis of seizures across Asia
(2000-2001). TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malayasia.
Can, O. E. and Togan, I. 2004. Status and management of brown bears in Turkey. Ursus 15(1): 48-53.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D.C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., Vicente López-Bao, J.,
Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C.,
Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C.,
Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, Knauer, F., Kojola,
I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R.,
Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Odden, J.,
Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I.,
Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A.,
Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F.,
Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. 2014. Recovery of Large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated
landscapes. Science 346: 1517-1519.
Clark, J. D., Huber, D. and Servheen, C. 2002. Reintroducing bears: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13: 153-
163.
Frković, A., Huber, D. and Kusak, J. 2001. Brown bear litter sizes in Croatia. Ursus 12: 103-106.
Gärdenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G., and Rodríguez, J.P. 2001. The application of IUCN Red List
Criteria at Regional levels. Conservation Biology 15: 1206-1212.
Garshelis, D.L., Gibeau, M.L. and Herrero, S. 2005. Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff
National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 277-297.
Garshelis, D.L., Steinmetz, R., Hajjar, I., and Tabbaa, D. 2015. Brown bear(s) do exist in Syria: fuzzy photo
generates much interest. International Bear News 24: 5-8.
Gong, J. and Harris, R.B. 2006. The status of bears in China. Understanding Asian bears to secure their
future, pp. 50-56. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan.
Guilday, J.E. 1968. Grizzly bears from eastern North America. The American Midland Naturalist 79: 247-
250.
Gurung, M. K. 2004. Brown bear observation in Damodar Kunda Valley, Mustang District, Nepal.
International Bear News 13(4): 12-14.
Hamdine, W., Thevenot, M. and Michaux, J. 1998. Recent history of the brown bear in the Maghreb.
Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences - Serie III: Sciences de la Vie 321: 565-570.
Haroldson, M. A., F. T. van Manen, and D. D. Bjornlie. 2013. Estimating number of females with cubs-of-
the-year. In: F. T. van Manen, M. A. Haroldson, and K. West (eds), Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations:
annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2012. U.S., pp. 11–18. Geological Survey,
Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Herrero, S. 1994. The Canadian national parks and grizzly bear ecosystems: the need for interagency
management. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9: 7-21.
Hilderbrand, G. V., Jacoby, M. E., Schwartz, C. C., Arthur, S. M., Robbins, C. T., Hanley, T. A. and Servheen,
C. 1999. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and
conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 132-138.
IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version
4.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 27 April 2017).
IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 7 December 2017).
Kaczensky P., G. Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, C.H., and Linnell, J. 2013. Status,
management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine in Europe. Instituto di
Ecologia Applicata and with contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe.
Kasworm, W.F., Proctor, M.F., Servheen, C., and Paetkau, D. 2007. Success of grizzly bear population
augmentation in northwest Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1261–1266.
Kendall, K.C., Macleod, A.C., Boyd, K.L., Boulanger, J., Royle, J.A., Kasworm, W.F., Paetkau, D., Proctor,
M.F., Annis, K., and Graves, T.A. 2016. Density, distribution, and genetic structure of grizzly bears in the
Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 80: 314-331.
Knott. E.J., Bunnefeld, N.,Huber, D., Reljić, S., Kereži, V., and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2013. The potential
impacts of changes in bear hunting policy for hunting organisations in Croatia. European Journal of
Wildllife Research.
Kusak, J. and Huber, D. 1998. Brown bear habitat quality in Gorski kotar, Croatia. Ursus 10: 281-291.
Lamb, C.T., Mowat, G., McLellan, B.M., Nielsen, S.E., and Boutin, S. Submitted. Forbidden fruit: Human
settlement and abundant fruit create an ecological trap for an apex omnivore. Journal of Animal Ecology
.
Loring, S., and Spiess, A. 2007. Further documentation supporting the former existence of grizzly bears
(Ursus arctos) in Northern Quebec-Labrador. Arctic 60: 7-16.
Mace, R.D., Carney, D.W., Chilton-Radant, T., Courville, S.A., Haroldson, M.A., Harris, R.B., Jonkel, J.,
McLellan, B.N., Madel, M., Manley, R.L., Schwartz, C.C., Servheen, C., Stenhouse, G., Waller, J.S., and
Wenum, E. 2012. Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern Continental Divide
Ecosystem, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 119–128.
Manlius, N. 1998. L’Ours brun en Égypte [The brown bear of Egypt]. Écologie 29: 565-581.
Mano, T. 2006. The status of brown bears in Japan. Understanding Asian bears to secure their future, pp.
111-121. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan.
Mattson, D. J. 1998. Diet and morphology of extant and recently extinct northern bears. Ursus 10:
479–96.
Mattson, D. J. and Merrill, T. 2002. Extirpations of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States, 1850-
2000. Conservation Biology 16: 1123-1136.
McLellan, B. N. 1994. Density dependent population regulation of brown bears. International

Conference on Bear Research and Management Monograph Series 3: 15-24.
McLellan, B.N. 2011. 2011. Implications of a high-energy and low-protein diet on body composition,
fitness, and competitive abilities of black (Ursus americanus) and grizzly (Ursus arctos) bears. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 89: 546-558.
McLellan, B.N. 2015. Some mechanisms underlying variation in vital rates of grizzly bears on a multiple
use landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 79: 749-765.
McLellan, B.N., Hovey, F.W., Mace, R.D., Woods, J.G., Carney, D.W., Gibeau, M.L., Wakkinen, W.L., and
Kasworm, W.F. 1999. Rates and causes of grizzly bear mortality in the interior mountains of British
Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Washington, and Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 911-920.
McLellan, B.N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, A.N., and Hatter, I.W. Submitted. Is the grizzly bear hunt in British
Columbia sustainable? Journal of Wildlife Management.
Miller, S.D., Schoen, J.W., Faro, J., and Klein, D.R. 2011. Trends in intensive management of Alaska’s
grizzly bears, 1980-2010. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1243-1252.
Miller, S.D., White, G.C., Sellers, R.A., Reynolds, H.V., Schoen, J.W., Titus, K., Barnes, V.G., Smith, R.B.,
Nelson, R.R., Ballard, W.B. and Schwartz, C.C. 1997. Brown and black bear density estimation in Alaska
using radiotelemetry and replicated mark-resight techniques. Wildlife Monographs 133: 5-55.
Mowat, G. and Heard, D. C. 2006. Major components of grizzly bear diet across North America.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 473-489.
Mowat G, Heard, D.C., and Schwarz, C.J. 2013. Predicting grizzly bear density in western North America.
PLoS ONE 8(12).
Mowat, G., Heard, D. C., Seip, D. R., Poole, K. G., Stenhouse, G. and Paetkau, D. W. 2005. Grizzly Ursus
arctos and black bear U. americanus densities in the interior mountains of North America. Wildlife
Biology 11: 31-48.
Nawaz, M. A. 2007. Status of the brown bear in Pakistan. Ursus 18: 89–100.
Nawaz. M.A., Swenson, J., and Zakaria, V. 2008. Pragmatic management increases a flagship species the
Himalayan brown bears, in Pakistan’s Deosai National Park. Biological Conservation 141: 2230-2241.
Nielsen, S. E., Herrero, S., Boyce, M. S., Mace, R. D., Benn, B., Gibeau, M. L. and Jevons, S. 2004.
Modelling the spatial distribution of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the Central Rockies
ecosystem of Canada. Biological Conservation 120: 101-113.
Nielsen, S. E., Stenhouse, G. B. and Boyce, M. S. 2006. A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear
conservation in Alberta. Biological Conservation 130: 217-229.
Proctor, M. F., Mclellan B. N., Strobeck, C. and Barclay, R. M. R. 2005. Genetic analysis reveals
demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 272: 2409-2416.
Proctor, M.F., Paetkau, D., McLellan, B.N., Stenhouse, G.B., Kendall, K.C., Mace, R.D., Kasworm, W.F.,
Servheen, C., Lausen, C.L., Gibeau, M.L., Wakkinen, W.L., Haroldson, M.A., Mowat, G., Apps, C.D.,
Ciarniello, L.M., Barclay, R.M.R., Boyce, M.S., Strobeck, C., and Schwartz, C.C. 2012. Population
fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in western Canada and the northern
United States. Wildlife Monographs 180: 1-46.
Proctor, M. F., Servheen, C., Miller, S. D., Kasworm, W. F. and Wakkinen, W. L. 2004. A comparative
analysis of management options for grizzly bear conservation in the US-Canada trans-border area. Ursus
15: 145-160.
Ridings, C. 2006. Green bear in the desert. International Bear News 15(2): 12-13.
Sacco, T. and Van Valkenburgh, B. 2004. Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears
(Carnivora: Ursidae). Journal of Zoology (London) 263: 41-54.
Sathyakumar, S. 2006. The status of brown bears in India. Understanding Asian bears to secure their
future, pp. 7-11. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan.
Sathyakumar S., Kaul, R., Ashraf, N.V., Mookerjee, A., and Menon, V. 2012. National bear conservation
and welfare action plan. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Wildlife Institute of India and Wildlife
Trust of India.
Schwartz, C.C.,Haroldson, M.A., G.C., Cherry, S., Keating, K.A., Moody, D., and Servheen, C. 2006.
Temporal, spatial, and environmental influences on the demographics of grizzly bears in the greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs 161(1).
Schwartz, C. C., Miller, S. D. and Haroldson, M. A. 2003. Grizzly bear. In: G. A. Feldhamer, B. C.
Thompson, and J. A. Chapman (eds), Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and
conservation, pp. 556-586. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Servheen, C. 2013. Bear paw smuggling into China continues. International Bear News 22(3): 24.
Servheen, C., Herrero, S. and Peyton, B. 1999. Bears. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups, Gland, Switzerland.
Seryodkin, I. 2006. The biology and conservation status of brown bears in the Russian Far East.
Understanding Asian bears to secure their future, pp. 79-85. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan.
Swenson, J.E., Sandergren, F., and Söderberg, A. 1998. Geographic expansion of an increasing brown
bear population: evidence for presaturation dispersal. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 819–82.
Swenson, J., Gerstl, N., Dahle, B. and Zedrosser, A. 2000. Action plan for the conservation of the brown
bear in Europem (Ursus arctos). Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.
Tumendemberel, O., Proctor, M., Reynolds, H., Boulanger, J., Luvsamjamba, A., Tserenbataa, T.,
Batmunkh, M., Craighead, D., Yanjin, N., Paetkau, D. 2015. Gobi bear abundance and inter-oases
movement survey, Gobi Desert, Mongolia. Ursus 26: 129-142.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designating the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem population of grizzly bears as a distinct population segment; removing
the Yellowstone distinct population segment of grizzly bears from the federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife. United States Federal Register. 70: 69854-69884.
Wakkinen, W. L. and Kasworm, W. F. 2004. Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the
Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Ursus 15:
65-75.
Waller, J. S. and Servheen, C. 2005. Effects of transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears in
northwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 985-1000.
Wiegand, T., Stephan, T., Naves, J. and Fernandez, A. 1998. Assessing the risk of extinction for the brown
bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cordillera Cantabrica, Spain. Ecological Monographs 68: 539-570.
Zedrosser, A., Dahle, B., Swenson, J. E. and Gerstl, N. 2001. Status and managment of the brown bear in
Europe. Ursus 12: 9-20.
Citation
McLellan, B.N., Proctor, M.F., Huber, D. & Michel, S. 2017. Ursus arctos. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2017: e.T41688A121229971. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-
3.RLTS.T41688A121229971.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Major
Habitat Season Suitability
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.1. Forest - Boreal - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.2. Forest - Subarctic - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.1. Shrubland - Subarctic - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.3. Shrubland - Boreal - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist - Suitable No
4. Grassland -> 4.1. Grassland - Tundra - Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.2. Grassland - Subarctic - Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate - Suitable No
4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable No
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.3. Wetlands (inland) - Shrub Dominated Wetlands - Suitable Yes
5. Wetlands (inland) -> 5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, - Suitable No
Fens, Peatlands
8. Desert -> 8.2. Desert - Temperate - Suitable No
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land - Marginal -
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland - Marginal -
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.3. Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations - Marginal -
Threats
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
Housing & urban areas
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
Commercial & industrial areas
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Tourism & recreation areas
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.8. Other
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.1. Habitat Future Unknown Causing/could Unknown
shifting & alteration cause fluctuations

2.3.8. Other
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
2.3.8. Other
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
& ranching -> 2.3.1. Nomadic grazing
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
2.3.8. Other
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.1. Oil & gas Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
drilling
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.2. Mining & Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
quarrying
3. Energy production & mining -> 3.3. Renewable Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
energy
4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.1. Roads & Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
railroads 90%)

1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects
2.3.8. Other
4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.2. Utility & Ongoing Minority (50%) Negligible declines Low impact: 4
service lines
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.8. Other
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Causing/could Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is 90%) cause fluctuations impact: 6
the target)
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.2. Unintentional effects 90%)
(species is not the target)

5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Causing/could Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control 90%) cause fluctuations impact: 6
5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood Ongoing Majority (50- Causing/could Medium
harvesting -> 5.3.2. Intentional use: (large scale) 90%) cause fluctuations impact: 6
[harvest]
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.8. Other
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Ongoing Majority (50- Slow, significant Medium
Recreational activities 90%) declines impact: 6

6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.2. War, civil Future Minority (50%) Causing/could Low impact: 3
unrest & military exercises cause fluctuations
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.3. Work & Ongoing Majority (50- Negligible declines Low impact: 5
other activities 90%)

7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire Ongoing Minority (50%) Causing/could Low impact: 5
suppression -> 7.1.2. Supression in fire cause fluctuations
frequency/intensity
2.3.8. Other
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water Future Minority (50%) Causing/could Low impact: 3
management/use -> 7.2.10. Large dams cause fluctuations

2.3.8. Other
9. Pollution -> 9.4. Garbage & solid waste Ongoing Minority (50%) Causing/could Low impact: 5
cause fluctuations
2.3.8. Other
9. Pollution -> 9.6. Excess energy -> 9.6.3. Noise Ongoing Minority (50%) Causing/could Low impact: 5
pollution cause fluctuations

2.3.8. Other
Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Actions in Place

In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
In-Place Species Management
Harvest management plan: Yes
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: Yes
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
In-Place Education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes
Included in international legislation: Yes
Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed


1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.3. Sub-national level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level
Research Needed
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.2. Area-based Management Plan
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
3. Monitoring -> 3.2. Harvest level trends
3. Monitoring -> 3.4. Habitat trends
Additional Data Fields

Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 24000000
Number of Locations: 44
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 5000
Population
Number of mature individuals: 110000
Population severely fragmented: No
Amended
Amended The coding of the species' presence in Andorra, Austria, Czech Republic, and
reason: Turkmenistan was changed from "Certain" to "Uncertain" as bears are only
occasionally present in these countries; likewise the presence in Switzerland was
changed from "Reintroduced" to "Uncertain". Minor corrections have also been made
to the text capitalizing the common names of species and correcting "population" to
"subpopulation".
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Bear A2z

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bear A2z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

Ursus arctos, Brown Bear

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Ursidae

Taxon Name: Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758

Year Published: 2017

Date Assessed: February 2, 2016

Previously Published Red List Assessments

2016 – Least Concern (LC)

2008 – Least Concern (LC)

1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)

Possibly extinct: Bhutan

Present - origin uncertain: Lebanon; Syrian Arab Republic

For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.

Current Population Trend: Stable

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Use and Trade

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Reviewer(s): Garshelis, D.L.

McLellan, B. N. 1994. Density dependent population regulation of brown bears. International

Waller, J. S. and Servheen, C. 2005. Effects of transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears in

1. Forest -> 1.1. Forest - Boreal - Suitable Yes

1. Forest -> 1.2. Forest - Subarctic - Suitable Yes

1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.1. Shrubland - Subarctic - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.3. Shrubland - Boreal - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist - Suitable No

4. Grassland -> 4.1. Grassland - Tundra - Suitable Yes

4. Grassland -> 4.2. Grassland - Subarctic - Suitable Yes

4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate - Suitable No

4. Grassland -> 4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable No

8. Desert -> 8.2. Desert - Temperate - Suitable No

14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land - Marginal -

14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland - Marginal -

14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.3. Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations - Marginal -

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion

(species is not the target)

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.3. Indirect ecosystem effects

Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Actions in Place

Occur in at least one PA: Yes

In-Place Species Management

Harvest management plan: Yes

Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: Yes

Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes

Included in international legislation: Yes

Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Actions Needed

1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection

2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control