Content uploaded by Maryna Shkvyria
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maryna Shkvyria on Apr 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
BROWN BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS):
PROBLEMS OF CONSERVATION
AND STUDYING OF POPULATION
IN UKRAINE
Edited by
Dr. I. V. Dykyy,
Dr. M. G. Shkvyria
2015
УДК 574.3(477)
ББК 28.6
В 26
Рекомендовано до друку вченою радою
Львівського національного університету імені Івана Франка
(протокол № 39 від 15 червня 2015 р.)
Р е ц е н з е н т и:
Й. В. Царик, доктор біологічних наук, професор
(Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка),
В. А. Токарський, доктор біологічних наук, професор
(Харківський національний університет імені В. Н. Каразіна),
О. В. Міхєєв, доктор біологічних наук, с. н. с.
(Дніпропетровський національний університет імені Олеся Гончара)
Ведмідь бурий (Ursus arctos): проблеми збереження та дослідження популяції в Україні :
монографія / наук. ред. І. В. Дикий, М. Г. Шквиря. – Київ: ТОВ "СІК ГРУП УКРАЇНА", 2015. –
135 с. ISBN 978-617-7092-57-4
Популяція ведмедя бурого в Україні протягом останнього сторіччя зазнала суттєвих змін своїх характеристик.
Змінювалися тип господарювання, стан лісостанів, рівень рекреаційного навантаження та частота нелегального
полювання тощо. Внесення виду до Червоної Книги України не врятувало ведмедя від негативного тренду чисельності.
Тож надзвичайно актуальним стає питання управління популяцією на державному рівні. Однак подібні програми мають
базуватись на ґрунтовних дослідженнях. За роки незалежності таких досліджень було небагато. Тож автори протягом
останніх 15 років активізували збір польових даних і зробили спробу аналізу стану популяції. Актуалізовано основні
проблеми збереження виду в Україні. В колективній монографії приділено увагу історії досліджень ведмедя бурого в
Україні. Наведено аналіз закономірностей динаміки чисельності. Також висвітлено значний масив польових даних,
зібраних в рамках досліджень сучасного стану популяції, зокрема характеру поширення, чисельності та статево-вікової
структури, особливостей екології. Проаналізовано ефективність методів обліку. Розглянуто проблематику
взаємовідносин «людина-ведмідь», у тому числі конфлікт на територіях, де мешкає вид, утримання виду в умовах неволі,
можливості формування позитивного іміджу виду. Окрему увагу приділено аспектам менеджменту популяції, насамперед
проблемам організації моніторингу та охорони популяції ведмедя бурого в Україні. Зроблено висновки щодо
можливостей екстраполяції закордонного досвіду на територію України.
Основною метою публікації є узагальнення наявних сучасних розрізнених даних з екології виду та актуалізація
проблематики збереження популяції виду в Україні.
Для співробітників наукових установ, викладачів і студентів природничих спеціальностей вищих навчальних
закладів, учителів біології загальноосвітніх шкіл, екологів і краєзнавців.
ISBN 978-617-7092-57-4
© І. Дикий, М. Шквиря, П. Хоєцький, І. Делеган,
І. Скільский, А.-Т. Башта, Є. Улюра, Є. Яковлєв,
К. Батіста-Лєон, Г. Гаврись, М. Лущак, Н. Коваль,
Л. Потіш, 2015
© М. Шквиря: фото на 1-й та 4-й сторінках
обкладинки
© Є. Яковлєв: верстка, обкладинка
© М. Мартиняк-Жовтянецька, Л. Звенигородська:
літературні редактори
Abstract
8
ABSTRACT
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF STUDIES OF BROWN BEARS (URSUS ARCTOS L.) IN UKRAINE
AND ADJOINING TERRITORIES
I.V. Delehan, A.-T.V. Bashta, I.V. Skilsky, M.M. Lushak
The first chapter details key historical phases of research of brown bears in Ukraine
and adjoining territories. The text contains records of the species distribution throughout
the history. Thus, bear osteological material was first discovered in Middle Pleistocene
layers (Pidoplichko, 1951). Fossils from the Paleolithic era discovered in central and
western parts of Ukraine (Volynska, Dnipropetrovska, Ivano-Frankivska, Lvivska,
Poltavska, Rivnenska, Cherkaska, Chernivetska and Chernihivska regions) including
Crimea confirm that in the past brown bears were spread around most of the territory of
the present day Ukraine (Pidoplichko 1938, 1956; Chernysh, 1959; Sokur, 1961;
Cheremysov, 1986). According to numerous paleontological finds brown bears have
likewise inhabited the Carpathians from olden times (throughout the entire
Anthropocene) (Pidoplichko, 1938; Tatarynov, 1966 and others).
During the Holocene bear area began to narrow. Populations of the Steppe and the
Forest-Steppe disappeared. During the Middle Holocene the south border of brown bears
populations reached 47° north latitude. In the adjoining Ukrainian regions this border
was located further north (Bybykova, 1963) and in Romania further south between 45°
and 44° north latitude. (Haimovici, 1963). Generally, records of bear fossil finds in
Crimea date back to 2000 AD (Vereshchahin, Tihonov, 1991). Brown bear distribution
area decreased with deforestation and land reclamation for agricultural use. This process
extended from the south to the north (Tymchenko, 1972). V. Heptner et. al. (1967) argue
that even in 17th century bears were spread across entire Ukraine to the south of Perekop.
Moreover, S. Kyrykov (1955) wrote that the species became extinct in the south of
Ukraine in the 17th century and in the 18th century – in the central Ukraine, and in 1950s
–in Polesia (Vereshchahin, Tihonov, 1991). After the 17th century bears became a rare
species on the territory of the present-day Ukraine and their distribution gradually was
limited to the Carpathians and Polesia. However, D. Bahalii (1887) referring to
chronicles and archive records wrote that bears inhabited Slobidska Ukraine forests
almost till the end of the 18th century. During the first half of the 18th century bears were
observed in Chornyi forest near Znamianka (Kirovohradska region) including in forest-
steppe areas with minimum forest southward of Kyiv such as the outskirts of Chyhyryn
(Myshetskyi, 1852).
First records (chronicles, annals, and traveler records) that remained from the Middle
Ages contain only pieces of information such as evidence of successful bear hunting,
encounters during travels in various locations or cases of bear attacks on people. Only at
the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries works of such authors as
K. Kessler (1851), S. Pietruski (1853), A. Brem (1904), M. Sharleman (1920) saw the
light containing – alongside with brown bear distribution of that time – reports on
biology and ecology of the species, and subspecies division. Game managers and natural
scientists such as Yu.V. Yurkevych, A. S. Khrystan, F. B. Stozhyk, M. Revakovych
contributed greatly to research conducted at that time in the Carpathian region.
In the 20th century began the period of more informative research of brown bears in
the Carpathians. K. A. Tatarynov (1956, 1973), I. I. Turianyn (1969, 1974, 1975),
Abstract
9
I. T. Sokur (1952), N. N. Koliushev (1955), O. O. Slobodian (1974, 1979, 1981, 1987,
1988, 1991, 1993), V. I. Kryzhanivskyi (1999), M. M. Lushchak, I. V. Delegan (2011),
P. B. Khoietskyi (2000) and others focused their works on distribution, population
dynamics, biological features and value of the species for the region.
Also the chapter – based on hunting statistics, field study records and summarized
literature reports – shows population dynamics of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in
administrative districts of the Carpathian region from 1969 to 2009 including cyclical
changes of the general downward trend compared to the upward trend in neighboring
states. During the analyzed period the average brown bear population in the Carpathians
was 621±39 animals, the lowest population reported was 240 animals in 2001 and the
highest – 1101 in 1971. Reported drastic changes in population (30-50 %) prove the
insufficiency of reporting techniques or massive migration of animals to Ukrainian
Carpathians from adjoining territories of Slovakia, Poland and Romania. The work
contains diagrams of population dynamics, population density trend for 40 years. The
authors report that the population decrease was triggered by at least three factors as
poaching, reduction of basic feed (raspberry, blackberry, and blueberry) due to
disappearance of forest crops on vast territories for the last 20 years and human activity
in the Carpathian forests caused by berry and mushroom harvesting, and inconsistent
tourism. It may seem ironic but a reducing deforestation for the last two decades (up to 5
times according to official records) did not do any good for the bear population since
forest clearings and the associated food supply have scaled down.
PRESENT DAY BROWN BEAR POPULATION IN UKRAINE: DISTRIBUTION PATTERN AND
ECOLOGICAL FEATURES; POPULATION AND RESEARCH METHODS.
I.V. Dykyy, M.G. Shkvyria, P.B. Khoetcky, E.M. Ulyura, Ye.B. Yakovliev, N.P. Koval
This chapter details present-day brown bear population in Ukraine: distribution
pattern and ecological features; population and research methods. Based on many years
of own authors' research reports on distribution pattern and ecological features of the
species are presented, including habitat preferences, biocenosis between other large
carnivore species in the region (wolfs, lynx), location of dens, daily and seasonal
activity, and parasite fauna. Original materials on feeding, population, sex and age
structure of brown bears in Ukrainian Carpathians are provided. Evaluation of
effectiveness of the current recordkeeping of this species helped to highlight four major
issues as lack of interest among the area users top obtain accurate data; double entry
recordkeeping and underqualified recordkeepers; recordkeeping challenges in the
borderline territories; cumbersome and cost-intensive procedures. To assure an ongoing
monitoring of the bear population the authors have suggested a harmonized
recordkeeping method designed based on classical methods with due consideration to
geographic features of Ukraine.
On the territory of Ukraine is the location for two brown bear areas such as the
Carpathian region (mountainous areas of Lvivska, Ivano-Frankivska, Zakarpatska and
Chernivetska regions) and the Polesia region (north districts of Kyivska and Sumska
regions). The existence of a stable breeding population for now can only be attributed to
the Carpathians. Hence, this particular area sets an example of the territory structure of
the brown bear population in Ukraine. The work details a map of current brown bear
distribution in Ukrainian Carpathians. For the purpose of mapping brown bear locations
special consideration was given to recording details of the population spatial structure
namely feeding sites, dens and recurring movement trails (pic. 2.1.1).
Abstract
10
Regarding the Polesia region reports on the species status are limited to a few
confirmed finds of tracks and photos of single animals in the past years (Klestov et. al.
1998, Zhyla 1999, Merzilkin 2003, Heshchak unpulb. data, Shkvyria, Vyshnewsky,
2012). Hence, mapping of this region was based on the "presence"/"absence" scheme.
Evaluation of geographical distribution of structural elements presented a weak
correlation with regulatory assigned nature conservation areas. Hence, just about a half
(55-59 %) of litter areas, winter dens locations and feeding sites with major trails are
fully or partially contained within the Nature Reserve Fund sites. However, this in no
way downplays the importance of natural reserves for the species conservation rather a
demonstrates the need to consider territories of different degree of environmental
management for monitoring and species conservation programs.
To estimate the potential of animal interchange within the neighboring states we
identified eco-corridors i.e. main trails of animal movements between territories of
neighboring states and forest areas of adjoining regions. At present 12 transboundary
eco-corridors significant with regard to brown bears were established: 7 with Poland, 2
with Romania, 2 with Slovakia and 1 with Belarus. Also 5 eco-corridors between
administrative regions were established: 2 between Lvivska and Ivano-Frankivska, 2 on
the borderline of Ivano-Frankivska and Zakarpatska, and 1 between Chernivetska and
Ivano-Frankivska.
Within the Carpathian region the species distribution varies with forest types and
specific forest vegetation. Most frequent reports of bear activity are recorded in humid
areas, 82.8%. In sub-humid habitats bear presence and activity were reported 2.7 times
less than in the damp, and 18 times less than in the humid. Bear presence and activity
reported in oligotrophic habitats are insufficient and make up just 5.7 %, in more
favorable habitats figures are 4.4 times higher. Mesotrophic and megatrophic habitats
account for 69.0 % reports. Forest-type-specific structure of brown bear habitats in
Ukrainian Carpathians (rate of incidence reports according to different forest types) is
provided in Table 2.2.1. Analysis of bear habitat preferences considering
anthropogenically transformed habitats according to 185 finds of species presence (of
which 26 were reported in abandoned fruit gardens and near communities) are provided
in Table 2.2.2. Moreover, the text contains original drawings illustrating brown bear
habitat preferences cross-referenced with P. S. Pohrebniak's edaphic chart (identifying
types of the species location by two indicators: moisture – vertical axis and soil mineral
content – horizontal axis).
Brown bears in the Carpathians prefer mosaic landscapes containing old mountain
forests with windthrow and valleys divided by mountainous areas, and more than a
decade-old scrubby forest clearings overgrown with blackberry and raspberry. Bears can
reach to 1900-2000 m SLR. During blueberry harvest season the animals concentrate on
subalpine meadows. Animals also travel to territories in the vicinity of communities with
fruit gardens and apiaries. In general, stationary bear location is largely determined by
the season, since the search for seasonal feeds defines bear movement patterns.
Movement pattern features are usually attributed to the orographic chart of the
location. Bears try to avoid staying long on open sites. Customary bears move along
ravines, shrubby slopes, through forests with scrubland. However, bears also actively
exploit paths trodden by ungulates, forest district strip-cuttings, skid trails, and unpaved
roads. This makes movement energy-efficient. Daily travel distance may vary and
depends on such factors as season, age and sex, and social status of the animal. Females
with young rarely travel over 5 km per day, while males in search for food can travel in
spring for over 40 km.
Abstract
11
Apparently, in Ukraine there are no set terms for winter hibernation. Mild winters and
available feed allow bears to avoid hibernation in winter or hibernate for a very short
term. We have registered numerous reports of bear tracks in mid-November, early
December, through January and early February. Most dens found on the territory of
Ukraine are partly closed. Dens are located in rock crevices, windthrow or shrubbery,
under uprooted trees or trees split by lightning.
Previous researchers reported that brown bears in Ukrainian Carpathians feed mostly
on plants. Our reports also support the theory that plant-based feed plays a major role in
bear diet (over 80 %). In general, 107 cases of feeding were examined (droppings,
leftovers, prey remains, and visual observations). Findings are provided in tables with
the list of plant and animal food (with frequency rate). The chapter details and illustrates
behavior defined by food search including food content based on the season.
Feeding on prey leftovers of one another is common for three large carnivore species
such as wolves, lynx and bears. Competition is temporary and local. There were reports
of bears feeding on wolf's prey and vice versa. The important factor that affects
relationships of the species is the overlapping of habitat preferences. It appeared that
wolves and bears don't have significant habitat differences. Regarding lynx, it was
discovered that major finds of bear and lynx tracks in same habitats can be primarily
attributed to habitats with high degree of protection.
Data on helminth fauna and protozoan parasite profile of brown bears were presented.
Brown bears in the wild and in captivity in Ukraine present with the following helminths
and protozoa: Baylisascaris sp., B. transfuga, Isospora spp., Opistorchis felineus,
Strongylus sp. (prob., Uncinaria stenocephala), Toxocara sp., Trichinella nativa,
unidentified larvae migrans of strongylid nematode species.
The species population estimates are based on findings of own research, literature
reports, surveys of natural reserve fund workers, hunters of non-governmental hunting
societies, forest rangers, forest and game keeping service, and less often on hunting
inventory records. During own research the authors recorded 226 brown bears, of which
49 in Lvivska, 100 in Zakarpatska, 32 in Ivano-Frankivska, 41 in Chernivetska, 3 in
Sumska, and 1 in Kyivska regions.
Contrastive analysis of our records with statistical data ("2TP-hunting" cards
estimating over 350 animals) showed discrepancies in Ukrainian bear population that
apparently can be explained by downsides of the official recordkeeping service and
certain insufficiency of available data.
Sex and age structure of the population, when possible, was estimated by measuring
tracks and physical description of each animal during observation. It's usually difficult to
determine sex based on tracks. Sex could be determined precisely only upon registering
tracks or animals of three categories: large males, females with young, and couples
during mating season. Hence, the sex-age features of the population that we have
established can be primarily attributed to breeding animals.
Altogether the sex of 35 animals was determined. Age groups were established for 81
animals. Animals of determined sex made up about 16 % of the total population of bears
we've put on the record. Animals of determined age group made up about 36% of the
total recorded population of brown bears. With regards to the sex-age structure, poached
animals were mainly mature males. Young animals were less likely to be killed like cubs
spared during stalking. Mature females are the most unlikely to be killed.
To provide ongoing monitoring of the bear population we've analyzed current
recordkeeping issues and suggested a harmonized method for keeping records of brown
Abstract
12
bears. This method was designed based on classical methods with due consideration to
geographic features of Ukraine.
THE ISSUE OF HUMAN-BEAR RELATIONSHIP
M.G. Shkvyria, P.B. Khoetcky, E.M. Ulyura, I.V. Dykyy, C. Bautista-Leon
This chapter details human-bear relationship both from historical perspective and
present day coexistence.
Special consideration was given to evolution of public opinion to keeping bears in
captivity ranging from collections of exotic animals of Ancient Egypt to present-day zoo
facilities. Despite a long history of keeping bears in captivity and numerous scientific
and practical findings regarding different aspects of animals in the wild and held captive,
it has been only two-three decades since people began to understand actual needs of
these highly intelligent creatures and provide them with conditions conducive to their
existence. First of all, this concerns square footage standards and arrangement of open-
air cages including installation of different physical and psychological stimuli to
promote relevant mental activity.
People came up with the idea of helping wildlife in case of injury or appearance in
human surroundings along with moving away from consumerism such as extensive use
of nature to regarding a human being as its integral part. This initiative was largely
supported by NGOs and environment regulators. Today in many countries around the
world alongside shelters for domestic animals there are wildlife care center that provide
timely quality treatment and care. When possible the effort is made to return animals to
their natural habitats. Regardless of the name of a facility such as a rehabilitation center,
shelter, wildlife center, wildlife rescue center etc., their goal is to help animals of
different of taxonomic groups (not just rare and endangered species) that found
themselves in a difficult situation. The authors present a thorough evaluation of top
institutions working in this field in different countries around the world that provide care
to different bear species. Also introducing said institutions in Ukraine was brought to
special attention, since a lot of brown bears are illegally kept by private owners.
The authors report that currently at least two hundred animals are held captive in
Ukraine that could be even more than in the wild. There is also the legal side to consider.
At present bears fall under Law on Red Data Book of Ukraine (since 2003), the Bern
Convention, CITES, Law on cruelty to animals. However no control is being exercised
whatsoever. We analyzed 36 bear enclousers (from our data base of 85 places).
Conditions are not appropriate, bears have been exploiting cruelly.
Analysis of the issue of keeping brown bears in captivity provided in the chapter
showed a disastrous problem with no quick solution possible considering the country's
level of development.
Also the chapter sets out findings of original research of the human-bear conflict.
This conflict has existed throughout the entire history of humans and carnivores. In the
early history humans and brown bears competed for prey, territory and posed a direct
threat for one another, hence the relationship was mostly antagonistic. However, let's not
forget that bears were considered sacred in ancient cultures, which imposed certain
restrictions on killing and reasonable approach to exploiting the species. Given the
development and evolution of human civilization bears posed lesser threat to the life of
humans with guns in their hands. People had to another issue that is preservation of the
species in the natural habitat. Environmental legislative initiatives were introduced and
the process of assigning natural reserve territories is ongoing. However, the conflict
remains. The conflict has scaled down and became more territory-specific. But it is still
Abstract
13
relevant. Since now we have to conserve the species and at the same time balance the
interests of wildlife and people existing side by side. Coexistence is a part of daily life.
This is especially relevant to European countries, including Ukraine, where bears and
humans share certain territories.
This text address main contributors to the human-carnivore conflict in Ukraine,
namely: bears using anthropogenic resources (foraging for livestock and crops,
occupying territories with a significant degree of anthropogenic transformation);
competing with humans for natural resources; fear of being attacked by the carnivore.
The authors provide numerous original reports on damages caused by bears to locals,
encounters and bear/human confrontations (more than 100 cases). There is also data of
survey regarding to damage caused by bears, attitude of locals to prevention methods
and possibilities of compensation.
Conducted research shows that in most cases aggressive bear behavior towards
humans in Ukrainian Carpathians is triggered: by hunter(s) pursuing a wounded bear that
is commonly instigated by wrongful human behavior; females protecting their cubs;
hunger due to bad crop or shortage of feeds after winter hibernation; accidental
encounter within limited area rendering it difficult to avoid confrontation (narrow paths,
in shrubbery with limited visibility etc.). The text includes a list of high conflict risk
areas including detailed recommendations for avoiding the human-carnivore conflict (to
insure balanced human and bear coexistence, reduce the risk of farming damages,
prescribe rules of conduct in bear habitats, create public awareness etc.).
Special consideration was given to findings of the written survey conducted by the
authors in different local social groups. This basically showed that people tolerate bears.
However, environmental awareness is very low. Poaching incidents are withheld.
Information on den locations is scares or concealed. Most dens were discovered
incidentally. As expected forest workers and hunters proved to be the most
knowledgeable. Recommendations were provided on balancing coexistence and creating
a positive image of the species based on own practices and analysis of experience of
foreign states.
FEATURES OF MANAGING THE BROWN BEAR POPULATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
PERSPECTIVES FOR INTRODUCING MANAGEMENT IN UKRAINE CONSIDERING FOREIGN
COUNTRY EXPERTISE.
M.G. Shkvyria, I.V. Dykyy, G.G. Gavrys, L.A. Potish
The chapter details experience of foreign countries on managing the brown bear
population and practical measures for conservation and reproduction. A list of general
conservation and management actions is provided. It's specifically indicated that bears is
a species highly sensitive to such factors as habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation
and are directly pursued by humans. In the last century the greater part of the bear
habitat has seen a negative population trend and an increase in separated isolated
subpopulations. For the last decades the management actions in Europe resulted in a
gradual increase in the species population in several habitats due to reintroduction and
enforcing environmental protection. Such projects received multifaceted primarily
legislative (multiple international and regional agreements enabling approved action
plan) and financial support from government institutions (Brown Bear Management
Plans in Europe, 2005; Action Plan for the Conservation of Brown Bear (Ursus arctos)
in Latvia, 2003). Long-term approach and consistency are the key points of said projects,
including their standing support in the light of previous experience and every-day
changes.
Abstract
14
Due to environmental, social and economic similarity Brown Bear Conservation
Action Plan for Europe proves to be the most feasible for Ukraine. The main goal of the
Action Plan is to assist and restore viable populations of brown bears as an integral part
of European ecosystems and landscapes. With regards to Ukraine the Action Plan
suggested introducing measures for conservation of the existing population, reducing
anthropogenic effect on the habitat and bringing the issue of brown bear conservation to
public attention. However, no real steps were taken within the said framework.
First of all, specific limitations for successful implementation of foreign expertise in
Ukraine should be pointed out. Ukraine has virtually no active poaching control and
prevention system. Hence, most directives and restrictions are of no practical use. Also
recommendations requiring substantial financing such as compensating locals for
damages caused by carnivores and installation of fences along highways had no effect.
These issues need to be solve at the legislative level and included in the state and local
budgets.
Regarding the legislative side of management of the brown bear population in
present-day Ukraine, it should be noted that there is no legal framework for introducing
shelters, rehabilitation center for animals removed from the wild with or without
following reintroduction or repatriation to their natural habitat. It's crucial to block
contributors to bear population held in captivity such as free sale and breeding, hounding
on bear-baiting centers, private ownership, and keeping animals on the premises of
hotels and restaurants etc. Another issue is the need to tighten controls on importing and
exploiting live animals or brown bear skins from neighboring states.
Considering existing potential threats to the species on the territory of Ukraine the
authors argue that defining territories vital for conservation of the species and creating
public environmental awareness appear to be most realistic and effective practical
measures for the species conservation in Ukraine (the major areas of focus are
preventing and combating poaching and engaging journalists and volunteers in
monitoring reports on the population status in the region, and introducing local
environmental and animal breeding initiatives).
The text highlights key point for monitoring and protecting the brown bear population
in Ukraine. This includes namely the issues of harmonizing recordkeeping, lack of
national monitoring programs, low public interest, commercial exploitation of the
species, limited number of shelters, rehabilitation centers and no reintroduction centers
for brown bears, general issues of the legal framework etc.
Thus far the country has no comprehensive strategy for examining and managing the
brown bear population. Projects introduced by the government were designed by
incompetent specialist assigned by regulators and were largely underfinanced. Several
small projects initiated by foreign states also lacked implementation and financing.
Hence, considering that at present records on the most relevant population features are
insufficient for developing and introducing the greater share of practical measures for
the population management, the authors have suggested a Designated Research Plan for
large carnivores of Ukrainian fauna, including brown bears, and a list of practical
measures with recommendations and suggestions, and existing relevant practices.
In general, a great number of measures that proved to be successful in foreign states
can be applied in Ukraine provided required financing and legal framework are put into
place.