bearcov

199

Chapter 10

Asiatic Black Bear Conservation Action Plan

IUCN Category: Vulnerable, A1cd; Critically Endangered, B1+2abc,C2A (Iran, Pakistan)

CITES Listing: Appendix I

Scientific Names: Ursus thibetanus, Ursus thibetanus ussuricus, Ursus thibetanus japonicus,

Ursus thibetanus formosus

Common Names: Asiatic black bear; Formosan black bear; Japan: tsukinowa-guma; Russia:

gimalayskiy medved, belogrudiy medved, or cherniy medved, Himalayan, white-chested or

black bear

Figure 10.1.

General distribution of the Asiatic black bear (

Ursus thibetanus

JAPAN

TAIWAN

MONGOLIA

CHINA

INDIA

PAKISTAN

AFGHANISTAN

NEP

BHUTAN

BANGLADESH

Indian Ocean

Arabian

Sea

South China

Sea

Pacific

Ocean

KAZAKHSTAN

RUSSIA

NORTH
KOREA

SOUTH

KOREA

MYANMAR

THAILAND

LAOS

VIETNAM

CAMBODIA

MALAYSIA

TAD

KIRGIZSTAN

1000 km

1000 miles

200

Autonomous Regions. Black bears are now extinct in the
northern region.

Because of the rapid increase of human population and

development, the extent of black bear habitat has gradually
decreased over recent years. For example, the human
population in Heilongjiang Province, a black bear
stronghold (see page 123), has increased by a multiple of
five in the past 30 years. Farmland area has increased
30,000km

, decreasing the forest area from 480,000km

240,000km

. Forests have become fragmented by highways

and towns.

The black bear is widely distributed in China (Figure

10.2), but mainly occurs in southwest China. Most
recordings are from Xizhang Autonomous Region,
Sichuan, Yunnan, and Heilongjiang provinces, etc. The
distribution of the black bear in China can be divided into
four large regions:
1. East Mountainous regions of northeast China: extends

southward from the Xiaoxinganling, Zhagguangcailing,
Laoyeling, and Changbaishan mountain regions, and
towards the northeast of Liaoning Province (Huairen
County).

2. Southern part of the Qinling Mountains: extends from

the Yushu area of Qinghai Province through southern
Ganshu Province to the Qinling Mountains and Daba
Mountains of southern Shaanxi Province.

3. Central-southern areas: the junction of three provinces,

Anhui, Zhejiang, and Jiangxi, the Wuyi mountains,
the west of Hubei Province, the north of Guangdong

Introduction

The Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) is distributed
through much of southern Asia, northeastern China, far
eastern Russia and Japan (Servheen 1990), see Figure 10.1.
.

Status and management of the
Asiatic black bear in China

Ma Yiqing and Li Xiaomin

Distribution and status

According to 1994 statistics the number of Asiatic black
bears (Ursus thibetanus) in China is less than 20,000
individuals. They are endangered now, and urgently must
be protected.

The Asiatic black bear is widely distributed in broad-

leaf and theropencedrymion forests. Tropical rainforests
and oak forests are its ideal habitats. In the past, there
were large areas of forests and substantial numbers of
black bears in northern China. Forests have disappeared
quickly in this region since the Ming Dynasty (1368–
1644), and especially during this century. According to
historical materials, the number of bears in China has
decreased yearly and its distribution range is continuously
being reduced. The wild population numbers are declining
in areas, even in regions of northeast and southwest
China. The bear no longer exists in many provinces and

Figure 10.2.

Distribution

of the Asiatic black bear
(

Ursus thibetanus

) in

China.

General Distribution

MONGOLIA

RUSSIA

KAZAKHSTAN

INDIA

MYANMAR

South China

Sea

East

China

Sea

Heilongjiang

500 miles

500 km

201

Propaganda Month” activities, putting “Wildlife
Protection Act” into effect, and carrying out these
“Implemental Detailed Rules and Regulations” of each
Province or Region. It is common knowledge that the
black bears are protected animals.

Population and habitat threats

Habitat loss is due to over-cutting of forests and some
other logging practices. Over the last 40 years, the human
population has increased to over 430,000 in regions where
bears are distributed, in Shaanxi, Ganshu, and Sichuan
provinces. In this area, 27 forestry enterprises were built
between 1950 and 1985 (excluding the lumbering units
belonging to the county). The deforested area is verified at
42,256km

. This reduced the habitat by 73%, from

51,103km

in the early 1950s to 13,832km

in the 1980s. By

the early 1990s, the distribution area was reduced to only
one-fifth of the area that existed before the 1940s.

Increasing human population, expansion of residential

areas, and roadway networks in forest areas not only
cause reduction and fragmentation of bear, but also
degrades the environment within habitats, and food sources
are destroyed and lost. These big mammals face
environmental and genetic stress which occurs in isolated
sub-populations.

Over-hunting has been a great threat to the population

of black bears and is one of the most important reasons for
their decrease. Bears are glamorous mammals, their skins,

Province and the mountainous regions of the Wuling
hills (the northwest forest areas of Guangxi Province).

4. Southwestern China: Himalayan mountain forest areas

of southern Tibet, the Hangduan Mountains of eastern
Tibet, hilly areas around the Basin of Sichuan Province,
high mountain and deep valley regions of southwestern
Sichuan, forest area of Yungui Plateaus, etc.

According to the present estimates, the total population

of the Asiatic black bear in China is about 15,000–20,000
individuals.Through recent survey data and comparing
relevant data, the numerical distribution of the black bear
in China is as follows:
1. Northeastern China: Heilongjiang Province, an

estimated 1,000–2,000; Jilin 350–400; and Liaoning,
about 50. Total number is 2,300–2,850.

2. Southern part of Qinling mountains: Southern Qinghai

Province, about 100; southern Shaanxi Province, about
250–300. The total number is about 450–550.

3. Central-southern area of China: Southern Anhui

Province, 30–40; western and southern Zhejiang
Province, 20–30; northern Fujian Province, 50–80;
northern Guangdong Province, 40–50. The population
in western Hubei Province is relatively larger than other
regions, and the density is 1–1.5/100km

, or 350–400

individuals. In the forest region of northwestern Guangxi
Province, the density is 1.5–2.0/100km

, and 200–260

individuals. The total population is about 1,020–1,250
in the whole region (the integer is 1,000–1,200).

4. Southwestern China: Density and populations are;

Tibet, 1/150–200km

and 3,500–4,500; Sichuan

Province, 1/100–150km

and 5,000 – 6,000; northern

Guizhou Province, 1–1.5/100km

and 360–460; Yunnan

Province, 1/100km

and 2,000–3,000. The total

population is about 10,860–13,960 (the integer is
11,000–14,000).

The black bear occurred on Hainan Island until recently

but research on whether the black bear still survives on the
island is needed.

Legal status

According to the National Protection Wildlife Law, the
black bear is listed as a “protected animal”. The People’s
Republic of China’s Wildlife Protection Law stipulates
that anyone who catches or hunts bears without permits
from the national wildlife authorities will be severely
punished. If the case is serious and violates the law, the
responsibility for the case must be investigated and
prosecuted according to the laws. These national laws and
regulations provide a reliable basis for the protection of
bears, while each Province or Autonomous Region has
reinforced protection, such as: “Wildlife Protection

Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) at a bear farm, China.

C. Servheen

202

paws, gall bladders, and even young cubs have direct and
large economic values. In autumn, bears harm the crops,
orchards, and bee farms, so bear harvest has been
maintained at a high level in China. In Heilongjiang
Province, the annual harvest of bears was over 1,000 during
the 1950s to 1960s, but purchased furs were reduced by
4/5, even by 9/10 yearly in the late 1970s to the early 1980s.
In Dehong Dai and Jingpo Nations Autonomous
Prefecture, Yunnan Province, bear resources were very
abundant in past years, but according to investigations,
bear resources have declined recently. For example, the
Prefecture’s amount of purchased bear skins was: 188 skins
in 1986, 142 in 1987, 123 in 1988, 72 in 1989, 45 in 1990, and
27 in 1991. This shows that the wild bear numbers are
declining every year, and the yield of furs was only 1/7 of
that in 1986.

Raising bears in captivity became popular throughout

China, owing especially to the successful milking of bile
from gall bladders, and bear raising became an easy way
to quick prosperity. Many black bears were captured from
the wild.

Management

There has been a rapid development of natural reserves in
China: 415 natural reserves were set up by the end of 1993
in order to protect forests and wildlife. The total area of
natural reserves is about 460,000km

, 4.7 % of the total

area of China. There are bears in most of these reserves
where they are more protected. Protection of forests and
fire prevention in each forest region throughout the country
provides protection to big mammals such as the black
bear. Also, punishing poachers and confiscating illegal
hunting tools and live animals are all active measures to
protect bears.

In recent years, the Forestry Ministry of China has

organized surveys on bear resources throughout the country,
and the data is presently being collected and analysed. This
advances protection of, and research on, bears.

The following problems occur in China: 1) Hunting

young bears in some areas is not prohibited; 2) The
management level of each bear farm is different; 3) The
illegal border trade and smuggling of live bears and its
products are serious problems; 4) As the bear is a big,
dangerous beast, the lack of funds and research teams
limit field studies. This leads to the lack of data on bear
resources and informed scientific judgment.

Specific conservation recommendations

1. The wildlife protection law and the relevant detailed

rules and regulations must be strictly enforced. It is
necessary to educate people regarding such laws, and

people who illegally capture and/or kill wildlife should
be punished in due time.

2. It is necessary to establish a resource data bank for

black bears, monitor trends of black bear population
and their habitats, and establish a research and
monitoring center.

3. Rectify bear raising farms and set a unified management

method. Enforce management of bear farms for better
economic effectiveness. Set up artificial breeding centers
in appropriate bear farms.

4. Establish natural reserves in overlapping areas of black

bear distribution. Strengthen management of natural
reserves. Set up black bear field research centers in
natural reserves.

5. Strengthen scientific research and international

cooperation. Develop research on black bear trade,
habitat conservation, and captive raising and breeding.

6. Formulate a plan for black bear reintroduction in

areas where black bears have become extinct, and
organize and enforce the plan effectively.

Status and management of the
Asiatic black bear in India

S. Sathyakumar

Status

The Asiatic black bear is threatened in India due to
poaching for gall bladders (medicine) and skin
(ornamental), killing bears to reduce agricultural crop
depredation, large scale destruction of its habitat due to
illegal logging, developmental activities (hydroelectric
projects and road construction), and pressures from
humans and livestock. The potential Asiatic black bear
habitat in India is about 14,474km

of which only <5% is

protected under the existing network of protected areas
(WIINWDB 1995). There are no estimates of Asiatic
black bear population numbers or densities in India.

Historic range and current distribution

The Asiatic black bear was once continuously distributed
from west to east through Baluchistan, India, Nepal,
China, Japan, and south into Myanmar and the Malayan
peninsula. In India, it is now found in the states of Jammu
and Kashmir (not Ladakh), Himachal Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and in the hills of
West Bengal and northeastern states (Figure 10.3).

The Greater Himalayan ranges cover 233,800km

(7.38%) of India’s geographical region (Rodgers and
Panwar 1988) and supports perhaps the largest population
of Asiatic black bears in Asia. This population is largely
confined to the western, northwestern and eastern

203

Himalayan ranges in India (Figure 10.3). The Asiatic
black bear inhabits forested hills ranging from 1,200m to
3,300m (Prater 1980). Its range overlaps with that of the
sloth bear below 1,200m and the Himalayan brown bear
above 3,000m. Schaller (1977) mentioned that it is
distributed in the forests of Himalaya below 3,750m. At
present, the distribution of the Asiatic black bear in India
is continuous. This is largely due to the fact that the black
bear manages to make use of plantations, orchards,
cultivated areas, scrublands, and even villages for its
movement between forested areas.

A small population exists in the central Himalayan

regions of India in the states of Sikkim and West Bengal
(WIINWDB 1995). This species is also present in a few
areas in the hills of the other northeastern states. In total,
56 Protected Areas (PAs) in India have black bear
populations.

It is likely that the increasing human population and its

resultant pressures will have an adverse impact on the
status and distribution of the India’s Asiatic black bears.
The long-term conservation of this species lies in adequate
protection within and outside of PAs, protection of forested
areas adjacent to PAs and forest corridors, minimization
of other habitat destruction, and strict controls on illegal
trade of bear gall bladders and pelts.

The following is the distribution and status of Asiatic

black bears in India, presented state by state with reference
to the network of PAs, major valleys, Reserved Forests
(RFs) and Forest Divisions (FDs). Information on black
bear occurrence presented here, where no citation is given,
is from personal communications with scientists familiar
with the areas. Though black bears are reported to occur
in RFs and FDs and in areas outside PAs, the information
on their status and distribution in such areas is scanty.

Jammu and Kashmir
The best known populations of Asiatic black bears in
India are in this state. The Dachigam NP, Overa WS,
Overa-Aru WS, Limber-Lachipora WS, and Kistwar NP
are the PAs with populations of Asiatic black bears. The
species is also reported to occur in fairly good numbers in
Pahalgam and Pinjore Punjab Forest Divisions (FD),
Naranag-Wangat FD, Tral, and Shikargarh, Shar, and
Dakrum areas in the Islamabad District.

Saberwal (1989) reported that Asiatic black bear density

estimates ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 bear/km

in lower

Dachigam during high fruit abundance periods. About 25
to 40 bears were estimated to use lower Dachigam between
late June and October (times of high fruit abundance).
Manjrekar (1989) had over 250 black bear sightings in 140
days of study in Dachigam NP. The total black bear
population for Dachigam may be about 50. Schaller (1977)
reported that black bears in Dachigam were abundant in
1969. According to Gruisen (pers. comm.) at least seven
black bears could be sighted per day in Dachigam NP
during the years 1981–82. The present status of black
bears in Dachigam is not known.

In Overa WS, Price (pers. comm.), based on his

observations every spring and summer from 1985 to 1991,
reported that Asiatic black bear populations seem to be
decreasing. More females with cubs were sighted in 1985–
86, but no cubs were sighted during 1987–1990, and in
1991 there were no sightings of bears. It appears that they
were breeding well in 1985–87 and may not have been
breeding in 1988–91. Although the Asiatic black bear is
reported to occur in Kistwar NP, its status is not known.
Similarly, in other PAs and FDs, the Asiatic black bear
populations are either decreasing or their present status is
not known.

Figure 10.3.

Present

Asiatic black bear (

Ursus

thibetanus

) distribution

and protected areas in
India.

Bear Distribution

Protected Areas

300 miles

300 km

CHINA

NEPAL

BHUTAN

PAKISTAN

BANGLADESH

MYANMAR

204

Himachal Pradesh
Asiatic black bears exist in and adjacent to 21 PAs (Table
10.1) (Singh et al. 1990; Green 1993; WIINWDB 1995),
and within some forested valleys. It is reported to be in
fairly good numbers in Great Himalayan NP, Rupi Bhaba
WS, Tundah WS, Kugti WS, Dharangati WS, Sangla WS,
Kanawar WS, Kalatop-Khajjiar WS and Kais WS.

Black bears occur in the forested areas of Pangi (Chenab

catchment) and Bharmaur valleys (Ravi catchment) in
Chamba District; in the Dhaula Dhar range (Beas
catchment), Bara Bangal, Chota Bangal, and Bir in Kangra
District; in the Parbati Valley, Pandrabis, Bashleo Pass
(Sutlej catchment), Solang, and Jagatsukh nallas in Kullu
District; in the upper catchments of Bata and Giri in Solan
and Simla Districts; in Sutlej and Yamuna catchments,
Pandrabis, Simla ridge, Karsog, Shali, Kandyali, Hatu,
and Moral Kanda areas in Simla District; and in the Ropa
Valley, Kalpa, and Kaksthal areas in Kinnaur District.

Black bears are reported to be in fairly good numbers

in the forested areas of the Dhaula Dhar range, Chota
Bangal, Parbati Valley, Bashleo Pass, and Kalpa areas.

The species was once abundant in the Shimla Ridge

and Moral Kanda areas but is now very rare. It is reported
to be rare or becoming rarer in PAs such as Shikari Devi
WS and Manali WS, and its status is not known in the rest
of its range.

Uttar Pradesh
Asiatic black bear populations are present in and around
PAs such as Nanda Devi NP and Biosphere Reserve (BR),
Kedarnath WS, Valley of Flowers NP, Govind WS, Askot
WS (Table 10.1); in Yamunotri and Gangotri valleys;
forested areas in and around Mussorie, Chakrata, Uttar
Kashi, Tehri, Bura kedar, Bageshwar, Dharamghar,
Binsar, the upper catchments of Ram ganga, Ladhiya
Valley, and in parts of Pithoragarh District (WIINWDB

Table 10.1. Asiatic black bear (

Ursus thibetanus

) populations and their status in Indian Protected Areas.

Name of the State and

Area

Past

Recent

Protected Area

(km

)

status

Jammu and Kashmir
Dachigam NP

141 AB (1969) UK (1995)

Kistwar NP

400

UK (1995)

Limber-Lachipora WS

106 FC (1986)

UK (1994)

Overa WS and Overa-Aru WS

457 VC (1990) NC (1991)

Himachal Pradesh
Bandli WS

UK (1995)

Chail WS

UK (1995)

Churdar WS

UK (1995)

Daranghati WS

FC (1994)

Gamgul Siahbehi WS

109 RR (1991)

UK (1994)

Great Himalayan NP

620

UK (1995)

Kais WS

FC (?)

FC (1994)

Kalatop-Khajjiar WS

69 RR (1991) FC (1994)

Kanawar WS

FC (?)

FC (1994)

Khokhan WS

UK (1995)

Kugti WS

379 FC (1992)

FC (1993)

Lippa Asrang WS

CM (1993)

Majhatal WS

UK (1995)

Manali WS

30 CM (1987) RR (1991)

Nargu WS

278

UK (1995)

Rupi Bhaba WS

125 VC (1992) CM (1994)

Sangla WS

650

CM (?)

VC (1994)

Sechu Tuan Nala WS

103

UK (1995)

Shikari Devi WS

214

RR (1994)

Talra WS

UK (1995)

Tundah WS

64 CM (1992) VC (1993)

Uttar Pradesh
Askot WS

600 FC (1988)

UK (1995)

Corbett NP

521

RR (1993)

Govind WS

953 FC (1988) NC (1992)

Kedarnath WS

975 FC (1981)

FC (1995)

Nanda Devi BR

2,237 FC (1983)

FC (1993)

Valley of Flowers NP

FC (1995)

Name of the State and

Area

Past

Recent

Protected Area

(km

)

status

West Bengal
Buxa TR

759

UK (1995)

Neora NP

UK (1995)

Senchal WS

UK (1995)

Singalila NP

UK (1995)

Sikkim
Dzongri WS*

468

UK (1995)

Fambong WS*

UK (1995)

Khangchendzonga NP

850

UK (1995)

Pangola NP*

108

UK (1995)

Tolung WS*

230

UK (1995)

Arunachal Pradesh
Dibang Valley WS and NP*

500

UK (1995)

Eagle’s Nest WS

217

UK (1995)

Mehao WS

282

UK (1995)

Mouling NP

483

UK (1995)

Namdapha NP

1,985 RR (1990) UK (1995)

Pakhui WS and NP*

862

UK (1995)

Palin WS*

250

UK (1995)

Sessa Orchid WS

100

UK (1995)

Tale Valley WS*

UK (1995)

Tawang WS* and NP*

300

UK (1995)

Walong WS* and NP*

300

UK (1995)

Meghalaya
Balphakram NP

220

UK (1995)

Nokrek BR

UK (1995)

Nongkhyllem WS

UK (1995)

Mizoram
Dampa WS and NP*

580

UK (1995)

Tripura
Rao WS

UK (1995)

WS – Wildlife Sanctuary; NP – National Park; TR – Tiger Reserve; * – Proposed PA.
RR – Rare; CM – Common; FC – Fairly Common; VC – Very Common; UK – Unknown.

205

1995; Sathyakumar 1993 and 1994; Rawat, Samant, Mohan
and Kaul pers. comm.; Tiwari undated). This species has
been reported in Corbett NP, and on the banks of the
River Ganges in Chilla, Rajaji NP.

The Asiatic black bear is reported to be in fairly good

numbers in and around Nanda Devi BR (Lamba 1987,
Tewari undated), Kedarnath WS (Green 1985,
Sathyakumar 1994), and Valley of Flowers NP. The status
is not known in other areas.

West Bengal and Sikkim
According to Rodgers and Panwar (1988), the central
Himalayan region is represented in northern West Bengal
and Sikkim. The Asiatic black bear is reported to be
present in and around four PAs in West Bengal, including
Buxa TR, Singalila NP, Neora NP, Senchal WS (Table
10.1) (WIINWDB 1995), and in the forested areas of
Darjeeling and the Kalimpong hills.

In Sikkim, it is present in Kanchendzonga NP, Pangola

NP, Dzongiri WS, Tolung WS, Yaksom, Rathong Valley,
Lepcha Reserve and in other undisturbed forested areas
between 1,200 and 3,000m elevations. Of these, Dzongiri,
Pangola, and Lepcha areas have black bear populations in
fairly good numbers. The past and the present status of
this species in these two states is not known.

Arunachal Pradesh
With over 80% of the its geographical area under forest
cover, Arunachal Pradesh has a continuous distribution
of Asiatic black bear populations, but these populations
are seriously threatened by heavy poaching pressures. The
species is reported to be present in suitable undisturbed
habitats throughout Arunachal Pradesh, but this
northeastern state of India is yet to be scientifically
explored.

Asiatic black bear populations are reported to be

present in 14 PAs (WIINWDB 1995). Its presence has
been confirmed in and around PAs such as Mehao WS
(Katti et al. 1990), Dibang Valley WS, Eagle’s Nest WS,
Tale Valley WS, Namdapha, and in Hot Spring, Ditchu
(Lohit District), Tale Valley, Anini Social FD, Mayodia
Pass, and Siang areas (pers. comms. and Katti et al. 1990).
Undoubtedly, PAs such as Pakhui WS, Sessa Orchid WS,
the proposed Palin WS, and Walong WS and NP have
Asiatic black bear populations due to their contiguity with
PAs or forested areas in which black bears have been
reported. The past and present status of the species in
Arunachal Pradesh is not known.

Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Tripura
Asiatic black bear distribution extends into the states
of Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, and
Nagaland (Figure 10.3). There are no confirmed reports
on the presence of Asiatic black bears in Manipur and
Nagaland.

Asiatic black bear populations in Mizoram are present

in Dampa WS (Green 1993), Murlen NP and WS, and in
some undisturbed forested areas in the Mizo hills. There is
no information on the past and present status of the black
bear in Mizoram.

In Meghalaya, the black bear is present in and around

Balphakram NP, Nokrek BR (Green 1993), and in some
undisturbed forested areas in the Garo, Khasi, and Jaintia
hills. It is also reported to be present in Nongkhyllem WS,
Saipung RF, and Narpah RF areas. The black bear
populations in this state are seriously threatened due to
unabated poaching and the shortening of “jhumming”
(shifting cultivation) cycles.

The hills of Tripura hold small scattered Asiatic black

bear populations which are present due to the contiguity
to the hills of Mizoram. It is present in Kailashahar FD,
Manu, Kanchanpur FD, Longthorai RF, Deo RF, and is
probably present in Rao WS. There is no information on
the past and present status of Asiatic black bears in
Tripura.

Captive Populations
As of June 1994, at least 123 individual Asiatic black bears
were known to be in captivity in 32 zoological parks/
facilities in India. Of these captive bears, 52 were males, 44
were females, 20 were young, and seven were of unknown
age and sex. Data on numbers in captivity in the past,
breeding success, survival, and mortality rates are not
available.

Legal status

The Asiatic black bear is listed as Vulnerable in the Red
Data Book (IUCN 1974); in Appendix I of CITES in India
(Anon. 1992a); and in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife
(Protection) Act (Anon 1972) and its 1991 amendment.
Though this species is protected in India due to the above
mentioned laws, usually it has been difficult to prosecute
the accused in poaching cases because of lack of prima
facie evidences in the courts and also due to lack of
Wildlife Forensic Labs to detect the originality of the
confiscated animal part/product. Moreover, poaching and
subsequent smuggling through international borders is
rampant. As India has large stretches of its boundary with
neighboring nations such as Pakistan, Tibet, China, Nepal,
Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, it is difficult to police
the borders which in most cases are remote, rugged
mountainous terrain. The policy of issuing license for
possessing ‘crop protection guns’ to people living in and
around PAs for preventing crop raiding by wildlife has
serious impact on black bear and other wildlife. In
Meghalaya, shooting permits were issued in the recent
past by the State administration (Appendix I) which
includes the Asiatic black bear, a Schedule I species of the

206

Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act. The Meghalaya State
Forest Dept. has initiated procedures to stop this practice.

Population threats

Black bear populations in India are largely threatened due
to poaching for gall bladder and skin. While the former is
believed to be of medicinal value, the latter is for trophy or
ornamental purposes. The medicinal value of gall bladder
is yet to be scientifically established, but tribes and local
villagers strongly believe in its medicinal properties. In
Arunachal Pradesh and the northeast states, indigenous
people hunt black bear for its skin. Even today, every
local’s hut has a display of wild animal skulls and skin
including black bear.

Human-bear interactions

The serious limiting factor for black bear conservation in
India is human-black bear conflict. Reports of black bears
killing livestock, attacking humans, and subsequent public
backlash are regular, largely in the northwestern and western
Himalayan region. These reports are on the increase in
recent years. For instance, in Chamba District of Himachal
Pradesh, the number of black bear attacks on humans have
gradually increased from 10 in 1988–89 to 21 in 1991–92.
For the same period, livestock killed by black bears also
increased from 29 to 45 (P. Thapliyal pers. comm.) Similarly,
in Chamoli District of Uttar Pradesh the number of such
cases increased from one in 1990–91 to 16 in 1992–93
(Tewari undated). Reasons for the increased incidence of
livestock depredation and attack of humans by black bears
may be due to: a) shrinkage of black bear habitat due to
extension of agricultural lands, encroachment, and habitat
destruction; b) increasing human population in and around
PAs and forested areas and subsequent dependence on
forests for daily needs; and c) increasing awareness by local
people regarding compensation paid by the Government
for damages caused to humans and livestock by wildlife
and hence the increase in number of cases reported.

Habitat threats

Potential Asiatic black bear habitat range in India is about
14,474km

of which only <5% is protected under the

existing network of PAs in India (Rodgers and Panwar
1988; WIINWDB 1995). In Jammu and Kashmir, the
major threat to black bear habitat is mainly due to the
militants and their activities in the forested areas, and
consequently lack of protection. In Himachal Pradesh
and Uttar Pradesh, habitat destruction is largely by human
dependency on forests for fuelwood, fodder, and other

forest produce such as montane bamboo. In Arunachal
Pradesh, habitat loss is mainly due to illegal timber
extraction, jhumming, and development activities such as
construction of roads in pristine forested areas. In Sikkim,
activities of the Indian Army, mountaineering institutes,
and trekking clubs has led to large scale destruction of
black bear habitat. Moreover, construction of a dam on
Rathong river has caused serious damage to black bear
habitat in the Rathong River valley (G.Tewari pers.
comm.). In the northeast states, jhumming has led to
serious impact on black bear habitat. In the State of
Meghalaya, about 95% of the land belongs to the people
and the State Government does not have any mandate to
protect wildlife and their habitats.

Management

The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and its
amendment in 1991 help protect the Asiatic black bear. In
Jammu and Kashmir State, wildlife legislation by the state
affords protection to this species. India ratified the CITES
in 1976 and the black bear is listed in Appendix I, which
bans international trade in its products (Anon 1992).
TRAFFIC-India also keeps a check on trade of this
species and its products. NGOs such as WWF-India apart
from their public awareness programs also play a crucial
role in wildlife poaching cases as a third party prosecutor.
Forest Departments have started paying compensation
when livestock is killed or humans are injured or killed by
black bears.

The Forest Conservation Act 1980 was designed to

curb habitat loss due to deforestation. In all NPs and in the
core area of WSs, all forestry operations, human use, and
livestock use have been stopped. There is a shift from
commercially-oriented forest management to conservation-
oriented management. The National Wildlife Action Plan
was launched in 1983 to establish a network of PAs,
management of PAs, and habitat restoration and wildlife
protection in multiple-use areas.

The number of PAs in India has risen from 131 in 1975

to 497 in 1994 and today ca. 144,791km

of area is protected

and managed (WIINWBD 1995).

Conservation recommendations

1. Poaching and smuggling need to be controlled. The

basic infrastructure for protection and management is
yet to be improved. There is a need for more trained
wildlife staff to protect and manage PAs in India.
Adequate facilities, incentives, remote area allowances,
equipment, and motivation are required for wildlife
staff in all areas. The Indian defense forces and the
border police can be of great help in this effort.

207

Neighboring countries such as Pakistan, Tibet, China,
Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh also need
to help and cooperate in preventing poaching and
subsequent smuggling of wildlife products.

2. There is a need for large PAs to maintain viable

populations of black bear and other large mammals.
Most of the PAs in Himachal Pradesh are small and
suffer from human and biotic pressures from within
and without. Identifying forested areas adjacent to
PAs, and forest corridors between PAs is crucial. For
instance; the panthrabis, Chota and Bara Bangal areas
in Himachal Pradesh; Reserved Forest areas adjacent
to Kedarnath WS and Valley of Flowers NP; and
forested areas adjacent to Sangla WS in Himachal
Pradesh and Govind WS in Uttar Pradesh.

3. The proposal for declaring new PAs (Rodgers and

Panwar 1988) has to be executed by concerned State
Forest Depts. as soon as possible.

4. Some large PAs such as Nanda Devi NP and BR,

Kedarnath WS, Govind WS, and Great Himalayan
NP can be brought under the proposed Snow Leopard
Recovery Program (Project Snow leopard) to enable
improvement in infrastructure and management.

5. All developmental activities such as dam and road

construction in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh need
to controlled by the Government by ensuring
completion of Environmental Impact Assessment
studies prior to clearance of projects.

6. The short cycle of jhumming practices in northeastern

states needs to be replaced with longer cycles.

7. State Forest Departments should initiate procedures

to procure rights for protection of wildlife and their
habitats in areas which are not under their control, as
in the case of Meghalaya.

8. The policy of issuing crop protection guns needs to be

scrapped and replaced by other means of protection
such as use of fire crackers to scare away crop raiding
bears or other wildlife. Speedier ways to pay
compensation for livestock killed and humans injured
must be implemented to gain general public confidence
and cooperation.

9. Ecodevelopment projects to meet the needs of the

human population in and around important black
bear areas are necessary. Awareness programs for the
Indian Army, border police personnel, and the general
public are needed.

10. Status surveys for black bears must be conducted for

most parts of Sikkim, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh
and other northeastern states. Even basic information
on presence/absence of black bear in different parts of
India is not available.

11. Monitoring of black bear status and numbers based on

direct and indirect evidence in different PAs has to be
initiated. Scientific research on ecology of black bears
is necessary as information on food and feeding habits,

habitat utilization, and ranging patterns are crucial for
the long-term conservation and management of this
species.

Acknowledgements

I express my sincere thanks to all scientists, foresters, and
researchers who have provided valuable information about
the status of black and brown bears by returning answered
questionnaires and through discussions. I wish to thank
the Chief Wildlife Wardens and officials of the State Forest
Depts. of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh. At
the Wildlife Institute of India, I thank Shri S.K. Mukherjee,
Director, and Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, Head, Wildlife
Biology Faculty, for their help and constant source of
encouragement. Shri Sanjeeva Pandey, Dr. V.B. Mathur,
my senior faculty colleagues, helped me in the completion
of this report. Smt. Vidya R. Athreya, Research Fellow and
Shri. G.S. Shanmugam, cartographer, helped in the
preparation of the figures. Shri. J.S. Kathayat helped me in
the retreival of information from the National Wildlife
Database. My special thanks are to my loving wife Archna
for her help and support in the preparation of this report.

Status and management of the
Asiatic black bear in Japan

Toshihiro Hazumi

Introduction

Japan consists of four major islands, and was separated
from the Eurasian Continent early in the Pleistocene.
Most wild animals in Japan are subspecies of continental
species. The Japanese black bear (Ursus thibetanus
japonicus) is popularly called “Tsukinowa-guma,” meaning

Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus japonicus) in Japan.

K. Maita

208

crescent bear in Japanese, as it usually has a white patch
like a new moon on its chest.

The average weight of the Japanese black bear ranges

between 60–120kg in the adult male and 40–100kg in the
adult female. The average body length is 110–140cm. The
size of the annual home range varies and averages 66.06km

in males (N=8) and 26.37km

in females (N=11). Total

home range size for the lifetime of an adult male reaches
180km

(Hazumi unpublished). Grasses, sedges, herbs,

and buds are the preferred foods in spring, and berries and
nuts in summer and fall. Because of the varied vegetation
types in Japan, key diet items for each local population
may be different. The acorns of Fagus or Quercus are
usually eaten in the pre-denning season (Nozaki et al.
1983). One characteristic behavior of this smaller bear
species is to make seats, which resemble bird nests, with
broken branches in tree tops, and with Sasa bamboo on
steep slopes. They may rest and eat while sitting on these
seats. The denning period lasts for five or six months
between November and April. Black bears den in hollow
trees, under large rocks, or in the ground. In areas with
little snow, bears like steep ravines so as to avoid men and
dogs in the hunting season.

Historic range and current distribution

In the early 1900s, black bears were widely distributed
throughout the three main islands in Japan, away from
human settlements. At that time, the human population
was rather small and had only minor influences on the
bear population. While there have been no records of
black bears on Hokkaido, brown bears (Ursus arctos
yesoensis) occur on this island (see Tsutomu, this volume).

Undeveloped bear habitats were also abundant at the

turn of the century. Mountainous areas occupy 70% of the
total land area of Japan, where the steep topography and
heavy snow make cultivation and logging activities difficult
at high altitudes. Hunting pressure on the bear population
was also low at the time, owing to simple and traditional
hunting methods such as the use of spears, snares with
fiber ropes, and traps which crushed animals with the
weight of stones.

Human disturbance in many bear habitats by forestry

activities started in the 1940s. Between 1939 and 1945,
during World War II, Japan needed an enormous amount
of timber resources. Since the 1960s, Japan has been
reconstructing its industries. At a time of high economic
growth, mobilization and mechanization enabled
development in mountainous areas, and new traffic
accessibility allowed logging and cultivating to spread
rapidly. Large-scale plantations of coniferous trees have
changed bear habitats, especially in areas of low snowfall.
Bears cause damage to plantations by stripping bark. Box
traps have been used all year round to protect plantation

Figure 10.4.

Distribution of Asiatic black bears (

Ursus

thibetanus japonicus

) in Japan, 1993.

areas since 1970, reducing the population size of black
bears in southwestern Japan. They are now considered
endangered on Kyushu and Shikoku islands, and
threatened in the Chugoku and Kii regions of Honshu
island. Isolation of local bear populations and increasing
nuisance kills have become serious in other areas of
northeastern Japan. Figure 10.4 shows the distribution of
Japanese black bears today.

Status

Steep topography and dense Sasa bamboo makes research
on bears in their natural habitat very difficult. The six
prefectures of northeastern Japan (Yamagata, Akita,
Niigata, Toyama, Iwate, and Aomori Prefectures) count
the number of bears in the post-denning season. In spring,
much of the snow is firm enough to walk on, making
searches for bears easy. The estimated population density
is 0.11–0.18 bears/km

in these areas. On the other hand,

direct counts are impossible due to minimal snow cover in
southwestern Japan. A capture-recapture method will be
experimented with on Mt. Tanzawa and Mt. Hyonosen
for census purposes.

The annual statistical harvest of black bears is more

than 2,000 individuals, half of which is by nuisance kill.

800 miles

800 km

North Pacific

Ocean

Sea of Japan

RUSSIA

CHINA

1993 Distribution

209

Based on this information, 10,000–15,000 black bears are
estimated to live in Japan (Env. Agency unpubl.)

Legal status

In the Japanese Red Data Book (1991), the Environmental
Agency has estimated each local population of black bears
in Japan. Five populations (in Kyushu, Shikoku, West-
Chugoku, East-Chugoku and Kii areas) have been listed
as endangered. This list is to be reviewed every five years.
Small isolated populations in Tanzawa and Shimokita
areas of mainland Honshu were listed as endangered in
1995.

There is still a lack of efficient conservation measures

for the bears beyond recognizing these endangered
populations. Present laws and systems for wildlife
conservation and management are still insufficient. With
only limited legal restraint on land development projects,
bear habitats continue to be degraded. The Japanese
Forest Agency, which owns most public areas, and many
private land owners have traditionally shown little
tolerance towards the bear. Serious damage to crops and
fear of human-bear confrontations prevent people from
understanding the need to limit nuisance kills.

Population threats

Bear harvest is not controlled according to biological data
on the species. Nuisance bear killing is practiced year-
round, and the harvest numbers have been increasing.
Since 1970, box traps have been used widely to capture
bears that cause damage.

During the sports hunting season from 15 November

to 14 February, it is estimated that the number of bears
shot each year will gradually decrease (Statistical Year
Book of Hunting of the Env. Agency). One reason for this
is that the old traditional hunters will retire and that

younger generations are not keen on hunting. In addition,
traditional techniques such as shooting bears in their dens
may disappear with the retirement of elder hunters.

Although bear poaching is a well-known practice

throughout Japan (Hazumi 1992), authorities have made
few attempts to control the situation.

Habitat threats

The Japanese Forest Agency has expanded plantation
areas throughout Japan since 1945. The total area of tree
plantations has reached more than 40% of the total forest
area (252,100km

) in Japan. The logging areas are

penetrating the more remote forests today, destroying
core areas of bear habitat.

At the same time, imports of inexpensive timber from

virgin forests abroad have caused many Japanese timber
forests to be abandoned without proper maintenance,
since the authorities cannot afford to pay the high wages
for timber workers. This economic failure of forestry has
caused depopulation in many towns and villages in forest
areas, and rural communities have made great efforts to
reactivate local economies. However, this has led to
construction works with public investment such as roads,
dams, pastures for livestock, and resort facilities, causing
further decrease and isolation of bear habitats.

Although several protected areas, including national

parks and other forms of reserves, have been established
by government laws, many types of land use practice still
have priority over wildlife conservation. Unfortunately,
developers and land use planners show little concern for
wildlife habitat management.

Management

Today, the population of Japanese black bear is facing a
crisis (Hazumi 1992). The main reasons for this crisis

Asiatic black bear (Ursus
thibetanus japonicus) in
Japan.

K. Maita

210

are habitat destruction and uncontrolled harvesting.
Diminishing habitats and fluctuations in annual food supply
for this species have increased human/bear encounters.
Japanese authorities considered control killing as the only
feasible measure to solve this problem (Hanai 1990; Azuma
and Torii 1978; Watanabe 1980). Referring to the manner
of the control kill practice as an example, some wildlife
experts have said there is no effective policy or law for
wildlife conservation and management in Japan. There is
no efficient management system, based on biological theories
to secure wildlife and its habitats. Technical arguments for
wildlife conservation have only just started in Japan with
insufficient biological studies to support them.

The increasing number of close encounters with bears

have stimulated concern triggering some initiatives for bear
conservation since 1990. Symposiums and forums on bear
conservation have been organized by researchers, NGOs,
and the government every year. In 1991, five local bear
populations were listed as endangered in the Japanese Red
Data Book edited by the Environment Agency. One of the
positive results of such endeavors is that since 1992, the
Japanese Association of Hunters has decided to prohibit
bear hunting in those five areas, and limit it for three years
in another area. Although this self-control of hunters has
had little actual effect (Asoshina 1994), they have become
more sensitive to bear conservation.

The 1992 CITES Conference held in Kyoto, Japan,

stimulated the Japanese public, increasing the awareness
towards the environment and the conservation of
wildlife and natural resources. However, there are still two
major and urgent themes: 1) limiting bear harvest, and
2) conserving their habitats. This will require the
understanding and approval of rural residents around and
within bear habitats. There is still a long way to go to
achieve these challenging goals.

Human-bear interactions

As mentioned previously, Japanese black bears cause
significant damage to coniferous plantations by stripping
bark. This is a serious problem, especially in southwestern
bear habitats where plantations occupy a large percentage
of the total forest area (40–60%) (Japanese Wildlife
Research Center 1987). Since few effective measures have
been introduced to prevent such damage caused by bears,
excessive use of box traps poses a serious threat the bear
population in such areas.

Black bears have caused damage to crops, apiaries, fish-

farms, livestock, and have sometimes caused human
casualties. Such damage and accidents with people usually
occur between late summer and autumn. Physical
countermeasures such as electric fences are rarely introduced.
Bears have almost always been considered as pests, and
have been killed by shooting, snaring, and trapping. Since

the 1980s, many more bears have been observed in and
around human residential areas than before. One reason
for these increasing encounters may be that the combination
of logging expansion and failure of mast crops in many
areas has reduced the carrying capacity of bear habitats.

Public education needs

Japan has no laws regarding the ownership of wildlife,
therefore no one is responsible for wildlife management.
This can be considered the main reason for the inadequate
state of general wildlife conservation in Japan. This situation
has been reinforced during the period of reconstruction of
the Japanese economy after World War II, as economic
development rather than nature conservation has been
given priority.

In universities and natural history museums, basic

ecological studies, especially on large mammal species
including bears, have been almost totally neglected. Such
lack of attention to wildlife ecology could lead to insufficient
information and lack of guidelines for wildlife conservation.
It can be said that pest control, not only of bears but also
of other mammal species, has been the dominant concept
guiding wildlife administration systems this century.

National and local governments have only recently begun

to consider wildlife conservation problems. Small Japanese
NGOs confront a public with only limited awareness of the
country’s wildlife and challenges to its conservation.
Insufficient research on wildlife, little information on wildlife
in education, and no public consensus on wildlife
conservation creates a frustrating cycle.

Specific conservation recommendations

General wildlife policy
Basic concepts of wildlife conservation and management
should be reviewed. A coherent system for wildlife
management must be established by law within admin-
istrative authorities. Current conservation movements by
Japanese NGOs are opportunistic and in many cases not
constructive. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish
cooperation between all government sectors concerned.

Basic wildlife management systems
1. Monitoring of wildlife populations including bears

should be carried out using comprehensive biological
methods throughout Japan.

2. Specialists should be trained for posts in general wildlife

management within administrative authorities.

3. Trained staff should be stationed in each area within

the bear distribution range.

4. Adequate budgets should be allocated for general

wildlife management.

211

Harvest control
1. The total bear harvest should be limited to a sustainable

level, which may be under 5% of each population.

2. Killing females with cubs, shooting of denning

bears and use of snaring should be prohibited
immediately.

Depredation control
1. Crops and timber should be protected by physical

methods, such as electric fences. Other countermeasures
should be developed.

2. Bears causing damage should not be killed, but

translocated.

Habitat management
1. The habitat size and type of each population should be

evaluated. Core areas and corridors should be
delineated on maps.

2. Core deciduous forests should be protected as a priority,

as the most essential bear habitats.

3. Contiguous forests should be kept as corridors

especially between a large/major population and other
small isolated populations.

Development of biological studies
1. Courses on wildlife biology should be established in

more universities. A more efficient system for wildlife
management should be established, which will require
many trained wildlife biologists.

2. The function of local museums as research stations

should be expanded. Monitoring and research on local
fauna should be one of the most important tasks of
natural history museums.

3. A network of researchers should support wildlife

managers for bear population monitoring.

Public education
1. The most up-to-date information on bears should be

presented to rural residents. This is the most important
way to remove fear of wild bears. This fear is the main
reason for the increase in bears killed as pests.

2. Wildlife education should be included as an integral

part of environmental education in curricula for schools
and other institutions.

Status and management of the
Asiatic black bear in Russia

Igor Chestin and Victor Yudin

Biology

Reproduction: The only information available on
reproduction is that given by Bromley (1956). The breeding
season starts a bit earlier than that of brown bears, in late
May–early June. Females first give birth when they are
three years old, but do not become pregnant every year.
Pregnant females generally make up 14% of populations.
Similar to brown bears, Asian black bears have delayed
implantation. Litters usually consist of two, or more
rarely of one or three cubs. Lactation lasts 1–1.5 months
after leaving a den. Cubs usually spend two summers and
one (rarely two) winters with the sow.

Social behavior: According to Abramov (1972), Bromley
(1956, 1965), and Kucherenko (1973), Asian black bears
are less mobile than brown bears. Kucherenko (1973)
mentioned that if food is abundant Asian black bears can
remain in an area of roughly 1–2km

, and sometimes even

as little as 0.5–1km

. Asian black bears spend half of their

life in trees (Kucherenko 1972, 1973; Khramtsov 1983).
When feeding in trees, Asian black bears break branches
and twigs to place under themselves. As a result, many trees
have something like ‘nests’ in the tops, and this provides
evidence of the presence of Asian black bears in an area.

Habitat preference: All experts (Bromley 1956, 1965;
Abramov 1972; Abramov, Pikunov, and Bazylnikov 1979;
Kucherenko 1972, 1973, 1985; Pikunov, Fomenko, and
Kovalenok 1991; Pikunov 1991) agree that Asian black
bear range coincides with the range of mixed Siberian
pine/broad-leaved forests. There does not seem to be any
data on encounters in other ecosystems. Table 10.2, from
Pikunov (1991), considers preference of den sites.

Historic range and current distribution

Asiatic black bears occur over the limited territory of
Primorye and Priamurye in the very extreme north of the

Table 10.2. Preference of den sites by geographic region and habitat type (Pikunov 1991).

Geographic region

No. of

% dens in

Reference

dens

Tilia amurensis

Pinus koreensis

Populus maximow

habitat

Khabarovsk province

Sysoyev 1952

Eastern Sikhote-Alin

Bromley 1965

Amur-Ussuri region

Kucherenko 1974

Primorsky kray

164

Abramov et al. 1977

Western Sikhote-Alin

original data 1988

212

Legal status

The Asiatic black bear is listed in the Red Data Book of the
USSR (which is now obsolete) and as an infrequent species
in the Red Data Book of Russia. Thus it falls under special
protection and hunting is prohibited. The presence of
Asian black bears in an area theoretically can be an
argument in favor of creating a new reserve. However,
nowadays there is strong movement to legalize hunting of
this species, and this is supported by the local scientific
community (Kucherenko 1985), with the notable exception
of Dr. D. Pikunov (1991). Those people believe that the
species in Russia is not endangered. Kucherenko (1985)
mentioned that in 1970 there were 6–8,000 Asian black
bears, and in 1985, 4,600–5,400. Density in the best habitats
can reach 1.5–2.0/ 10km

Population and habitat threats

The major threat to the population itself is greatly increased
poaching. Up until 1983 when the Asiatic black bear was
listed in the Red Data Book of USSR, 300–400 individuals
were shot every year. Recently the hunting of the bear was
forbidden, but many cases of illegal shooting occur. This
is done by local people and foreigners responding to
perestroika, and is fueled by the growing demand for bear
parts. The whole Far East of Russia represents a huge
source of bear parts for Asian markets. Many Chinese and
Korean (both South and North) workers in Russia, who
are supposed to be employed in the timber industry, are in
fact engaged in the trade. Many Russian sailors purchase
bear parts from local hunters and sell them in Japan and
Southeast Asia. Unfortunately there are no estimates of
the effect international trade has on populations of brown
and Asian black bears.

The main habitat threat to Asian black bear populations

in Russia comes from a rapidly growing timber industry.
This was mentioned by Bromley (1965) and Abramov
(1972) almost 30 years ago. Both the above authors, as
well as Kucherenko (1973), Kostoglod (1981), and
Khramtsov and Zhivotchenko (1981), reported that the
cutting of trees containing cavities, which Asian black
bears use for their dens, was a grave threat to the species.
Facing a lack of hollow trees, Asian black bears must
den on the ground or in the rocks and thus become
vulnerable to predators like tigers, brown bears, and
hunters. Pikunov (1991) mentioned that Siberian pine/
broad-leaved forests have experienced a two-fold decrease
in area during the last 70–80 years. The speed at which
these forests are cut is much higher now than it was 5–10
years ago. Many joint ventures (Russian-Chinese, Russian-
South Korean) are developing logging operations in
Russia. The timber harvested mainly goes to Japan and
Southeast Asia.

species’ range (see Figure 10.5). Distribution of this bear
in this region is closely connected with mixed broad-leaf
and Korean pine (Pinus koreensis) forests. The geographical
distribution of the Asiatic black bear is gradually
decreasing. Presumably, in the beginning of the 19th
century the bear occurred throughout the mixed forests as
well as the plains. By the end of the century, bear population
were isolated in the Sikhote-Alin region and only single
individuals were observed on the plains.

The range occupied by Asiatic black bears is stable in

some areas and decreasing in others. Overall range is likely
decreasing and subpopulations becoming increasingly
isolated, but specific distribution data is lacking.
Population densities still vary from 1.1 to 4.0 individuals
per 10km

, but total numbers continue to decline. In the

beginning of the 19th century the number of Asiatic black
bears was not less than 25,000–35,000 individuals while
today 4,000–5,000 remain. By the year 2000 the Sikhote-
Alin region may become completely isolated from the
territory situated on the west bank of the Amur River.
Presumably a section of the range on Pogranichny ridge
will also disappear. Distribution may become even more
limited to the mountains, especially on the eastern slopes
of the Sikhote-Alin and the Sea of Japan coast.

Figure 10.5.

Estimated present distribution of Asiatic

black bears (

Ursus thibetanus

) in Far East Russia

(Yudin 1994).

Present Distribution

400 miles

400 km

Vladivostok

Sea of

Japan

Sea of Okhotsk

213

In addition the development of land for agriculture and

building of settlements reduces the area of forests, and
consequently the range of the Asiatic black bear. Logging
roads make the most remote forest sites accessible to
hunters, while logging equipment itself interferes with
bears, and leads to the death of individual bears.

Management

Each oblast or kray (Russian administrative units, similar
to provinces) has two governmental structures that are
responsible for wildlife management. First, there are the
territorial divisions of the Russian Game Department
(Glavokhota). The staff of this organization provides control
over game users, like professional and amateur hunters,
united in game societies. Game Departments also issue
hunting licenses. The other local structure is the territorial
division of Ministry of Nature Protection. This division is
responsible only for the control of specially protected species.
Thus, since Asian black bear range in Russia covers the
whole of Primorskiy kray (with Vladivostok at the center)
part of Khabarovsk kray (with Khabarovsk at the center)
and a small piece of Amur oblast (with Blagoveshchensk at
the center), there are three territorial Game Departments
and three territorial Departments of Nature Protection
assigned to manage this species. However, none of them
have performed even simple population censusing, not to
mention other investigations.

Management of the Asiatic black bear population is

accomplished by means of habitat protection and a ban on
hunting. In 1991, the government enacted a law forbidding
the cutting of Korean pine throughout the bear’s range.

There are eight nature reserves, where hunting, tourism,

and any kind of development are prohibited. Annual
censusing is usually conducted. The area of these reserves is
7,880km

, or approximately 2.3% of the species’ range in

Russia.

Human-bear interactions

There are occasional conflicts caused by black bears, like
damaging beehives and preying on livestock (very rare),
but damage from brown bears is much more serious and
prevalent. There are no records of predation on humans by
Asiatic black bears. Attacks on people are very rare and
are usually provoked by the person(s) involved.

Public education needs

Japanese companies must be encouraged not to buy Russian
timber. Local people and local authorities recognize the
problems they will face when the forests are gone, but

economic disaster and short-term political interests force
them to sell everything they can. It is necessary to inform
the public more frequently in the media about current laws
and measures taken to protect rare mammals.

Specific conservation recommendations

Since there is almost no information on Asian black bear
numbers and biology, it seems crucially important to initiate
research projects. In order to preserve habitat, it is probably
worth considering establishment of compensation for non-
development of areas important to local populations.
Regarding the economic situation in Russia, international
organizations would likely be the only source for such
compensation.

Conservation of the Asiatic black bear would be

enhanced if we fulfil the following requirements:
1. Expansion of the areas of the Sikhote-Alin,

Komsomolsk, Rhingan, Ussuri, and “Kedrovaya Pad”
reserves.

2. Stopping of any cutting in the broad-leaved and Korean

pine forests.

3. Strengthening of protection and increase in penalties

for illegal killing of the Asiatic black bear.

Status and management of the
Formosan black bear in Taiwan

Ying Wang

Historic range and current distribution

The Formosan black bear (Ursus thibetanus formosus), an
endemic subspecies to Taiwan, was probably distributed
island-wide in historical times. According to Japanese
police records of the aborigines (1937), 78 bears were sold
by the aboriginal people of Atayal, Bunun, Tsou, and
Paiwan in 1933. These people lived in the mountainous
areas from the northernmost to the southernmost tip of
Taiwan. That each of these tribes had its own distinct
hunting territory implies that bears at that time were
distributed from the north to the south end of the island.
Kano (1940) reported during his expedition in the
Tsugitaka mountains (Snow Mountain range) that bears
were still common in the area and were roughly distributed
between 600 and 2,700m. Chen (1956) recorded that the
species was found between 100 and 2,000m in the mountains
of Suao, Lotung, Hwalien, Shihtoushan (Lion Head
mountain), Yushan, and Alishan. According to our
surveys, bears were caught in the Coastal Mountain range
in the eastern part of Taiwan 20 years ago. From those
records, it is suggested that except in areas heavily
populated by man, such as the western plain which had
long ago been converted to agricultural land, the rest of

214

Status

The Formosan black bear was, according to early records,
distributed in both low and high elevations island wide.
However, due to habitat destruction and persistent hunting,
it’s distribution has decreased (Lin and Lin 1983;
McCullough 1974; Wang 1988, 1986; Wang et al. 1989;
Wang and Chen 1991; Wang and Lin 1987; Wang and
Wang 1990; Yen 1979). According to sighting records
with known elevation (n=135), the range of bear sightings
occurred between 200–3,600m in elevation with nearly
90% of the sightings occurring over 1,000m. In 1989, after
the enactment of the Wildlife Conservation Law, this
species was listed as endangered with full protection.
Poaching persisted due to the bear’s high commercial
value on the black market. However, in 1994 a revision to
the Wildlife Conservation Law that increases fines and
penalties for people who commit a crime against wildlife
seems to have some effect in discouraging poaching
activities on bears.

Legal status

The Formosan black bear was listed as an endangered
species under the Natural and Cultural Heritage Act on
January 30, 1989, and was later listed as a Conserved
Species Category I (similar to CITES Appendix I species)
under the Wildlife Conservation law.

Population threats

People do not actively pursue the bear now. However, the
Chinese treat it as a highly prized animal because of the
medicinal properties of its gall bladder and the rare culinary
value of its paws. Using a steel jawed traps to capture the
boar is still a common practice over vast areas.
Occasionally, bears may become victim to steel jawed
traps set for wild boar, a very popular quarry for aborigines.
Two bears were known to have been captured in steel
jawed traps recently at Haituan. They were killed and
probably sold on the black market. The wide use of steel
traps by aborigines to capture boars creates a substantial
threat the native bear population.

Habitat threats

Timber harvest used to be a major threat to habitat in bear
country. In 1992, a ban of timber harvesting from the
natural forest was undertaken. This came about as a result
of the Forest Bureau’s changing policy from focusing
solely on timber harvest to multiple use of forest resources.
For the next ten years, existing prime habitat for bears will

Figure 10.6.

Protected areas and recent bear

sightings within Formosan black bear (

Ursus

thibetanus formosus

) range in Taiwan.

Protected areas A–E are: A) Chatienshan Reserve, B) Sheipa
NP, C) Taroko NP, D) Yushan NP, E) Tawushan Reserve.

Protected Areas

Recent Bear Sightings

50 miles

50 km

T’aipei

East China Sea

Taiwan Strait

Philippine

Sea

Taiwan could have been occupied bear habitat less than
100 years ago.

According to Wang (1990), among three mountain

ranges in Taiwan excluding the Coastal Mountain range,
bears were found on the slopes of the Central and Snow
Mountain ranges. During recent surveys (Wang and Chen
1991; unpublished data 1991–1993, 1993–1994) bear
distribution has remained basically unchanged. Combining
sighting reports from these surveys with information
obtained by the Forest Bureau from 1991 to 1993, we
found that bears were distributed along the Central
Mountain range from the Hapan area (north of Lala
mountain) south to Tawu and Snow mountains in the
Snow Mountain range. Several concentrated sites of bear
activity were identified, particularly in the vicinity of three
national parks and two reserves which included: Lala
Mountain (Chatienshan Reserve), Snow Mountain area
(Sheipa NP), Taroko NP, Yushan NP, Tawushan Reserve,
the area between Taroko and Yushan, and the area between
Yushan and Tawushan (Figure 10.6).

215

be quite safe. However, a new policy concerning the
transfer of ownership of hill land from the government to
private interests will potentially affect some lowland
habitat, especially in the eastern part of Taiwan where
some of the land is still quite undeveloped. Furthermore,
highway construction will pose a great potential threat to
the integrity of bear habitat. Within the next decade the
government is planning to build two cross island highways
from west to east, one in the central part of Taiwan and
another in the southern part. Both pass through remote
areas of the central mountain range that is considered
prime bear habitat.

Management

The Department of Health launched a survey on the
consumption of bear gall bladders in traditional Chinese
medicine (Chang et al. 1995). A joint meeting of
representatives from Chinese medicinal shops, doctors,
government agents, NGOs, and scientists was held for the
first time to discuss controlling and phasing out the use of
bear gall bladders in the traditional market. Further
meetings will be held to discuss the protection of all bears,
including our native species, in the near future.

Keeping bears as pets may sometimes provide a

method of circumventing restrictions on the possession
of wild captive bears. Bears are under the strict control of
the Wildlife Conservation Law, so no import or export of
any bear species for pets is allowed subsequent to the
enactment of the Law. People who own bears as pets
are now required to register them with local governments.
A minimum living standard for all captive animals
including bears is now being produced by the government.
Hopefully this will encourage some bear owners to give
up their pets. According to a survey (Wang and Chen
1991), 41 Asiatic black bears (including 16 Formosan
bears) were kept either in zoos for exhibition or by private
individuals as pets. No breeding record has ever been
documented. An end to keeping bears as pets will be
accomplished either when presently captive bears die or
when the government takes quick action to solve the
problem.

Human-bear interactions

Very few sightings of bears raiding agricultural areas have
been recorded. During the past three years, bears were
sighted feeding in orchards and corn fields, but no conflicts
with humans have been documented. However, in late
1993 at Walami area in Yushan NP, a bear was reported
trying to get into a shelter. It stayed in the vicinity for a few
months, probably attracted by garbage from human
camping activities.

Public education needs

Though the sale of bear parts and meat has been ended
officially, it still exists on the black market. Educating the
public about the consequences of using bear parts for food
or medicine is urgent. First, the reality that one can only
acquire bear paws for a delicacy by killing the animal needs
to be clarified. Second, the traditional use of the bear gall
bladder in Chinese medicine should be stopped at best, or
strictly controlled at least. People who use these products
need to be informed and educated that their conduct could
endanger the bear population. On the other hand, alternatives
or substitutes for bear gall bladder need to be addressed and
developed. The goal should be to provide good educational
material to help users change their behavior.

Rearing wild animals as pets has become very popular

recently. With the enactment of the Wildlife Conservation
Law, pet bears will probably not be seen in the public in the
years to come, yet education is the ultimate means to stop
the inhumane keeping of bears as pets. Humane ways to
keep pets need to be stressed as well. Furthermore, it needs
to be stressed that bears living in the wild are far better off
than those living in captivity.

Finally, bear threat to human life has not been a concern

up to now; however, it will become more of a concern as
more hikers swarm into the mountains and leave their food
and trash where bears can access it. As a consequence,
human-bear interactions will increase. Education on the
appropriate way to behave in bear country is needed. First,
workshops could be held to educate professionals such as
foresters and managers of parks or protected areas about
human-bear interactions. Hikers and mountain climbers,
who get into the back country and have a higher chance of
encountering bears, also need to be educated.

Conservation recommendations

1. Steel jawed traps used to capture wild boar need to be

strictly controlled in designated areas and completely
banned in bear country.

2. Control or phase out the use of bear gall bladders in the

traditional market and find alternatives or substitutes
for bear gall bladder in Chinese medicine.

3. Stop the use of bear paws as a traditional delicacy and

end the keeping of bears as pets.

4. More research needs to be done in order to learn the

basic biology of this species in the field and in captivity.

5. Highway construction and land use policies need to be

modified to protect suitable bear habitat.

6. Professionals and the general public, especially hikers

and mountain climbers in bear country, need to be
educated to avoid unnecessary negative impacts caused
by bear-human conflict that may affect the momentum
of protecting the species.

216

Status and management of the Asiatic
black bear and sun bear in Vietnam

Do Dinh Sam

Introduction

Currently, there are no individuals or groups specializing
in bear research in Vietnam, but several overseas authors
have done general research on Vietnamese carnivores
and mammals: Brousmiche in 1887; Pavie in 1904;
Menegaux in 1905–1906; Thomas in 1909–1925;
Bourret in 1927–1942–1944; Delacour in 1925–1930; and
Osgood in 1932. From 1945 to 1954, research projects
were interrupted due to the war against the French
colonialists. After 1954, research was resumed by native
authors within the country such as Dao Van Tien, Vo Quy,
Le Hien Hao, Le Vu Khoi, Vu Thanh Tinh, Pham Trong
A’nh, Dang Huy Huynh, Cao Van Sung, Do Tuoc, and
Hoang Cuong.

Biology

There are two species of bear in Vietnam: the Asiatic
black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and sun bear (Helarctos
malayanus). The Asiatic black bear is a large bear
weighing up to 200kg. This species is black in color.
The majority have two stripes of white or occasionally
yellow hair in a V shape on the chest. The head is
relatively large, and there often is a thick mane on the
upper part of the neck. The ears have two bushy tufts of
long hair. The sun bear is a smaller bear, weighing
only about 80kg. The shape is different from that of
U. thibetanus, especially the head, which is smaller, similar
to that of a dog. The neck has no mane, the ears do not
have tufts, and the body hair is also less thick. There are
also two stripes of white (or yellow) hair on their breast
making a V shape.

Both bear species in Vietnam are active all year round,

and no hibernation is observed. They eat starchy seeds such
as Quercus, Castanopsis, and Gnetum; fleshy seeds such as
Canarium, Livistoma; succulent fruit like Ficus, Garcinia,
Nepheliuum, Baccaurea, Syzygium, Dracontomelum; various
types of tubers such as Dioseorea bulbifera; the trunk of
Arenga saccharifera, and Rhapislaosesis buds. In total,
bears have been known to feed on 100 plant species. They
seem to like honey very much. They also feed on the
carcasses of animals, eggs and young birds, frogs, insects,
crabs, and snails.

Little is known about reproductive season of bears in

Vietnam, in part because mothers and their young can be
hunted throughout the year. Scientific literature includes
no information on the length of pregnancy, but it is
believed to last 6–7 months, with 2–4 offspring at each
birth.

Status and distribution

The population of Asiatic black bears is rather large: it is
more common than other carnivorous mammals. They
are distributed in all altitudinal ranges: mountainous
regions, hill forests, limestone forests, and mangrove
forests. They have been seen at certain times near the
seashore and swimming from one island to another. Bears
have also been seen at altitudes over 1,000m.

These bears also occur in Laos and Cambodia. The

accompanying map (Figure 10.7) gives information on the
distribution of the two bear species in Vietnam.

Legal status

The Government issued Decision 276/QD, 276/1989 with
an attached regulation on management, protection and
wildlife import and export. The decision includes a list of

Figure 10.7.

Recent Asiatic black bear (

Ursus

thibetanus

) and sun bear (

Helarctos malayanus

)

sightings in Vietnam.

Recent Sightings

Sun Bear
Asiatic Black Bear

250 km

250 miles

CHINA

CAMBODIA

THAILAND

LAOS

South

China

Sea

Hanoi

Ho Chi Minh City

217

wildlife species of which the hunting and export are
prohibited, including H. malayanus. In the Red Book of
Vietnam which was recently prepared, U. thibetanus and
H. malayanus were listed as endangered.

Population and habitat threats

Due to the pressures of human population growth and
unstable settlement, the forests of Vietnam have been
steadily cleared. Of the 87,000km

of natural forests,

about 1,000km

disappear every year. In addition, hunting

pressure has increased, while awareness of wildlife, habitat
needs, and the status of bears remains low. As a result,
bear population numbers have declined quickly. There are
places where many bears (both species) occurred in the
past, such as Ba Vi mountain (now NP), Tam Dao mountain
(now NR), Cat Ba Island (now NP) but now have no bears.
In other provinces where there were many bears in the past
such as Quang Ninh and Hoa Binh, now only a few
remain. In Vinh Phu, Lang Son, and Bac Thai provinces,
bears are now extinct or nearly extinct.

Management

There are few reliable records of annual bear harvests in
Vietnam. According to a document by Le Hien Hao in
1973, in the provinces of North Vietnam (from latitude 17°
northward) 6,000 bears were captured annually. According
to a Do Tuoc document in 1981, in the northwestern part
of North Vietnam alone (Moc Chau, Thuan Chau, Muong
Te, Mu Cang Chai, Tram Tau, and Bac Yen districts),
each village in these districts (about 15 villages in a district)
annually captured about 4–5 bears. In rare cases a village
can capture up to 10–15 bears a year.

Presently in Vietnam, the numbers of bears captured

annually are estimated to amount to several thousand,
most of which are Asiatic black bears, taken mainly in
central highland provinces, central Vietnam, and
northwestern part of North Vietnam.

In 1963, the State of Vietnam issued the “Temporary

Regulation on Wildlife Hunting” in which hunting of 16
mammal species and four bird species was prohibited, but
the regulation did not include the two bear species.

Beginning with the establishment of the first Natural

Reserve, Cuc Phuong, in 1964, a system of 87 Natural
Reserves has now been established with the total area of
over 10,000km

(compared with 87,000km

of natural

forests). In the natural reserves, strict measures have been
applied to prohibit wildlife hunting.

Human-bear interactions

Bears have high economic value in Vietnam. The bear’s
bile is the most appreciated because it cures many diseases,
effectively treats the accumulation of blood below the
skin, and counters toxic effects. Bear bone glue is used as
a tonic, and bear fat is also a medicine and a tonic. Finally,
each bear provides a large quantity of edible meat. Because
of high value of these products, people hunt bears despite
their perceived fierce nature. At present, each bear is
worth about 20–30 million dong (US$1,500–2,250
equivalent).

Many people keep bears because they are easily fed and

cared for, especially as cubs. They quickly become tame
domestic animals, feeding on many kinds of food such as
rice, maize, sweet potato, cassava, pumpkin, and ripe
fruit. They also like to eat animal fat and sweet foods.
Bears eat a lot and grow quickly. A rather young bear
satisfactorily fed would gain 10–20kg/month.

Public education needs

Wildlife protection is a topic for lectures, posters, postage
stamps, match box labels, and school children’s text books.
However, the animals usually chosen for this type of

C. Servheen

Asiatic black bear cub (Ursus thibetanus) for sale in Laos.

Document Outline