Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Human-Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) Conflict and its Mitigation Strategies at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan

PJZ_55_4_1605-1611

Human-Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) Conflict and its Mitigation Strategies at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan

Ikram Ullah1, Zaib Ullah2*, Junaid Khan1, Sajid Mahmood1, Zafar Iqbal3 and Naveed Akhtar2

1Department of Zoology, Hazara University, Mansehra, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

2Department of Zoology, Hazara University Sub-Campus Battagram, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

3Department of Botany, Hazara University, Mansehra, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) is facing various threats because of the human conflict in the northern mountainous areas of Pakistan. The present study was initiated to provide baseline information regarding human-black bear conflicts and their possible mitigation at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra, from April-2018 to April 2019. A total of 100 inhabitants of various occupations were interviewed and questionnaires were filled from 32 villages of both valleys. Agriculture crops destruction was documented as a common conflict issue (92%), followed by livestock predation (90%), and human casualties (85%). Maiz was frequently raided crop (50%) followed by fruits and vegetables (27.1%, 22.6%). Goats were the most (47.61%) predated animals, followed by sheep and cattle (37.14%, 12.38%). Human casualties were rare and mostly accidental, while victims often experienced deep injuries. Local communities faced annually Rs.167,922 (US$ 1085.47) agriculture loss and Rs. 1,620,000 (US$ 10,731.19) livestock loss during 2015-19. Generally, local inhabitants expressed negative attitudes (48%), and they were in favor of eliminating bears due to frequent conflict incidents. Although good husbandry is the most effective measure of preventing black bear damage, compensation of loss and community involvement in conservation programs were documented as the most effective mitigation strategies. Human dependence on forest resources, habitat destruction, anthropogenic food waste, and retaliatory killing were the main conservation threats to black bear survival in the study area.


Article Information

Received 18 December 2021

Revised 25 February 2022

Accepted 15 March 2022

Available online 09 June 2022

(early access)

Published 05 June 2023

Authors’ Contribution

IU and ZU conducted field survey, data collection and wrote the manuscript. SM and ZI supervised the research. JK and NA reviewed the manuscript.

Key words

Black bear, Crop destruction, Livestock predation, Human casualties, Conflict mitigation

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20211218141234

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

0030-9923/2023/0004-1605 $ 9.00/0

Copyright 2023 by the authors. Licensee Zoological Society of Pakistan.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



Introduction

Among large carnivores, bears are primarily subjected to conflicts with humans across the globe (Dar et al., 2009; Aryal et al., 2014) and face survival threats due to human intervention in their naturally associated environment (Dar et al., 2009). The common types of conflict include livestock predation, crop destruction, and human casualties (Thirgood et al., 2005; Aryal et al., 2012; Ali et al., 2018; Penjor and Dorji, 2020). Such events generate negative perceptions in local communities regarding conservation initiatives (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Can et al., 2014; Piedallu et al., 2016). People experiencing property damages mostly had negative attitudes and they were in favor of killing harmful carnivores in their surrounding areas (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Don et al., 2009). Human-black bear conflicts are now becoming an emergent force for species extinction in the future (Woodroffe, 2000; Ogada et al., 2003; Dar et al., 2009). The success of bear protection largely depends on the local community close to the forestland, however regular conflicts diminish the community support to conserve the species (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Can et al., 2014). Protection of bear population without addressing the needs of the local community is unproductive and leads to escalation of conflicts rather than conservation (Browne and Jonker, 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Piedallu et al., 2016).

Human-bear conflict is now becoming a global issue and has been reported in many countries (Madden, 2004; Ambarli and Bilgin, 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Penjor and Dorji, 2020). In Asia, particularly in Pakistan, the black bear gets more public concern (Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020) than any other carnivore due to regular interaction with rural communities (Abbas et al., 2015; Naeem et al., 2016). This may be due to changes in forested land use patterns, such as agricultural land expansion, human dependence on forest resources, infrastructure development, and rising human population around bear habitats, as well as disturbance of bear habitats (Woodroffe, 2000; Sathyakumar, 2001; Can et al., 2014). Black bear usually competes with humans for cover, security, food, and space. Anthropogenic food is the major attractant to compel the bears toward a human settlement. This gives rise to human black-bear conflict throughout their range (Bargali et al., 2005; Escobar et al., 2015). Additionally, black bears also cause huge damage to agriculture crops, beehives, livestock, fish farms, and humans located around their habitat (Chauhan, 2003; Bargali et al., 2005; Penjor and Dorji, 2020; Khan et al., 2021; Ullah et al., 2021c).

Researchers have reported various indigenous methods useful to reduce black bear damage to crops and livestock, such as the use of barbed wire fencing around valuable crops, keeping guard dogs (Ogada et al., 2003), and drumming empty metal containers (Charoo et al., 2011; Can et al., 2014). Numerous studies have been conducted regarding human-black bear interaction in the northern region of Pakistan and highlighted an increase in incidents of human-bear conflicts through the last decade (Awais et al., 2016; Naeem et al., 2016; Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020). We present baseline information regarding patterns of human-black bear conflict and mitigation based on field observations and conducting interviews or questionnaire-based surveys at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study was conducted at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra (34° to 35°N and 72° to 74°E), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (Waseem and Ali, 2011). The study area lies under the Himalayan moist temperate forest zone, has diverse ecosystems, and supports an extensive variety of wildlife species (Qasim et al., 2013). Both valleys are situated to North-West and North-East sides of the district covering 35,744 hectares of the area including Reserved and Guzara forests. The land use of both valleys comprises agricultural land (2.6%), forestry (24.6%), highland pasture (55%), and 17.8% unproductive used for infrastructure (Ali et al., 2018, Ullah et al., 2021a, b).

Methods

We conducted interviews and a questionnaire-based survey from the residents of 32 villages including seasonal settlements of both valleys. These methods are mostly used and acceptable in conservation science that provide opportunities for researchers to closely assess the explicit and tacit aspects of the community regarding human-wildlife interaction (Ali et al., 2018; Ullah et al., 2020).

First, we randomly interviewed local inhabitants of both valleys based on their interests. This method is different from structured questionnaires as this provides chances of a two-way conversation and follows the discussion regarding the concerned issue. During field visits, informants were interviewed at public places, hotels, or hiking tracks to assess human wildlife conflict and factors affecting the local peoples (White et al., 2005).

The second source of data collection was a questionnaire survey. The questions of the questionnaire had open-ended answers. Key informants and affected villagers were selected for questionnaire filling by adopting participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques (White et al., 2005). Teachers, forest and wildlife staff, hunters, and labor were also questioned during the field survey. The respondents were questioned in their native languages (Urdu and Hindko). A total of 100 questionnaires were filled in with the help of local wildlife staff members and local villagers from selected villages of both the valleys (Appendix 1). Finally, the collected information was logically verified by the researcher through proxy questions by following (Waseem and Ali, 2011; Abbas et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2015).

Results

Demographic assessment of respondents

Livestock keeping and agriculture farming were the main sources of livelihood in both valleys. Goat and sheep were the most kept animals preferred to cattle. Most of the villagers were farmers (37%) and had a high interaction rate with bears (51%). People interviewed were mostly illiterate (53%, n=53), whereas 47% (n=47) had various educational levels (Table VI).

Human black bear conflicts

Agriculture crop destruction

Villagers reported 66 cases of crop damages, of which 50% (n=33) damages occurred to maize crop during Summer followed by Autumn (48%, n=32). Although most cases of crop damages (72%, n=48) occurred close to the forest edge within a distance <250m (51%, n=34) from seasonal huts or villages. The mean value of bear damage in single attacks was 197.8 ± 78.4 kg, of which maize was 192.5 ± 75.7, fruits 2.9 ± 1.4 and vegetables 2.37 ± 1.2 kg, respectively. Whereas the mean area raided was 15.1 ± 4.1 m² of total area (453 m²). Overall minimum damage to the local community was counted as 5863 kg, which is equal to Rs. 167,922 (US$ 1085.47) annually (Table I).

Livestock predation

A total of 105 cases of killed livestock during 2015-19 were recorded, of which 47% (n=50) predated animals were goats and sheep (37%, n=39) and cattle (12%, n=13) (Table II). Mostly predation occurred in Autumn (57%, n=60), at night time (74%, n=78) within dense forest (70%, n=74). Although 63% (n=67) attacks occurred <500m distance from seasonal huts. The mean value of livestock predation was (27 ± 8.25) animals per year; goats (12.5 ± 3.7), sheep (9.7 ± 2.5), cattle (3.2 ± 1.2) respectively. Based on local market value, black bear inflicted an annual economic loss of Rs. 1,620,000 (US$ 10,731.19) to local villagers at both valleys (Tables II, III).

Human casualties

We recorded 30 incidents of human casualties, of which 6 incidents resulted in human death, while 24 attacks led to serious injuries. Most (46%, n=14) incidents occurred accidentally within dense forest (50%, n=15) when victims were searching cattle (33%, n=10). In addition, five incidents occurred inside the village, of which in one attacked victim was busy in defecation during night time. Further detail of the victim’s profile is shown in Table IV.

Mitigation strategies

Table V shows that self guarding is the most (35%) effective method for protecting livestock herd from black bear attacks, whereas 30% of respondents suggested barbed wire fencing to check agriculture crop destruction. The majority of respondents (70%) suggested that compensation of loss was the best solution for reducing the retaliatory killing of black bear while 25% were in favor of the involvement of local people in a conservation program to resolve human-black bear conflicts.

Community attitude

Most of the local inhabitants (n=48) expressed a negative attitude regarding black bears’ presence in their surroundings. A relationship in attitude was found among the respondents’ age, occupation, and interaction with a black bear. Respondents living close to forestland generally showed negative attitudes, whereas shepherds disliked bears more often than farmers. Similarly, elder villagers mostly disliked bears more than younger people (Table VI).

 

Table I. Reported cases of black bear damage to agriculture crops, fruit, and vegetable from respondents at Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra during April 2018-April 2019.

Site name

Attacks frequency (%)

Total (%)

Minimum estimated damage (kgs)

Total (%) (kgs)

Area raided (m²)%

Elevation ranges (m)

Maiz

Fruit

Veg*

Maize

Fruits

Veg*

Kaghan valley

18 (27)

12 (18)

09 (13)

39 (58)

2,725

30

23

2778 (47.3)

232 (51.5)

1820-2250

Siran valley

15 (22)

06 (9)

06 (9)

27 (40)

3,050

20

15

3085 (52.6)

221 (48.5)

1900-2350

Total

33 (50)

18 (27)

15 (22)

66 (99)

5,775

50

38

5863

453

Mean±SEM

192.5±75.7

2.9±1.4

2.3±1.2

197.8±78.4

15.1±4.1

 

Veg*, Vegetable.

 

Table II. Reported cases of livestock predation by a black bear and its local market value in Pak rupees, from respondents of Siran and Kaghan valleys of District Mansehra during 2015- 2019.

Attacks frequency (%)

Local market value

Years

Goat

Sheep

Cattle

Other*

Total

Goat

Sheep

Cattle

Others

Total

2015

12

10

02

00

24

180,000

100,000

60,000

--

340,000

2016

10

07

03

00

20

150,000

70,000

90,000

--

310,000

2017

10

13

03

02

27

150,000

130,000

90,000

60,000

430,000

2018

18

09

05

01

33

270,000

90,000

150,000

30,000

540,000

Total

50 (47)

39 (37)

13 (12)

03 (2)

105

750,000

390,000

390,000

90,000

1,620,000

Mean±SEM

12.5±3.7

9.7±2.5

3.2±1.2

1.5±0.7

27±8.25

 

Other, Horse; Donkey, Mule.

 

Table III. Black bear damage to agriculture crops and livestock predation at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan during April 2018- April 2019.

Description

Crop damage

Livestock killed

#

(%)

#

(%)

Total

66

100

105

(100)

Season of attack

Spring

01

01

09

08

Summar

33

50

25

23

Autumn

32

48

60

57

Winter

0

0

11

10

Time of attack

Morning

10

15

03

02

Day time

05

22

05

04

Evening

06

09

19

18

Night

45

68

78

74

Place of attack

Dense forest

74

70

Pasture

05

07

13

12

Inside Village

13

19

05

04

Edge of forest

48

72

13

12

Distance from forest/ Seasonal huts

<250m

34

51

13

12

>350m

20

30

25

23

<500 m

12

18

67

63

Elevation range (m)

1800-2000

25

37

20

19

2000-2400

41

62

85

80

Nature of damage

High

30

45

Moderate

20

30

Low

16

24

 

Discussion

We assessed three major conflict types including; crop destruction, livestock predation, and human casualties, as has been reported by Awais et al. (2016) and Ali et al. (2018) at Kaghan valley. However, the researchers claim that such conflicts often occurred for shared and limited resources between a human and black bear (Graham et al., 2005; Don et al., 2009; Ali et al., 2018). Human population has a direct effect on forest landscapes, as agriculture

 

Table IV. Reported cases of human casualties by a black bear, and description of victim profile at Siran and Kaghan Valleys of District Mansehra Pakistan, during April 2018-April 2019.

Sites

Number

(%)

Siran valley

19

63

Kaghan valley

11

36

Total

30

100

Variables of a bear attack

Sex

Men

22

73

Women

03

10

Children

04

13

Season of attack

Winter

0

0

Spring

13

43

Summer

12

40

Autumn

05

16

Time of attack

Morning

10

30

Day time

06

20

Evening

08

26

Night

06

20

Place of attack

Dense forest

15

50

Edge of forest

09

30

Inside Village

06

20

Type of attack

Accidentally

14

46

Provoked

06

20

Predatory or defending cubs

10

33

Behavior of bear

Running with four legs

26

86

Standing on hind limbs

04

13

Group of bear

One

16

53

Two

04

13

Three

8

30

Victim response

Runaway

15

50

Loud noise

09

30

Fight

07

23

Table continue on next page..........

Sites

Number

(%)

Victim activity

Livestock grazing

08

30

Busy in field

06

20

Searching cattle

10

33

Mushroom or timber collection

05

16

Defecation

01

3

Target part of the victim

Face

15

50

Back

10

33

Legs or other body parts

05

16

Consequence of attack

Victim killed

6

20

Victim Injured

24

80

 

Table V. Respondents’ suggestion on mitigation strategies of Human-black bear conflict.

Strategies

Variables

Frequency

%

Preventive measures

Stonewall shelter

20

20.0

Barbed wire fencing

30

30.0

Self guarding

35

35.0

Dog guarding

15

15.0

Mitigative measure

Compensation of loss

70

70.0

Employment

25

25.0

Elimination of damaging animal

05

05.0

 

Table VI. Respondents’ attitudes according to their age, education, occupation, and interaction with a black bear.

Categories

n=100

Attitude frequency

Total

Positive

Negative

Neutral

Age

< 25

10

4

6

20

26-45

8

15

10

33

> 45

12

25

10

47

Education

Illeterate

15

30

8

53

Primary/Middle

5

15

5

25

Secondary/H.secondary

4

10

2

16

University

6

0

0

6

Occupation

Farmer

10

20

7

37

Shepherd

2

25

5

32

Govt. employee

13

0

3

16

Other

8

3

4

15

Interaction

High

4

37

10

51

with bear

Medium

10

9

15

34

Low

11

1

3

15

 

land expansion towards forested land, increased human dependence on forest resources, leading to disturbing wildlife, particularly bears, and hasten risk of encounters (Charoo et al., 2011; Escobar et al., 2015).

In the present study, maize was the most invaded crop by a black bear, as compared to fruits and vegetables during the summer months of August and September, which showed consistency with the finding of Ali et al. (2018), although wheat crop damage has also been reported from District Diamer, Gilgit-Baltistan by Ali et al. (2018). The villagers had the experience of recognizing black bear damage, as most of the respondents claimed that black bears pulled over standing plants with their paws, removed the cob corn, ate them, and destroyed the crop by crawling and rolling over the rest of the field. Such behavior insight that black bears preferred to feed on anthropogenic food sources found proximate to forest land, which might be due to depletion of wild food consumed by livestock within bear habitat (Liu et al., 2011). Livestock pressure on forest resource and human dependence leads to depletion of natural food due to which black bear is forced to visit human settlements and cause damage to crops.

Livestock predation was the next common conflict issue reported, of which goat and sheep were the most predated animals (Charoo et al., 2011). Similar findings were reported by Huygens et al. (2003) and revealed that domestic animals might be easier for black bear or other wild predators to prey due to lack of escaping experiences.

Studies revealed that wild predators easily encountered domestic livestock as compared to natural prey (Woodroffe, 2000; Liu et al., 2011). However increasing density of carnivores leads to a decreased population of natural prey, which may be correlated with increased incidence of livestock depredation (Huygens et al., 2003; Madden. 2004; Graham et al., 2005). During the summer season, livestock was mostly disposed to black bear attacks, because local inhabitants routinely migrated towards highland pastures (temporary residences) for livestock grazing, providing an opportunity for a black bear to attack. However, in autumn, bears generally faced scarcity of food, as a result, changed their abode towards lower elevation to avail chances of livestock predation (Huygens et al., 2003; Ali et al., 2018). In addition, human casualties mostly occurred accidentally, leading to severe injuries or even death. The main contributing factor of human casualties was human interference in bear habitat during dusk or dawn time which shows consistency with the finding of Liu et al. (2011), Awais et al. (2016), and Penjor and Dorji (2020).

Statemenet of conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Abbas, F.I., Bhatti, Z.I., Haider, J. and Mian, A., 2015. Bears in Pakistan: Distribution, population biology, and human conflicts. J. BioResour. Manage.2: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.35691/JBM.5102.0015

Ali, S., Li, D., Congbin, F. and Khan, F., 2015. Twenty first century climatic and hydrological changes over Upper Indus Basin of Himalayan region of Pakistan. Environ. Res. Lett., 10: 014007.

Ali, A., Waseem, M., Teng, M., Ali, S., Ishaq, M., Haseeb, A. and Zhou, Z., 2018. Human-Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) interactions in the Kaghan Valley, Pakistan. Ethol. Ecol. Evol.30: 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2017.1423113

Ambarli, H. and Bilgin, C.C., 2008. Human brown bear conflicts in Artvin, North Eastern Turkey: Encounters, damage, and attitudes. Ursus, 19: 146-154. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176-19.2.146

Aryal, A., Brunton, D., Ji, W., Barraclough, R.K. and Raubenheimer, D., 2014. Human carnivore conflict: Ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by Snow Leopard and other Carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustainab. Sci., 9: 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0246-8

Aryal, A., Raubenheimer, D., Sathyakumar, S., Poudel, B.S., Ji, W., Kunwar, K.J. and Brunton, D., 2012. Conservation strategy for brown bear and its habitat in Nepal. Diversity4: 301-317. https://doi.org/10.3390/d4030301

Awais, M., Khan, M.F. and Zamman, I.U., 2016. Retaliatory Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) Killings in District Mansehra Pakistan. Int. Bear News, 25: 16-18.

Bargali, H.S., Akhtar, N. and Chauhan, N.P.S., 2005. Characteristics of sloth bear attacks and human casualties in North Bilaspur Forest Division, Chhattisgarh, India. Ursus, 16: 263-267. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2005)016[0263:COSBAA]2.0.CO;2

Browne, N.C. and Jonker, S.A., 2008. Attitudes toward wildlife and conservation across Africa: A review of survey research. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.13: 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200701812936

Can, O.E., Cruze, D.N., Garshelis, D.L., Beecham, J. and Macdonald, D.W., 2014. Resolving human-bear conflict: a global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conserv. Lett.7: 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12117

Charoo, S.A., Sharma, L.K. and Sathyakumar, S., 2011. Asiatic black bear-human interactions around Dachigam National Park, Kashmir, India. Ursus, 22:106-114. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-10-00021.1

Chauhan, N.P.S., 2003. Human casualties and livestock depredation by black and brown bears in the Indian Himalaya, 1989-98. Ursus14: 84-87.

Dar, N.I., Minhas, R.A., Zaman, Q. and Linkie, M., 2009. Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biol. Conserv., 142: 2076-2082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.003

Don, C., Bright, W.A., Teel, D.A. and Vaske, T.L., 2009. Human-black bear conflict in urban areas: an integrated approach to management response. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.14: 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200902839316

Escobar, L.E., Awan, M.N. and Qiao, H., 2015. Anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss for the red listed Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus): Using ecological niche modeling and night time light satellite imagery. Biol. Conserv., 191: 400-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.040

Graham, K., Beckerman A.P. and Thirgood, S., 2005. Human predator prey conflicts: Ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv., 122: 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.006

Huygens, O.C., Miyashita, T., Dahle, B., Carr, M., Izumiyama, S., Sugawara, T. and Hayashi, H., 2003. Diet and feeding habits of Asiatic black bears in the Northern Japanese Alps. Ursus, 14: 236-245.

Khan, A., Umhang, G., Ullah, Z., Boué, F., Bastid, V., Ullah, I. and Ahmed, H., 2021. Investigation of Echinococcus multilocularis in foxes and dogs in Pakistan by detection of copro-DNA. Parasitol. Res., 120: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-020-07001-x

Liu, F., Mcshea, W.J., Garshelis, D.L., Zhu, X., Wang, D. and Shao, L., 2011. Human wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: Factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol. Conserv.144: 538-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.009

Madden, F., 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human wildlife conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl.9: 247-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675

Naeem, A.M., Karamanlidis, A.A., Siddique, A.M., Ali, N.M. and Kabir, M., 2016. Preliminary survey on Asiatic black bear in Kashmir Himalayas, Pakistan: implications for preservation. Int. J. Conserv. Sci.7: 719-724.

Ogada, M.O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N.O. and Frank, L.G., 2003. Limiting depredation by African carnivores: The role of livestock husbandry. Conserv. Biol.17: 1521-1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00061.x

Penjor, D. and Dorji, T., 2020. Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: Review of records 2015-2019. PLoS One15: e0237812. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237812

Piedallu, B., Quenette, P.Y., Mounet, C., Lescureux, N., Borelli-Massines, M., Dubarry, E. and Gimenez, O., 2016. Spatial variation in public attitudes towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees. Biol. Conserv.197: 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.027

Qasim, M., Khan, M.Z., Naz, A. and Khalid, S., 2013. An insight of ecosystem capitals and services of the Kaghan Valley: The Himalayan Region of Pakistan. Natl. Resour.4: 163-169. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2013.42021

Sathyakumar, S., 2001. Status and management of Asiatic black bear and Himalayan brown bear in India. Ursus, pp. 21-29.

Thirgood, S., Woodroffe, R. and Rabinowitz, A., 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. Conserv. Biol. Ser. Cambridge25: 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.003

Treves, A. and Karanth, K.U., 2003. Human carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol.17: 1491-1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x

Ullah, Z., Mahmood, S., Iqbal, Z., Akhtar, N., Khan, M.F., Said, A. and Arif, M., 2021. Damages to Himalayan white pine (Pinus wallichiana) by asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in Kaghan Valley, Pakistan. Forests12: 1130. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12081130

Ullah, Z., Mahmood, S., Iqbal, Z., Khan, J., Akhtar, N., Khan, M.A. and Yasmin, S., 2021. Habitat selection by Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in Siran and Kaghan Valleys, Pakistan. Braz. J. Biol., 83: 2023. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.247890

Ullah, Z., Ullah, I., Ullah, I., Mahmood, S. and Iqbal, Z., 2020. Poaching of Asiatic black bear: evidence from Siran and Kaghan valleys, Pakistan. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.24: e01351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01351

Ullah, Z., Sajid, M., Iqbal, Z., Akhtar, N., Khan, G.B., Ali, A., Yasmin, S., Saqlain, M., Khan, M.A., Arif, M., 2021. Movement of Asiatic black bear: Sign survey evidence from Kaghan and Siran Valleys, Pakistan. Biosci. Res., 18: 1433–1445.

Waseem, M. and Ali, A., 2011. Sign survey report asiatic black bear in District Mansehra.

White, P.C., Jennings, N.V., Renwick, A.R. and Barker, N.H., 2005. Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J. appl. Ecol.42: 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01032.x

Woodroffe, R., 2000. Predators and people: Using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. Forum, 2: 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00241.x

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Pakistan Journal of Zoology

October

Pakistan J. Zool., Vol. 56, Iss. 5, pp. 2001-2500

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe