BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academicinstitutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Brown bear distribution and status in the South CaucasusAuthor(s): Bejan LortkipanidzeSource: Ursus, 21(1):97-103. 2010.Published By: International Association for Bear Research and ManagementDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2192/09GR017.1URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2192/09GR017.1

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological,ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates youracceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use.Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisheras copyright holder.

Brown bear distribution and status in the South Caucasus

Bejan Lortkipanidze1

NACRES – Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Georgia

Abstract: I summarize data on the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the South Caucasus, which

includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The most current information is from Georgia,where research has been carried out on the species. I determined the present distribution of

brown bears in the South Caucasus based on extensive fieldwork, literature, and satellite maps.

Bears have been exterminated from many areas and now live mainly in mountain forests, where

human access is limited. In some areas of the South Caucasus, the bear range may be considered

fragmented. The many population estimates have varying credibility among countries and

periods. I estimate that 2,000–2,500 bears remain in the South Caucasus. The brown bear is

protected in Georgia and Armenia and is hunted legally in Azerbaijan. Scientists from the South

Caucasus agree that recreational, illegal hunting is the primary problem in the region.

Key words: Armenia, Azerbaijan, brown bear, Caucasus, Georgia, status, Ursus arctos

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

Biodiversity in the South Caucasus is rich, and

many species are Caucasian endemics. Among the

large carnivores are the wolf (Canis lupus), the brown

bear (Ursus arctos), the striped hyena (Hyaena

hyaena satunini), the Asian leopard (Panthera pardus

saxicolor), and the lynx (Lynx lynx) (Gurielidze

1997). Most large mammals in the South Caucasus

have been poorly studied. The brown bear is no

exception and data on the species are general at best.

Population estimation has been mostly based on

often biased and unreliable data (Chestin et al. 1992,

Kudaktin and Chestin 1993) from state hunting

regulation organizations. There are few publications

on the bear in the South Caucasus and fewer are in

English. Therefore, the status and distribution of

brown bear in the south Caucasus is relatively

unknown worldwide (Servheen et al. 1999). Since

1996, the nongovernmental organization NACRES

– Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research

has been using standardized methods to study the

brown bear in the South Caucasus. They have twice

attempted to estimate bear populations in Georgia

and have collected bear signs in northern Azerbaijan

and Armenia. To determine both the attitudes of

the local populations toward the bear and the

reasons for bear hunting, they conducted a socio-

economic survey in Georgia in 2005. Additionally,

since 1999, they periodically collected data on bear

population status and distribution from the region

for analysis.

Study areaThe South Caucasus includes 3 countries: Arme-

nia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The region is located

between the Black and Caspian seas to the east and

west, respectively, and includes the southern slopes

of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range in the

north, the Lesser Caucasus Range in middle of the

region, and the South Caucasian mountain systems

in the south. Our 3 study areas were located in the

Georgian part of the Greater Caucasus range

(western, central, and eastern parts of the range).

One study area included arid and semi-arid parts of

Georgia in the southeastern part of the country and

another was located in the Borjomi district, in the

Lesser Caucasus Range. Due to the location of the

South Caucasus, the climate is diverse, ranging from

humid subtropical to dry, arid, and semi-arid. There

are 3 main types of forest: broadleaf, coniferous, and

semi-arid open woodlands. The subalpine zone starts

at 1,800–2,500 m, depending on the microclimate.

Alpine areas (2,500–3,000 m) are covered with

grasslands and thickets of Caucasian rhododendron

(Rhododendron caucasicum) (Krever et al. 2001,

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

2005).1bejan.lortkipanidze@nacres.org

97

MethodsDistribution

The historical distribution of brown bears was

defined based on the literature. Because information

on the species’ historical distribution was often

described very generally, I sometimes extrapolated

the bear range and determined the distribution based

on habitat. To assess present distribution, I carried

out intensive fieldwork throughout almost all of

Georgia (except the conflict zone in Abkhazia, in the

northwest of Georgia) and the northern parts of

Armenia and Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). During fieldwork,

the locations of all bear signs (footprints, scrapes,

scats, and visual observations) were recorded by

global position systems (GPS) and subsequently

mapped. Presence–absence surveys were based on

scats and tracks, which were commonly found

during the fieldwork. Most fieldwork was carried

out in autumn when scats could easily be found due

to the bears’ intensive foraging activity. If sign was

found in the area, the bear range was assumed to

include the entire suitable habitat in the area (e.g.,

forest, badlands, riparian forest). In areas where

bear sign was not found, I interviewed local

residents. During interviews, I tried to determine if

the local people had seen bears or signs of bears

during recent years. If bear existence in an area was

not confirmed by locals, the area was excluded from

the estimated range.

In the areas where fieldwork was not conducted

(the southern parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan), I

defined bear range based on the available literature

as well as online satellite maps (Google Earth

Program version 4.3; http://earth.google.com/). Ac-

cording to schematic maps and general descriptions

of bear range in the literature, I outlined bear

distribution in these countries. I used online satellite

maps to correct bear distribution there. I assumed

Fig. 1. Distribution of brown bear in the South Caucasus study area based on literature and fieldwork inGeorgia and the northern parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan, 1999–2005.

98 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

that bears still existed in large tracts of forested and

badland habitats, and based on freely available

satellite maps, I included these habitats in the bear

distribution. A final map was sent to E. Askerov

(WWF Caucasus Programme Office, Azerbaijan,

personal communication, 2007), a researcher work-

ing on leopard in Azerbaijan, who evaluated the

Azerbaijan portion of the map and, based on his

fieldwork, added to the bear range.

Population estimation

Initially our estimate was based on measuring bear

tracks. Pazhetnov (1990) reported that certain

measurements taken from the front footprint of a

bear can be used for individual identification. The

NACRES team measured tracks (total length and

width, as well as pad measurements) along trails and

forest roads and compared these measurement to

each other. Based on this, the NACRES team

estimated bear numbers in each of 5 study areas (1

in a semi-arid ecosystem, 1 in the Lesser Caucasus,

and 3 in the Greater Caucasus), covering 1,533 km2.

The study areas included protected and unprotected

areas. Estimated bear numbers were used to

calculate the mean bear density for each bear

habitat, and these figures were used for the calcula-

tion of overall bear numbers in Georgia. Although

this method is not accepted in scientific literature as

a way for estimating population sizes, I used it here

with caution due to the scarcity of data. In addition,

this method was used to assess bear populations in

Georgia during Soviet times (Arabuli 1987), and is

therefore useful for comparative purposes.

In 2004, I estimated the minimum bear numbers

for the central part of Georgia (the Borjomi District)

using DNA analyses of fecal samples from the study

area. The NACRES team covered 2,113 km2 and

collected fecal samples on transects (at least 3 km in

length) that were evenly distributed in the study area.

Based on DNA analysis, minimum bear numbers in

the study area were identified. Detailed methods for

DNA analyses are found in Murtskhvaladze and

Tarkhnishvili (2006). Because the study area in-

cluded protected and unprotected areas and data

were collected from different types of bear habitats

(deciduous, mixed, coniferous, sub-alpine meadows),

I concluded that the results could be generalized and

used for the calculation of a minimum bear

population size for the entire country.

Data on the status and population size of bears in

Armenia and Azerbaijan were collected from litera-

ture. Threats to the bear population were assessed

based on literature, field data, and communication

with colleagues in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

A socioeconomic survey was carried out by ACT

International at the request of NACRES. The

research was carried out in 3 districts of Georgia

(Gori, Borjomi, and Tetritskaro). A total of 450

interviews (170 in Gori, 140 in Borjomi, and 140 in

Tetritskaro) were conducted using a comprehensive

questionnaire on a wide range of topics from

household property to attitudes toward brown bears.

To assess current forest utilization and poaching and

recent changes in the patterns and scale of human

activity, especially with respect to the use of natural

resources, 35 indepth interviews were conducted with

local authorities, hunters, protected area staff, and

foresters.

ResultsHistorical distribution

Few sources provided information on the distri-

bution of bears in the past. In the earliest description

of bear distribution in the Caucasus, Radde (1899)

reported that bears were distributed throughout the

region and lived even in the forestless mountain

plateau in Armenia (Radde 1899, Dinnik 1914). At

the end of the 19th century, bear numbers were

reported as high on the southern slopes of the

Greater Caucasus Range, where winters are mild and

bear habitats are relatively productive (Radde 1899,

Dinnik 1914, Satunin 1915). Densities were espe-

cially high in the western parts of the Greater

Caucasus Range (Geptner 1932). In some areas, bear

range included the Black Sea coast (Chkhikvishvili

1939), and where forest was close to the sea, it was

possible to see bears on the shore from the sea. Based

on Radde’s map and other literature (Dinnik 1914,

Satunin 1915, Markov 1934, Vereshchagin 1959),

bears did not live in the forestless and steppe habitats

in the Kura lowlands in the central part of

Azerbaijan, nor were they observed along the shores

of the Caspian Sea. According to Vereshchagin

(1959), bears did not live in the Kolkheti lowland, a

large wetland area in the western part of Georgia

(near the Black Sea coast around the town Poti), at

the beginning of the 20th century (Fig. 1).

Present distribution

We mapped the current distribution of brown

bears in the South Caucasus based on fieldwork and

BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 99

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

literature (Fig. 1). The present range is significantly

smaller than the historical distribution. Bears were

exterminated from lower elevation forests and from

riparian forests along the main rivers of the South

Caucasus (Gadzhiev and Rakhmatulina 2000). To-

day, despite high rates of forest exploitation, the

most important bear habitat is still the mountain

forest. Bears do not exist in the lowlands, where the

habitat is more degraded by humans. Bears no

longer live on forestless mountain plateaus as Radde

(1899) and Dinnik (1914) described.

I identified 3 major isolated populations in the

region, 2 in the southeastern Georgia and north-

eastern Azerbaijan, and the third in Armenia

(Fig. 1). The first two populations are very small;

up to 20 individuals total inhabit the semi-arid zone

of the region (Lortkipanidze 2003). Despite having

assessed all semi-arid areas in Georgia and northern

Azerbaijan, I could not find any bear sign elsewhere

around these small sub-populations. As there is

intensive land use, human activity, and settlement

surrounding the smaller populations, I decided to

outline the range of the sub-populations separately

from that of the main population in the Greater

Caucasus.

Bear distribution in Armenia is mostly based on

the schematic map in the Red Book of Armenian

SSR (Margarian 1987). According to this map, the

bear population is fragmented in the northern part

of the country. I roughly examined bear habitat in

the area, based on Google Earth satellite maps. I

observed settlements and agricultural fields along

possible connection routes. Considering that bears

are persecuted by poachers in Armenia, it likely that,

as in Georgia, they are relatively shy and may avoid

crossing areas that are heavily used by humans.

Current abundance and population trends

Because of discrepancies in the data, it is

extremely difficult to determine the abundance and

trends of the South Caucasian bear population

(Chestin et al. 1992). For example, in certain years

there are 2 very different estimates (Table 1). It also

appears that the level of credibility differs greatly

among countries and periods, partially due to the

different methods utilized. Little information is

available on bears in Armenia. The population

estimate in the 1970s was 292 bears (Vereshchagin

1972), but in the 1980s, according to data from

governmental hunting districts, the population was

reported to have increased to 600 (Kudaktin and

Chestin 1993). However, according to Margarian

(1987), there were only 150 bears left, implying that

the numbers had declined. According to the Wildlife

Data Bank of the Caucasus (NACRES 2003), the

current bear population in Armenia is unknown.

After the 1970s, bear numbers declined in

Azerbaijan (Kudaktin and Chestin 1993). According

to Kuliev et al. (2002), bear numbers increased

between 1993 and 2000. According to annual counts

carried out by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural

Resources of Azerbaijan, there were approximately

1,600 individuals in the country (Kuliev et al. 2002).

Georgia’s bear population in the early 1980s was

estimated at 600 individuals (Kudaktin and Chestin

1993) and 3,000 individuals (Arabuli 1987). In 1997,

the NACRES team estimated the population at

about 600 individuals (NACRES 2003). However,

reliability of the result is doubtful because the bear

population estimate was based on the tracking

method.

In 2004 and 2005, I estimated minimum bear

numbers using DNA analysis of fecal samples from a

study area in the central part of the country.

NACRES team collected 102 samples during the

autumn season. DNA analysis of the screened loci in

31 samples revealed 28 genotypes differing from each

other in at least 1 locus. From this it was concluded

that, from the beginning of September through the

end of November, at least 28 bears were present in

the study area (Murtskhvaladze and Tarkhnishvili

2006). Based on these results, I calculated minimum

bear density within our study area as approximately

13 bears/1000 km2. Based on topographic and

satellite maps, I defined bear habitat in Georgia

and calculated a total coverage of approximately

34,000 km2 with a minimum bear population of 450

individuals.

Table 1. Estimates of brown bear population in theSouth Caucasus, 1970s–present.

Country 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Armenia 295a 600b (150c) –– ––

Azerbaijan 1,086a 680b 800e 1,600g

Georgia 675a 600b (3,000d) 600f 450h

aVereshchagin (1972).bKudaktin and Chestin (1993).cMargarian (1987).dArabuli (1987).eNACRES (2003).fEstimate based on tracking method.gKuliev et al. (2002).hMinimal bear population.

100 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

Legal status and threats

The brown bear is a protected species in Armenia

and is included in the national Red Data Book

(Margarian 1987). In Azerbaijan, bears are hunted

and annual quotas are based on population censuses

conducted by the government. In Georgia, the bear

was included on the national Red List in 2006 as

‘Endangered’; therefore no bear hunting is allowed

according to Georgian legislation.

Habitat destruction and especially illegal hunting

have been suggested as major limiting factors for the

bear populations in all 3 countries of the South

Caucasus (NACRES 2003). The reasons for poach-

ing have changed over time. In the mid-1990s,

hunters in Georgia shot many bears for their gall

bladders, which commanded a very high price. At

the end of the 1990s, due to unknown reasons, the

business became unprofitable and poachers stopped

killing bears for gall bladders. According to a

socioeconomic survey in central Georgia, 54% of

respondents thought that people hunted bears for

amusement or as a hobby (ACT International 2005).

About 10% of respondents answered that bear

hunting was a food source for their family (Table 2).

Killing a bear is considered brave, and many hunters

tried to kill bears to bolster their self-confidence.

Selling bear parts, mostly skins, and bear cubs in

spring was an additional source of income for some

hunters. Prices of bear skins and cubs varied from

US $100 to $200. This provided a fairly good income

for rural communities in a country where, outside

the capital, the average monthly salary was about

$100 (ACT International 2005). Therefore, I suspect

that in some cases, bear hunting may have been

motivated by income. Up to 50% of local people

were unaware of the ban on bear hunting, and some

even thought that they could hunt in the protected

areas if they bought a license (ACT International

2005).

Despite the legal status of bears in Georgia, bear

killing is common throughout the country. Accord-

ing to the Georgian Ministry of Environment, no

hunting licenses were issued in the country during

1996–2006, and in 2006 bears were included in Red

List. Since that time, no bears have been killed

legally.

DiscussionBear distribution in the region has contracted

significantly since historical times. Bears disappeared

primarily from areas where human activity is most

intensive, in the lowlands and areas without forest

cover. Due to increased hunting and habitat loss, the

population had already begun to decline at the end

of the 19th century (Dinnik 1914); according to

Geptner (1932), bears avoided open habitat and

lived in mountain forests at the beginning of the 20th

century. Bear numbers were already very low on the

Lesser Caucasus mountains (east Georgia, Armenia,

and southeast Azerbaijan) by the middle of the 20th

century (Vereshchagin 1958).

The present range is significantly smaller than the

historical range. I outlined 3 populations in the

region that are evidently isolated from one another. I

do not have precise data on isolation level of the

populations, but due to the intensive land use and

settlements around these sub-populations, I assume

that individual exchange is limited.

Many figures on bear numbers in the South

Caucasus are based more on expert opinion than

on actual population estimates. During the Com-

munist regime, some officials tried to provide higher

numbers of game animals to keep hunting quotas

high and to demonstrate their success at wildlife

conservation. It seems that this tendency still prevails

in the South Caucasus.

Estimates from Azerbaijan suggest a population

decline in the 1980s and a recent increase to 1,600

individuals (Kuliev et al. 2002). Some Azeri scientists

believe that the official number of bears in the

country is greatly overestimated and that there are

fewer than 1,200 individuals (E. Askerov, personal

communication, 2007). Perhaps government agen-

cies and commercial entities are inclined to over-

estimate the population of bears because hunting

tourism brings in considerable revenues.

Table 2. Reasons for hunting bears as reported bypeople in central Georgia in 2005 (ACT International2005).

Reason Respondents, %

Amusement or hobby 54.3

Family tradition 4.9

Matter of bravery 10.2

Source of food for the family 9.1

Source of family income 4.5

Crop protection 1.9

Protection of domestic animals 1.9

Get a bear skin 1.3

Nobody hunts bears at all 1.0

Difficult to answer 11.6

BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 101

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

Georgia had 2 wildly different estimates for bears

in the early 1980s: 600 individuals (Kudaktin and

Chestin 1993) and 3,000 individuals (Arabuli 1987).

The first estimate is based on reports from state

game departments; the second is based on a tracking

method and counts on flushed bears. None of the

authors described their methods in detail, and

therefore it is difficult to assess the credibility of

either estimate.

According to more recent population estimates,

however, at least 450 bears were counted in

Georgia, although there is no accurate census for

the country. However, due to intensive poaching

and the lack of effective conservation measures, the

bear population is likely declining. The fact that, in

some places, habitats are well preserved but there

are no bears present supports this speculation

(unpublished data).

There is no information on bear numbers in

Armenia, and so it is difficult to estimate current

bear numbers in the South Caucasus as a whole, but

based on data I speculate that there are 2,000–2,500

bears throughout the South Caucasus.

Bear are completely protected in Georgia and

Armenia, while in Azerbaijan an annual hunting

quota is set based on official counts carried out by

the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.

However, attempts have been made to include the

bear in the second edition of the Red Book of

Azerbaijan (E. Askerov, personal communication,

2007). Scientists from the South Caucasus agree that

poaching is the most important factor influencing

bear numbers in all 3 countries (NACRES 2003). In

Georgia, the primary reason for poaching seems to

be recreation. Despite legal protection, enforcement

of the hunting law is weak in Georgia, and no

poachers have been punished since 1996. This

apparent impunity encourages further illegal hunting

of bears and other large mammals in Georgia. In

addition, accessibility to remote areas is increasing,

and exploitation of mountain ecosystems is becom-

ing more intensive. Increased accessibility makes

hunting easier in remote parts of the country.

It is obvious that, despite some information being

available on the status of bears in the South

Caucasus, many questions remain unanswered. No

adequate monitoring system for bear populations

exists in the range countries, or monitoring is carried

out with questionable methods that do not allow for

accurate estimates of the true bear population trends

in the region. In terms of conservation, this paucity

of reliable data makes informed management deci-

sions difficult.

AcknowledgmentsI thank our donors for funding bear conservation

and research (World Society for the Protection of

Animals, World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF]

Caucasus Programme Office, Fauna and Flora

International, MacArthur Foundation, United Na-

tion Development Programme, World Bank, andBaku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan [BTC] pipeline/South Caucasus

gas pipeline [SCP]). I especially thank our donor and

partner in bear conservation in Georgia, Alertis —

Fund for Bear and Natural Conservation. E.

Askerov provided invaluable comments on bear

distribution and information on bear legal status in

Azerbaijan. My warmest thanks to our consultants

J. Swenson and D. Huber, who greatly helped us inmany fields of bear research. Thanks also to J.

Swenson and N. Kopaliani for essential comments

on the manuscript. Great thanks to my NACRES

colleagues, who helped carry out fieldwork and

analyze data and who were there for me as friends,

and to all students and rangers who were involved in

data collection and were good companions in the

field.

Literature citedACT INTERNATIONAL. 2005. Socio-economic research

report. Prepared for NACRES – Centre for Biodiver-

sity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In

Georgian.)

ARABULI, A.l. 1987. Datvi Sakartveloshi. [Bear in Georgia].

Metsniereba, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Georgian, summary

in Russian.)

CHESTIN, I.E., Y.P. GUBAR, V.E. SOKOLOV, AND V.S.

LOBACHEV. 1992. The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in

the USSR: Numbers, hunting and systematics. Finnish

Zoological Publishing Board 29:57–68.

CHKHIKVISHVILI, I.D. 1939. K Faune Mlekopitayushchikh i

Ptits Abkhazii. [Mammals and birds of Abkhazia].

Pages 10–11 in Materialy k Faune Abkhazii. [Materials

about Abkhazian fauna]. Gruzinkiı filial Akademii

Nauk SSSR, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)

DINNIK, N.I. 1914. Zveri Kavkaza, Khishchnye. [Animals

of the Caucasus, predators]. Part II. Tipografiya K. P.

Kozlovskogo, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)

GADZHIEV, D.V., AND I.K. RAKHMATULINA. 2000. Khishch-

nye — Carnivora. Pages 552–588 in Zhivotnyı Mir

Azerbaıdzhana. [Fauna of Azerbaijan]. Volume III.

Elm, Baku, Azerbaijan. (In Russian.)

102 BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)

GEPTNER, V.G. 1932. Buryı Medved.’ [Brown bear].

Pages 17–32 in Medvedi. [Bears]. Vneshtorgizdat,

Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.)

GURIELIDZE, Z. 1997. Large mammals. Pages 83–92 in

Georgian Biodiversity Country Study Report. United

Nations Environmental Programme, Ministry of En-

vironment of Georgia and NACRES – Centre for

Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Geor-

gia. (In Georgian and English.)

KREVER, V., N. ZAZANASHVILI, H. JUNGIUS, L. WILLIAMS,

AND D. PETELIN. 2001. Biodiversity of the Caucasus

Region. An analysis of biodiversity and current threats

and initial investment portfolio. World Wide Fund for

Nature, Moscow, Russia.

KUDAKTIN, A.N., AND I.E. CHESTIN. 1993. The Caucasus.

Pages 136–141 in Bears. Nauka, Moscow, Russia. (In

Russian and summary in English.)

KULIEV, G.N., S.M. KULIEV, AND E.K. ASKEROV. 2002.

Sovremennoe Ekologicheskoe Sostoianie Burogo Med-

vedya (Ursus arctos L.) v Azerbaidzhane. [Status of

brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Azerbaijan]. Pages 222–224

in Proceedings of II CIC Bear Conference, Moscow,

Russia. (In Russian.)

LORTKIPANIDZE, B.L. 2003. Buryı medved’ (Ursus arctos L.)

v aridnych i semiaridnych ekosistemax Zakavkaz’ya.

[Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in arid and semiarid

ecosystems of the South Caucasus]. Pages 35–40 in

Konservaciya aridnych i semiaridnych ekosistem Za-

kavkaz’ya. [Conservation of arid and semiarid ecosys-

tems of the South Caucasus]. Proceedings of NACRES

– Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research,

Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)

MARGARIAN, N.A. 1987. Zakavkazkiı Buryı Medved.’

[Brown bear of the South Caucasus]. Pages 22–23 in

Krastnaya Kniga Armyanskoı SSR. [Red Book of

Armenia SSR]. Aıstan Press, Erevan, Armenia. (In

Russian.)

MARKOV, E.L. 1934. Okhotnich’e Khozyaistvo Zakavka-

z’ya. [Hunting management in the South Caucasus].

ZakGIZ, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)

MURTSKHVALADZE, M., AND D. TARKHNISHVILI. 2006.

Estimation of brown bear abundance and population

structure in Borjom-Kharagauli National Park with

molecular-genetic methods. Volume 4. Pages 43–50 in

Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences,

Biological series B, Tbilisi Georgia. (In English and

summary in Georgian.)

NACRES. 2003. Baza Dannykh Zhivotnogo Mira Yuzh-

nogo Kavkaza (Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia).

[Wildlife Data Bank of the Caucasus (Amphibia,

Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia)]. NACRES — Centre for

Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Tbilisi, Geor-

gia. (In Russian.)

NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN –

GEORGIA. 2005. Tbilisi, Georgia. Available at http://

nacres.org/pub.html.

PAZHETNOV, V.S. 1990. Buryı Medved’. [Brown bear].

Agropromizdat, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian.)

RADDE, G.I. 1899. Museum Caucasicum. Volume 1.

Tipografiya Kantselyariı Glavnonachal’stvuyushchago

grazhdanskoyu chastiyu na Kavkaze, Tbilisi, Georgia.

(In Russian and in German.)

SATUNIN, K.A. 1915. Mlekopitayushchiya Kavkazskogo

kraya. [Mammals of the Caucasus]. Volume I. Tipo-

grafiya Kantselyariı Namestnika ego Imperatorskago

Velichestva na Kavkaze, Tbilisi, Georgia. (In Russian.)

SERVHEEN, C., S. HERRERO, AND B. PEYTON, cOMPILERS.

1999. Bears. Status survey and Conservation Action

Plan. IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist

Groups. International Union for the Conservation of

Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

VERESHCHAGIN, N.K. 1958. Zhivotni Mir SSSR. [Mammals

of USSR]. Volume V. Pages 180–220. Akademii Nauk

USSR, Moscow, Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.)

———. 1959. Mlekopitayushchie Kavkaza. [Mammals of

the Caucasus]. Akademii Nauk USSR, Moscow,

Leningrad, Russia. (In Russian.)

———. 1972. Ckol’ko zhe burykh medvedeı v SSSR. [How

many bears are in USSR]. Okhota i Okhotnich’e

Khozyaistvo. [Hunting and hunting management].

Volume 11:20–21, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian.)

Received: 9 June 2009Accepted: 28 January 2010Associate Editor: O. Nevin

BROWN BEARS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS N Lortkipanidze 103

Ursus 21(1):97–103 (2010)