Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe

Large carnivores (bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, lynx Lynx lynx and wolverines Gulo gulo) are among the most challenging group of species to maintain as large and continuous populations or to reintegrate back into the European landscape. Political, socioeconomic and society changes challenge past management approaches in some of the large populations. At the same time local improvements in habitat quality, the return of their prey species, public support and favourable legislation allow for the recovery of some small populations. Several of Europe’s large carnivore populations are large and robust, others are expanding, some small populations remain critically endangered and a few are declining. [\n] Large carnivores need very large areas and their conservation needs to be planned on very wide spatial scales that will often span many intra‐ and inter‐ national borders. Within these large scales conservation and management actions need to be coordinated. To facilitate coordination, a common understanding of the present day conservation status of large carnivores at national and population level is an important basis. [\n] The aim of this summary report is to provide an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1). [\n] However, methods used to monitor large carnivores vary and a direct comparison over time or among populations will never be possible at a continental scale. It is more realistic to have an insight into the general order of magnitude of the population, its trend and permanent range as the “currencies” for comparisons and assessments (see point 2). This summary also does not aim to replace the habitat directive reporting, but rather complement it. Discrepancies will likely occur due to different time periods covered and different agreements reached on common reporting criteria on a national level which has to deal with many more species. Furthermore, for several countries the most recent data or distribution map were not always available, yet. [\n] Changes in monitoring methods likely result in changing population estimates, even in stable populations. Improved and more costly methods may suddenly discover that previous estimates were too high, or may detect more individuals than previously assumed. Examples of both occur. Being aware of the change in methodology the expert assessment may still be “stable” for the population even if numbers listed in tables have changed. On the other hand, large scale “official” (government) estimates may be based on questionable or non‐transparent extrapolations that run contrary to data from reference areas within the country or similar regions from other countries. If the discrepancy is apparent, expert assessment needs to question official numbers. [\n] This summary does not aim at reviewing monitoring techniques. Examples of parameters and principles for monitoring large carnivores and some “good practice” examples have been previously compiled by the LCIE (http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_m onitoring.pdf). Furthermore, references at the end of many country reports do provide ample examples of well documented and state of the art monitoring of large carnivores in Europe under a wide variety of different contexts.