WOLF ACTIVITY TOWARDS LIVESTOCK IN TWO STUDY AREAS IN WEST BULGARIA AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONFLICT WITH LIVESTOCK BREEDERS

Оригинален научен труд Original Scientific Article WOLF ACTIVITY TOWARDS LIVESTOCK IN TWO STUDY AREAS IN WEST BULGARIA AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONFLICT WITH LIVESTOCK BREEDERS BALKANI Wildlife Society, Blvd. Dragan Tzankov 8, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria ABSTRACT Tsingarska Sedefcheva E. (28): Wolf activity towards livestock in two study areas in West Bulgaria and consequential conflict with livestock breeders. Proceedings of the III Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 6-9.1.27, Struga. Special issues of Macedonian Ecological Society, Vol. 8, Skopje. Damages caused by wolves on livestock in Bulgaria are frequent. Some main reasons for that are the extensive way livestock is grazed in country side, mountainous character of the terrain where livestock is grazed, lack of adequate livestock protection in many cases and decreased number of natural wolf prey since the beginning of 199s. The present study aimed to estimate the frequency and intensity of wolf Canis lupus L. activity towards livestock, development of this activity in five years period, kind of livestock damaged and level of created conflict with livestock breeders. The present survey was conducted in the period 22 26 in two study areas in West Bulgaria Kraishte and West Pirin Mts. Information was collected yearly by interviewing local people in each of the surveyed settlements. In average, 2 settlements form each study area were included yearly in the survey. The frequency of wolf attacks on livestock and the level of damages were not changed a lot during the present survey, but were decreased in comparison with the previous years in one of the study areas. The main livestock damaged are goats and sheep. The percentage of livestock damaged is low, but due to the fact that most of the livestock owners have a little number of livestock the level of consequent conflict is high. Key words: wolf, Canis lupus, livestock, damage, conflict Introduction The domestication of animals that began some 12 13 years ago brought profound changes in the human view of wolves (Boitani 1995). Depredation on livestock has been one of the main reasons for attempts to exterminate the wolf and continues to be a major problem in wolf conservation. Wolf predation on livestock has been customary since centuries in Bulgaria. The species has had abundant population in the past, followed by severe decline in 196, due to intensive persecution by all means. In late 198s it is starting to recover and nowadays the wolf is spread again in almost all the mountainous areas of the country. Traditionally, livestock is grazed predominantly extensively, often in the large carnivore habitats. This fact, makes domestic animals easy accessible for wolves and a good source of food, especially in times when natural prey is scarce. In Bulgaria, after the political changes in 1989 wild ungulate populations (mainly roe deer and red deer) started decreasing in numbers. The reasons for that were the lack of adequate control on hunting and increasing level of poaching due to it. On Fig. 1. roe deer number changes, in the period 1988 26, are shown. This data is taken form the official annual estimations, presented by the State Forestry Agency (SFA). From 13764 ind. estimated in 1988, the species number was reduced more than twice reaching 5724 in 22. During the present survey this ungulate species has lowest population numbers, slightly increasing at the end of the studied period. Red deer population in Bulgaria is estimated on 2443 ind. in 1988. A slight increase in numbers is observed until 1994, after which the species population drops down sharply reaching 1431 ind. in 23. According to independent expert opinions the real numbers of red deer are half of the officially estimated. In the following period the species num- 167

numbers 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 1988 1989 199 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2 21 22 23 25 26 Fig. 1. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus numbers in Bulgaria 1988 26 (data from SFA) ber is still low. Official numbers in 26 are 1759 ind. Only the wild boar numbers in the country remain stable in the period 1988 26, fluctuating around 4 ind. Tsingarska et al. (1997), conducted an inquiry about the wolf, among all the forestry districts in the country. According to the results of that survey, from natural prey in Bulgaria wolves prefer roe deer (36,6%), followed by wild boar (29,4%) and red deer (2%), or the three species form 86% of the natural wolf diet. However, the above percentages only represent the opinion of employees from the forestry districts. The drastic decline in the main natural wolf prey, is likely to result in higher level of this predator activity towards livestock, in search for food. Materials and methods Study areas The present study was conducted in the period 22 26, in two study areas with different characteristics. Kraishte area is a low mountainous area in Middle-west Bulgaria, consisting of a number of small mountains. Small mountain villages are spread amongst the area. Abandoning of the settlements has been in process during the last decades. This has led to significant decrease of livestock numbers. Today, usually a household owns 5 to 1 sheep or goats or 1 2 cows for their own needs. Livestock owners of flocks numbering 1, 2 or more animals are rare in this area. Pirin Mts. is alpine type of mountain, the second highest in the country (Vihren, 2914 m). It is located in South-west Bulgaria. Pirin is a National Park and a UNESCO site. The West part of this mountain was included in the present survey. Because of its character, settlements are located in the foots of the mountain. In this area livestock numbers were also decreased significantly during the last 17 years. Livestock numbers owned by a family are from about 5 to about 4 5 animals. Rarely, livestock breeders with more than 1 animals are found. Data collected during the survey period for Pirin Mts. study area, are complete for the years 23, 24 and 26. Thus, the results from these three years are presented in the present work and compared with the results from Kraishte. Data collection Information for the present survey was collected by yearly inquiries to local people with livestock (sheep, goats and cattle), in the two study areas. The questionnaires included questions about number of livestock in a village and in certain flock, about the way the livestock is grazed, about the protection methods used, the occurrence of wolf attacks for the year, at what season and at what time of the day attacks occur and about the number of killed injured animals. With the last question, interviewed people were asked what are the ways to decrease damages caused by wolves. With this question it was also aimed to investigate people s attitude towards this predator and the level of conflict, which appears due to its predatory behavior toward livestock. In average, 34 flocks from 23 settlements in Kraishte and 26 flocks from 12 settlements in Pirin Mts. were surveyed every year. Additionally, information about other injured/killed domestic animals, as dogs, pigs, equines, etc. was given by the interviewed people. Results and Discussion Numbers of livestock examined and grazing practices In Kraishte, the kind of livestock bred in flocks and grazed outside is sheep, goats and cattle. The number of livestock examined in the area is as follows: 22 21 villages; 31 flocks; 255 animals (sheep, goats, cattle) 23 19 villages; 31 flocks; 26 animals 24 21 villages; 38 flocks; 295 animals 25 26 villages; 36 flocks; 266 animals 26 26 villages; 35 flocks; 265 animals In Pirin, the same kind of livestock was ex- 168 Зборник на трудови од III Конгрес на еколозите од Македонија

Wolf activity towards livestock in two study areas in West Bulgaria and consequential conflict... amined. Its numbers are as follows: 23 12 villages; 21 flocks; 272 animals (sheep, goats, cattle) 24 11 villages; 26 flocks; 28 animals 26 12 villages; 3 flocks; 4365 animals Additionally, information about other injured/ killed domestic animals, as dogs, pigs, equines, etc. was given by the interviewed people. In both study areas, livestock is collected in relatively small flocks. In Kraishte, usually people gather together their sheep, goats or cattle in common flocks. Every morning flocks are taken for grazing around villages. Owners take turns in grazing the livestock. There are no sheepfolds outside the villages. In Pirin Mts., the situation is similar, flocks are slightly bigger. Livestock is also collected in common flocks, but some of the flocks (mainly sheep and cattle) move up to sheepfolds in the mountain, seasonally. The biggest flock examined was from 4 animals (sheep) and the smallest was only 1 (cattle). Protection methods against predators All the flocks included in this survey were examined for the protection methods used against predators. In Bulgaria, shepherds have used traditionally livestock guarding dogs (LGD) for prevention against predator attacks and thieves. The local LGD breed is called Karakachan dog. However, during the socialist regime the breed suffered severe decline. In the beginning of 199s, the Karakachan dog was at the edge of its extinction. Since then it is extremely difficult for herdsmen to find such a LGD. Starting in 1997, joint pioneering activities of BAL- KANI WS and SEMPERVIVA Society, which provide LGD to shepherds, improved this situation. In Kraishte: 24 - from 38 interviewed flocks, 11 flocks were accompanied by mix-bred dogs and 1 flock with a mix of Karakachan dog. 25 from 36 interviewed flocks, 1 was with Karakachan dog and 12 with mix-bred dogs. 26 from 35 interviewed flocks, 7 flocks were with Karakachan dogs, 3 flocks with mix of Karakachan dogs and 13 with mix-bred dogs. In Pirin: 23 from 21 interviewed flocks, 8 flocks were accompanied by Karakachan dogs, 1 with a mix of Karakachan dog and 12 with mix-bred dogs. 24 from 26 interviewed flocks, 7 were with Karakachan, 2 with mix of Karakachan and 13 with mix-bred dogs. 26 - from 3 interviewed flocks, 5 flocks with Karakachan dogs, 3 with mix of Karakachan dogs and 9 with mix-bred dogs. Additionally, almost all the flocks are accompanied by shepherds all day long on the pasture. In Kraishte, livestock is taken back to settlements every night, which is not the case in Pirin, because in summer and autumn most of the flocks are up in sheepfolds. Those camps are not well protected against predator attacks, unless LGD accompany the flock. Wolf activity towards livestock Proportion of flocks attacked by wolves Occurrence of wolf attacks on livestock was relatively regular in both study areas, with higher level of activity in Pirin Mts. In Kraishte, every year, from 22 to 26, less than half of the interviewed flocks, were attacked by wolves. Thus the proportion of the attacked flocks per year in Kraishte is show on Fig. 2. In 22, wolf attacks were reported in 35% of the interviewed flocks in Kraishte, and 65% were not attacked. In 23 and 24, the percentage of attacked flocks is decreasing and is 29% and 18% respectively. In 25, 33% of the flocks are attacked by wolves and in 26 this percent is already 4%. The results obtained during the study period, differ from the data about wolf attacks in the same area, in 1997 (Tsingarska et al. 1997), when in 61% of the flocks wolf attacks were reported. Obviously wolf pressure on livestock has been decreased dur- % 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 82 71 65 67 6 4 35 33 29 18 22 23 24 25 26 attacks no attacks Fig. 2. Proportion of flocks attacked by wolves in the surveyed period Kraishte Proceedings of the III Congress of Ecologists of Macedonia 169

% 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 95 77 58 42 5 23 attacks no attacks 23 24 26 Fig. 3. Proportion of flocks attacked by wolves in the surveyed period Pirin Mts. Table 1. Percentage of livestock damaged by wolves in the two study areas for the period 22 26 Year Kraishte Pirin Mts. (% of livestock damaged) (% of livestock damaged) 22 1-23 1,7 3,9 24,7 3,5 25 2,7-26 1,6 4,1 Average % of livestock damaged 1,5 3,8 ing the study period, in comparison with 1997. In Pirin, the trend is different. For all the years (23, 24 and 26) of the study period, flocks attacked by wolves were more than those which weren t attacked. In 23, 95% of all the flocks in this area, included in the survey were attacked by wolves. In 24, the percentage of attacked flocks drops down to 58%, but still more than the half. In 26, wolf attacks were reported for 77% of the flocks. This data can be compared with data available for this area for the year 2 (Dutsov et al. 22), when for 81% of the interviewed flocks attacks by wolves were reported. This result is close to the average result from the three years of the study period in Pirin, although the last is slightly lower (77%). Percentage of livestock damaged by wolves The percentage of animals damaged by wolves per year is different in the two study areas. It is always smaller in Kraishte than in Pirin Mts. This fact corresponds to the data for smaller percent of attacked flocks per year, in Kraishte. The results are presented in Table 1. For 22, 1% of the common number of examined livestock was damaged by wolves in Kraishte. In 23, animals damaged are 1,7%. In 24 this percentage is only,7%. However, during the next year of 25, 2,7% livestock is damaged. For the last year of 26, animals damaged by wolves are 1,6%. The average percentage of livestock damaged per year for the studied period in Kraishte, is 1,5%. In Pirin, the results show that for every studied year, the proportion of livestock damaged due to wolf attacks is higher. In 23, 3,9% of the common number of examined livestock is damaged. In 24, it is 3,5% and in 26 this percentage increases up to 4,1%, which is the highest value in this particular survey, for both study areas. The average livestock damaged in Pirin for the three presented years is 3,8%. Related to the common number of livestock examined, the percentage of animals damaged is small in both study areas, however often for the single herdsmen it is significant loss to loose even one animal, because as mentioned above most of the owners have no more than 5 1 sheep or goats, or 1 2 cows. Owners with flocks of 1 and more animals are single cases in both areas. Therefore, the negative economical impact, due to wolf predatory behavior on livestock, is significant for an individual family. As a consequence, intolerance towards the wolf is expected. In contrary to this situation, during the interviews, I heard from the older shepherds a number of times, the sentence: In the past, when we had a lot of livestock, there was enough for us and for the wolf. Selection of domestic prey In both study areas, wolves killed mainly goats and sheep, during the study period (Fig. 4). 17 Зборник на трудови од III Конгрес на еколозите од Македонија

Wolf activity towards livestock in two study areas in West Bulgaria and consequential conflict... 6 5 44,6 48,4 56,7 % 4 3 2 1 3,8 1,8 5,6,9 1,1,5,5 Sheep Goats Cattle Equines Dogs Pigs Kraishte Pirin Fig. 4. Proportion of different livestock species damaged by wolves 2% 25% 7% 24% 36% 28% 37% 41% a Fig. 5. spring summer fall w inter spring summer fall w inter b Seasonal dynamics of wolf activity to livestock in Kraishte (a) and in Pirin Mts. (b) In Kraishte these livestock species represent respectively 48,4% and 44,6% of all the domestic animals damaged and in Pirin goat and sheep percentage is 56,7% and 3,8%, respectively. Dogs with 5,6% in Kraishte and cattle with 1,8% in Pirin take the third position, in the different kind of livestock damaged. Single cases of equines attacked during the surveyed period, were reported for both areas. Horses and donkeys are represented with,9% in Kraishte and 1,1% in Pirin. In Kraishte, there was one report about a domestic pig killed by wolves. One of the main reasons for the above results is that sheep and goats are the most numerous livestock grazed extensively in the countryside. But it is also the livestock, which size is closest to the size of the preferred natural prey by wolves in Bulgaria, the roe deer (See chapter Introduction). Goats have leading position in both areas. This result corresponds to data given by other authors. Wolves kill more goats than sheep in India (Kumar and Rahmani 21) and Portugal (Vos 2). The forested character, the rough terrain of the study areas and the goat grazing behavior (spreading while grazing) define the received data. Also goats prefer to graze in the forest, which is an advantage for wolves, because forest gives them good covert while hunting. The relatively high number of reports about dogs killed by wolves in Kraishte, corresponds to the study on wolf diet made by scat analysis in the same area, in the period 2 24 (Tsingarska - Sedefcheva et al. 24). According to that study, dogs represent 12% of the diverse wolf diet in Kraishte, outranked only by goats (16%) from the domestic animals and by Micromammalia species (13%) from the natural prey. A survey in Croatia indicated that dogs were the most frequent domestic prey of wolves, outranking even sheep (Huber et al. 1993). Wolves appear to limit the number of stray dogs in Russia (Bibikov 1988). There is significant number of free roaming dogs around villages is the two study areas, which are obviously successfully controlled by wolves in Kraishte. The comparably high percentage of cattle killed by wolves in Pirin can be explained with the fact that from early spring cows are gathered in common flocks and taken to camps outside settlements. They spend all summer on the high mountain pastures, where herdsmen leave them outside during the nights, and the only protection are dogs, if any. Seasonal dynamics of wolf activity to livestock In Kraishte, 25% of wolf attacks on livestock occur in spring (March May), 37% in sum- Proceedings of the III Congress of Ecologists of Macedonia 171

mer (June August) and 36% in autumn (September November). Only 2% are reported in winter (December February) (Fig. 5a). The picture in Pirin is similar with 24% of the attacks in spring, 41% in summer, 28% in autumn, but higher in winter when 7% of the attacks were reported (Fig. 5b). In Pirin, some of the livestock is taken in sheepfolds outside the settlements already in spring. It moves to the higher pastures in summer, reaching the alpine part of the mountain. In this period, livestock spends nights in enclosures, which consist only of a wooden fence, unable to stop predators. This fact explains also the higher percentage of livestock killed in Pirin Mts. than in Kraishte. Pirin has much rougher, rocky terrain and is more forested than Kraishte, which helps wolves to surprise livestock. The higher value of livestock attacked in Pirin during winters (7%) is explainable with the fact that in the foots of the mountain, where the settlements are, the weather is softer in this season and livestock is taken out for grazing. In contrary, winters in Kraishte are colder and with more snow, therefore livestock stays in pens in the villages. 73% of the attacks are in summer and autumn, in Kraishte. In Pirin, these two seasons compose 69% of all the attacks. In this period wolves rear their offspring. The increasing amount of food required by growing wolf pups probably explains the relatively high losses of livestock in the summer and autumn. In these seasons livestock tend to be on open range longer, in Pirin moving up in the mountain camps. Other authors give similar data for Europe. In Spain s Cantabrian Mountains, wolves concentrate on cattle, horses and sheep in summer (Vignon 1995). Wolf circadian activity to livestock In 82% of all the cases in Kraishte, wolves attacked livestock in day time (Fig. 6a). The result from Pirin is almost equal 83% of the attacks made during the day (Fig. 6b). Night attacks are more than twice as frequent in Pirin (16%), than in Kraishte (7%). I defined a third category of attacks made at dusk. This is the time, when livestock can be still on the pasture and it is a suitable moment for wolves to approach it. In Kraishte, attacks at dusk appeared in higher number than night attacks. However, in Pirin reports for attacks at this time of the day were very rare, only 1% of all the cases. Clearly, in both areas, wolves attack mainly at day time, while livestock is on the pasture. In Pirin, the significant percentage of attacks made at night, is probably connected to the availability of unprotected or fairly protected livestock in the mountain camps, in summer. The case with significant percentage of attacks at dusk, in Kraishte is interesting. Perhaps, wolves had learned that livestock in that area is taken back to the villages every night and it is a good opportunity to attack under the shelter of the dusk, if the livestock is still outside. 7 11 16 1 day night at dusk day night at dusk 82 83 Herdsmen attitude towards wolves Herdsmen were asked to choose from several answers (Fig. 7), which according to them are the best ways to decrease wolf caused damages on livestock. Every interviewed person could choose more than one answer, i.e. more than one possible ways for decrease of damages. Thus the sum of all the answers from each area is more than 1%. From the answers given, it can be judged also about local people s attitude towards this predator. Herdsmen in Kraishte, consider less important to have good protection for their livestock, than those from Pirin Mts. 24,4% of the interviewed from Kraishte and 4% from Pirin consider that this is a way to decrease wolf caused damages. A significant part of people in Kraishte (35%), consider that it would be a solution to chase wolves from their area, while only 8% from Pirin find this as a way to manage with wolf damages. The next possible answer shooting only proba Fig. 6. b Wolf activity to livestock related to day/night in Kraishte (a) and in Pirin Mts. (b) 172 Зборник на трудови од III Конгрес на еколозите од Македонија

Wolf activity towards livestock in two study areas in West Bulgaria and consequential conflict... 6 5 4 % 3 2 1 Kraishte Pirin good livestock protection chasing w olves shoot only problem animals shoot all w olves use poisons Fig. 7. Herdsmen opinion about best ways of decreasing wolf caused damages on livestock lem animals, was considered as a good damage decreasing method by 19% of interviewed in Kraishte and 32% in Pirin. Those who had chosen this answer believe that not all the wolves should be exterminated. Some wolves should be left in the forests. The next two answers express completely negative attitude to wolves. 52,8% of herdsmen in Kraishte require extermination of all the wolves. This is the highest value received in this survey. Shooting all the wolves is the choice of 36% of herdsmen in Pirin, which is also relatively high proportion of opinions. The other extreme answer, that poisons should be used to exterminate wolves is chosen by comparably small percentage of people in Kraishte 5,8%, and by higher proportion form Pirin 16%. Use of poisons is completely illegal in Bulgaria and can t be used for wildlife control. Besides, for the target species this method can be very harmful for other wild and domestic animals. Unfortunately, in Pirin Mts., where bigger part of people considers this method as possible solution, cases of use of poisons against predators are recorded. The first possible answer in Fig. 7. doesn t show people s attitude towards wolves. It shows if people rely on protection methods for solving predator livestock conflict. The second and third possible answers are considered as rather tolerant attitude of livestock breeders towards wolves. Results received from those answers are: 54% of the interviewed in Kraishte and 4% in Pirin have chosen these answers. The last two answers are considered as expression of people s negative attitude and their intolerance towards wolf. 58,6% in Kraishte express their negative attitude by choosing those answers and respectively 52% of the interviewed in Pirin. The wolf predatory behavior to livestock, do raises negative dispositions among herdsmen, although not drastic. These results can be compared to a human dimensions survey, made by BALKANI Wildlife Society (25). That survey was made in Pirin Mts. and West Rhodope Mts. range, among people with different occupations. In it 83,6% have answered that wolf numbers must be controlled by man and 72% consider that wolves must be killed. Compared to that survey, the present results show more positive attitude and higher tolerance of herdsmen towards wolf. Conclusion Wolf activity towards livestock is lower is Kraishte than in Pirin Mts. during the present surveyed period. Therefore wolf caused damages on livestock are lower. The main livestock species damaged and the seasonal dynamics of wolf activity towards livestock correspond to data in literature from other European and Asian countries. The significant negative economical impact on individual livestock owners, due to wolf caused damages on livestock results in negative attitude towards this predator. Though, the difference between tolerance/ intolerance is not significant, which shows that livestock breeders do not have extreme negative attitudes towards this species. Summary Wolf activity to livestock was examined in two study areas in Bulgaria, Kraishte and Pirin Mts., in the period 22 26. In the period of the present survey, general natural wolf prey numbers in the country (roe deer and red deer) were sharply declined. Only the third main natural species in wolf menu, the wild boar had stable population. Data for the survey was collected by yearly inquiries to local people with livestock (sheep, goats and cattle), in the two study areas. In average, 34 flocks from 23 settlements in Kraishte and 26 flocks from 12 settlements in Pirin Mts. were surveyed every year. Main protection methods used against predators were LGD. However, only in few flocks such Proceedings of the III Congress of Ecologists of Macedonia 173

dogs were found. Wolf activity towards livestock is lower is Kraishte than in Pirin Mts. during the present surveyed period. Less flock were attacked in the first area, therefore less percentage of livestock was damaged (1,5% average in Kraishte and 3,8% in Pirin). The main livestock species damaged are goats and sheep. Wolves kill livestock predominantly in summer and autumn, 73% in Kraishte and 69% in Pirin. Spring activity is almost equal in both areas, 25% and 24%, respectively. The attacks occur mainly in day time, 82% of the cases in Kraishte and 83% in Pirin. The wolf predatory behavior to livestock, do raises negative dispositions among herdsmen, although not drastic. References BALKANI Wildlife Society (25). Human dimension survey about brown bears and wolves. Sofia, Bulgaria Bibikov, D. I. (1988). Der Wolf. Dei NeueBrehm- Bucherci. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, Germany. 198 pp. Boitani, L. (1995). Ecological and cultural diversities in the evolution of wolf-human relationships.pp. 3-11 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, eds., Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. Dutsov, A., Valchev, K., Tsingarska Sedefcheva, E. (22). Large Carnivores in S.W. Bulgaria. Pp. 95-13 in Godes, C. eds., Protected areas in the southern Balkans. ARCTUROS, Thesaloniki, Greece. Huber, D., S. Mitevski, and D. Kuhar. (1993). Questionnaire on wolves in Croatia and Macedonia: Comparison of public attitudes. Pp. 124-25 in C. Promberger and W. Schröder, eds., Wolves in Europe: Status and perspectives. Munich Wildlife Society, Ettal, Germany. Kumar, S., and A. R. Rahmani. 21. Livestock depredation by wolves in the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Nannaj, Maharashtra, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist Soc. 97:34-48. Tsingarska, E., Sedefchev, S., Sedefchev, A. (1997). Wolf Study and Conservation Program: Annual report 1997. Green Balkans Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria. Tsingarska Sedefcheva, E., Dutsov, A., Kirova, N. (24). Wolf Study and Conservation Program: Annual report 24. BALKANI Wildlife Society, Sofia, Bulgaria Vignon, V. (1995). Analyse de la predation des ongulespar les loups (Canis lupus) dans un massif des monts Cantabriques (Asturies, Espagne). [In French with English summary.] Cahiers d Ethologie 15(1):81-92. Vos, J. 2. Food habits and livestock depredation of two Iberian wolf packs (Canis lupus signatus) in the north of Portugal. J. Zool. 251:457-62. 174 Зборник на трудови од III Конгрес на еколозите од Македонија