# European_Red_List_2017_December

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)In Europe as a whole, the population trend is stable to increasing. The golden jackal is patchily distributed over a wide area, locally common, and faces no major threats. Hence it is listed as Least Concern.Within the EU 25 it is only found in Greece and Hungary, with vagrants in Italy, Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia. The distribution is patchy and fragmented, and each subpopulation consists of fewer than 1,000 mature adults. There has been more than a 50% population reduction in the past 20 years in Greece, but its population has expanded rapidly in Hungary during that same period. Overall, there is believed to have been a small population decline in the EU 25 over the last 18 years (3 generations), and the net population trend is believed to be slightly decreasing at present. Therefore it qualifies as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(i). However, as it is a mobile species that readily colonises new areas, there is likely to be a rescue effect from expanding jackal populations in parts of Europe outside the EU 25. Consequently the assessment is downgraded by one category to Near Threatened.

range:
The golden jackal has a large global distribution extending from north and east Africa and south-eastern and central Europe eastwards through the Middle East, the Caucasus and central and and southern Asia to Burma and Thailand (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). It is the only jackal species that occurs outside subsaharan Africa. In Europe, it is resident in the Balkans and, since recent times, in Hungary and southwestern Ukraine. It has a very patchy distribution in Europe. It is regularly found as a vagrant in Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and northeastern Italy (Kryštufek 1999). It is generally found between sea level and 600 m, and occasionally up to 1,000 m in the Peloponnese (Greece) (G. Giannatos pers. comm. 2006).

population:
In Europe, the jackal occurs in small and scattered populations, mainly along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coast of the Balkan Peninsula and in southern parts of Hungary. Over the last century, its distributional border has fluctuated, and there have been both local colonisations and extinctions (Kryštufek 1999). In Greece, one of its European strongholds, its range and population have declined over the last 25 years, and it is by far the most rare canid species (Giannatos 2004, Giannatos et al. 2005). It is now stable in northeastern Greece (and may even be increasing) but in parts of southern Greece is still declining. The largest population in Europe is found in Bulgaria where the species has increased 33-fold in the last 20-30 years (Kryštufek and Tvrtkovic 1990). In Hungary, the jackal went extinct in 1942, but it has naturally recolonised over the last few decades, and now has a rapidly expanding population of c.1,000 individuals (Heltai et al. 2000, Heltai et al. 2004). Other population estimates for the jackal include 5,000 individuals (Bulgaria), >1,000 adults and sub-adults (Greece), and 40-50 animals in 7-8 groups (Ukraine) (Giannatos 2004, Giannatos et al. 2005). The global population is large, with a minimum of 80,000 individuals estimated for the Indian sub-continent (population estimates for Africa are not available), but it may be declining as a result of agricultural intensification and urbanisation (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004).

habitat:
Globally, it occupies a wide range of habitats, from the Sahel desert to the evergreen forests of south-east Asia (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). In Europe, it prefers cultivated areas and wetlands in lower elevations, with adequate cover to be used for hiding and breeding. Dense continuous forests and large intensively cultivated areas without cover are not suitable. Moderate human activity may benefit the jackal, as it tends to increase availability of food (carrion, refuse, and animal dung) (Giannatos 2004). In Central Europe (Hungary) the dominant food of golden jackal is small mammals, and the trophic niche overlap with red foxes is usually high, although the jackal seems to be more carnivorous and more specialist than the fox (Lanski and Heltai 2002, Lanski et al. 2006).

threats:
In Greece, population declines have been linked to loss of suitable habitat caused by changes in agricultural practices (intensification), specifically the loss of scrubby patches used as cover (Giannatos 2004). Changes in animal husbandry may have reduced the food base. Throughout its range, the species is widely persecuted as a pest.

conservationAction:
The jackal is not considered a priority species for the European Union (it is included in the Annex V of the Habitats Directive, 92/43 EC). In Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary it is a game species, and in Greece it is not classified. An Action Plan has recently been produced for jackals in Greece (Giannatos 2004), which suggested the following conservation measures: preservation and restoration of safe and good quality habitat; scientific research and monitoring to develop a database in order to improve management decisions for jackal conservation and promote co-operation of the jackal hosting countries in the region; legislation improvement; and public awareness, education and information to improve the animal's public image.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)A very widespread and extremely abundant species that is highly adaptable to man-made habitats. It faces no major threats. It thus qualifies as Least Concern.

range:
The red fox has an extremely large range. It is distributed throughout the northern hemisphere, from the Arctic Circle to North Africa, Central America, and the Asiatic steppes. It is absent from Iceland, the Arctic islands, some parts of Siberia, and it avoids desert areas. It occurs throughout the whole of Europe, with the exception of Iceland, Svalbard, Crete, and some of the smaller Mediterranean and North Sea islands (Hall 1981, Ginsberg and Macdonald 1990, Abe 1994, Stubbe 1999, Wilson and Ruff 1999, Abe et al. 2005). European subspecies were introduced to the eastern states of the US (e.g. Virginia) in the 17th Century, mixed with local subspecies, and then moved southwards with forest clearance. The species was also introduced to Australia in 1800s. Elsewhere introduced to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and to the Isle of Man (UK), although it may subsequently have disappeared there (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004).  It occurs from sea level to 3,000 m (Stubbe 1999).

population:
It is the most widespread and abundant wild carnivore in the world (Larivière and Pasitschniak-Arts 1996) and there are stable populations throughout Europe. In central Europe, populations are increasing owing to the oral immunisation of foxes against rabies (Stubbe 1999). In Germany 500,000 are killed every year by hunting (M. Stubbe pers. comm. 2006). In the UK the population was recently estimated to number approximately a quarter of a million animals (Battersby 2005).

habitat:
In Europe it is found in a very wide variety of habitats including all types of forest and open landscapes. It is well adapted to many anthropogenic habitats including farmland and suburban and urban areas (Larivière and Pasitschniak-Arts 1996, Stubbe 1999). Red foxes are adaptable and opportunistic omnivores, with a diet ranging from invertebrates (e.g. earthworms and beetles) to mammals and birds (including game birds), and fruit. They also scavenge in rural areas (e.g. in Europe and Canada on deer and sheep carcasses which may be the major food source in upland areas inwinter), and in urban areas (on bird tables, compost heaps and refuse) (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004).

threats:
It is hunted for sport, and is persecuted as a pest (Stubbe 1999). However, this is not a threat to the survival of the species.

conservationAction:
It is present in most protected areas in temperate and subarctic regions, with the exception of some inaccessible islands. It is widely regarded as a pest and is not protected, although most range states where trapping or hunting occurs have regulated closed versus open seasons and restrictions on methods of capture. In the European Union, trapping methods are regulated under an agreement on international trapping standards that was signed in 1997 (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). Controlling red foxes may be necessary where rare species, or threatened populations, are at risk from red fox predation (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). For example, nest predation by foxes has completely prevented recruitment to an internationally important sandwich tern colony in a number of consecutive years (Musgrave 1993).

redListAssessors:
Andreas Kranz, Alexei Tikhonov, Jim Conroy, Paulo Cavallini, Juan Herrero, Michael Stubbe, Tiit Maran, Margarida Fernandes


taxonomicNotes:
Canis corsac Linnaeus, 1768:223. Type locality: “in campismagi deserti ab Jaco fluvio verus Irtim”; restricted by Ognev (1935) as “USSR, N. Kazakhstan, steppes between Ural and Irtysh rivers, near Petropavlovsk” (in Honacki et al. 1982). It has been suggested that Canis eckloni described by Przhevalski (1883) from Northern Tibet is a subspecies of the corsac (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951). However, Canis eckloni is in fact a junior synonym for Vulpes ferrilata (Geptner et al. 1967). This confusion probably originated from earlier work by Przhevalski referring to the latter as “corsac”. Chromosome number: 2n=36, FN=72 (Aristov and Baryshnikov 2001).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)The corsac is found in central Asia, ranging into Mongolia and northeastern China. Populations fluctuate significantly. Population decreases are dramatic, caused by catastrophic climatic events, and numbers can drop tenfold within the space of a single year. Corsac foxes have the ability to forego water and food for extended periods of time. They are well adapted to a hot and dry climate. Current population status, and the nature of major threats, is unknown in most regions. However, the species is not considered threatened at present.

range:
Narrower than the historical range and includes two parts. The first covers the Middle Asian republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, as well as steppe and forest-steppe areas of Russia, including the southern region of Western Siberia. In Europe its range reaches the Samara Region, Tatarstan to the North and northern Caucasia to the South. The second, much smaller area lies in southern Transbaikalye representing the northern periphery of the Mongolian and Manchurian section of the species area. Outside Russia the species area includes the steppe part of north-eastern China, including Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and the region between Argun and Big Khingan, the entire Mongolian republic except for its forested and mountain regions, Dgungaria, Kashgaria, Afghanistan (probably only northern) and north-eastern Iran. Southern limit of distribution is unknown, but possibly it reaches to the mountain ridges separating the Tibet Highland from the North. Thus, the two ranges (western and eastern) are connected by a relatively narrow neck in the Dgungar Gate and Zaisan Basin region. In recent years a westward area expansion has been recorded, particularly into the Voronezh region following active recovery of baibak (Marmota bobak) populations. Occasionally, the species is recorded from the Ukrainian steppe (as far as Pavlodar to the West), eastern Transcaucasia (Azerbaijan) and, probably, western Kyrgyzstan.

population:
Corsac populations fluctuate significantly. Population decreases are dramatic, caused by catastrophic climatic events, and numbers can drop tenfold within the space of a single year. On the other hand, in favourable years numbers can increase by the same margin and more within a three to four year period. Corsac foxes have the ability to forego water and food for extended periods of time. They are well adapted to a hot and dry climate. Current population status is unknown in most regions. Dramatic population changes were reported during the last century in PredKavkazie, between Kuma and Terek rivers and in Kuma-Manich Channel region. A drastic population decline was reported at the beginning of the last century (Dinnik 1914). Numbers had recovered by 1924 to 1925; one hunter during that time could take up to 15–30 corsac foxes in one season (Ognev 1931). By 1931 numbers decreased again with a subsequent increase in 1951 (Verezhagin 1959). In the Ural region during particular years up to 5,500 animals were taken by trappers, and up to 1,700 in the Gurievskaya region. To the south, in Mangishlak and Ustyurt, the corsac is widespread and in some years abundant. In Russia the corsac is rare in most regions, but common in West Siberia and Transbaikalie. It sometimes occurs in northern parts of West Siberia's forested steppes, but in low numbers. The species is common everywhere between the Volga and Ural rivers. In Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and northern China, the corsac is common or abundant, although in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan the species is usually rare. Population status in Afghanistan and Iran is unknown.

habitat:
The corsac typically inhabits steppes, semi-deserts and deserts, avoiding mountains, forested areas and dense bush. In the western part of the range they occur in low-grass steppe, avoiding dense and tall grass steppes. In Kaspyi Sea region the steppes and tarragon-cereal semi-deserts are favoured. It also occurs in fixed-sand habitats (Nogaiskaya Steppe). In Volgo-Ural watershed the corsac inhabits most usual habitats, but prefers semi-deserts. To the east of the Ural Mountains, the species inhabits steppes and in favourable years occurs even in forested steppes. In Kazakhstan typical habitats are low grass steppes and semi-deserts, often inhabiting low hills, but avoiding low mountains. In Middle-Asia it inhabits semi-deserts and ephemeral-deserts, avoiding drifting sands. One limiting factor is snow height in winter, and this species avoids areas where the depth of snow exceeds 150 mm, preferring areas where the snow is either shallower or highly compressed.Corsac foxes appear to depend on distribution of ground squirrels and marmots for food and shelter (the burrows being enlarged and used for refuge).

threats:
Development in Kazakhstan in the mid-1850s caused a significant reduction of corsac numbers in previously undisturbed habitats. In the 20th century several catastrophic population declines were recorded. During such crashes hunting on corsac foxes in the former Soviet Union was banned. For example, hunting of corsac foxes was stopped within the entire Kazakhstan territory from 1928 to 1938. Current population status, and the nature of major threats, is unknown in most regions. The western part of the range populations are recovering and their range expanding. In Kalmikiya large desert areas are changing into grass steppes, less suitable for corsac foxes. In Middle Asia and Kazakhstan a dramatic decrease of livestock during the last decade influenced many ecosystems and wildlife populations. However, the exact influence of this process on corsac populations remains unknown.Corsac pelts have been intensively traded. In general, over much of Russia during the 19th century, as many as 40,000–50,000 corsac pelts were traded in some years. For the time being, corsac pelts are not as highly appreciated as red fox pelts, and corsac foxes are usually trapped only incidentally.

conservationAction:
Corsac foxes are protected in strict nature reserves (the highest protection status for the territory) and in national parks in China, Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia.Not listed on CITES Appendices.Listed in some regional Red books in Russia: Bashkir (Volga tribute) and Buryat (Transbaikalia region) with category III status (species with declining populations).Hunting of corsac foxes is regulated by special national legislation, in which the species is considered a fur-bearer species (Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia). Trapping/hunting is allowed only from November through March in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Certain methods of hunting are prohibited, such as digging or smoking animals out of dens, den flooding, and poisoning.No special conservation programmes have been carried out. Outside of protected areas, the corsac has the status of game species.Corsac foxes breed well in captivity, and there are some 29 animals currently listed in ISIS. In Moscow Zoo during 1960s one pair of corsac foxes produced six litters during the time that they remained together. Corsac foxes are easily habituated to humans.There are several aspects of this species' biology that require investigation, including social organization and behaviour, population structure, current distribution and population status in different regions, current levels of trapping/hunting impact, and other threats to the species.

redListAssessors:
Global assessment by A. Poyarkov and N. Ovsyanikov, regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team


taxonomicNotes:
All European wolves are Canis lupus. Only two subspecies are recognized: C. l. signatus (Iberia) and C. l. italicus (Italy, France and Switzerland)

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Following the bottleneck of the 1960s and 1970s, the European wolf population is generally increasing in number and expanding the distribution range. The total number of wolves in the EU 25 is likely to be in the order of 4-5,000, and the number of wolves in geographic Europe is likely to exceed 10,000. Consequently the species qualifies as Least Concern at the European and EU 25 level. 1. IberiaNear Threatened. The Iberian population is large (about 2,500 wolves) and expanding toward south and east. It does not qualify for the category Vulnerable and it is maintained in category Near Threatened because of the fragmentation in management regimes, the lack of a population level management plan, the occurrence of largely unpredictable events of human reaction against wolves (poison, shooting, etc.) that may threaten the population at local level. The small population of Sierra Morena is far from the main population in the North and should be classified as Critically Endangered (D). 2. Western-Central AlpsEndangered (D). The Alpine population is the recent outgrowth of the Italian wolf population and it is still numerically small. Though it is increasing fast, it is currently estimated to be 100-120 animals, and it has limited genetic and demographic contacts with the adjacent population of the Apennines (less than one successful migrant per year, meaning that it qualifies as a subpopulation under IUCN Red List guidelines). Its small size justifies the assessment in category Endangered.3. Italian peninsulaVulnerable (D1). The Italian wolf population is estimated to be 500-800 individuals distributed along the Apennines. The shape of the range is narrow and elongated, restricted to the Apennines. The population has limited exchanges with the population of the Western Alps and recent genetic evidence indicates a flux of genes only in the direction toward the Alps. In spite of the recent increase in numbers and range, the Italian wolf population is still highly vulnerable to local extermination from human pressures (poison, shooting, car accidents) and the stochastic nature of these events suggest to maintain a cautionary assessment. The population does not qualify for the category Endangered, but it may easily reverse its current favourable status. 4. Dinaric-BalkanLeast Concern. This large wolf population (c.5,000 animals) appears to be in favourable conservation status mainly due to the limited management caused by the recent political instability of large areas of the region. However, the more marginal parts of the range may be subject to excessive pressure from human disturbance (Slovenia, southern Greece) and ad-hoc management actions should be implemented.   5. CarpathianLeast Concern. This large wolf population (c.5,000 animals) appears to be in favourable conservation status mainly due to the conservation implemented in Romania. However, some of the marginal areas of the range may be subject to excessive pressure (southern Poland, Slovakia) and may require ad-hoc conservation measures. Those marginal areas are also critical because of completely different management regimes implemented in neighboring countries (Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia). To ensure viability of those marginal parts of the Carpathian population international common decisions are important. 6. BalticLeast Concern. The relatively large number of wolves and the continuity of the range into Russia support its assessment in the category of Least Concern. However, the small portions of the population in Poland and some of the Baltic States may require conservation measures to ensure their long term persistence. 7. KareliaNear Threatened. The total population in Finland and Russian Karelia is not known, but is considered likely to number less than 10,000, and it may be declining as a result of persecution. The degree of fragmentation is not known. Consequently it is assessed precautionarily as Vulnerable (C2a(i)). The Karelian population is generally considered to be  in contact with the large Russian population, and there would potentially be a rescue effect, so the assessment is downgraded by one step to Near Threatened. Very little information is currently available on the status of the wolf in Russian Karelia, and this population should be reassessed if any new relevant data becomes available.8. ScandinaviaEndangered (D). The number of mature individuals is estimated to be less than 250. The population has low genetic variability and has had no genetic exchange with the Finnish population since 1991.9. Germany/western PolandCritically Endangered (D). The population is tiny, fragmented and isolated.

range:
Originally, the wolf was the world's most widely distributed mammal, living throughout the northern hemisphere north of 15°N latitude in North America and 12°N in India. It is distributed worldwide under domestication (as the domestic dog Canis familiaris). It has become extinct in much of Western Europe (Boitani 1995), in Mexico and much of the USA (Mech 1970). Present distribution is more restricted; wolves occur primarily in wilderness and remote areas, especially in Canada, Alaska and northern USA, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N (Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). In Europe wolves are found from sea level to 2,400 m, although in central and southern areas they tend to occur in mountainous areas above 600 m, as a result of persecution (Sulkava and Pulliainen 1999). The European wolf population is a large metapopulation with several distinct fragments, which can be described as follows (LCIE 2007):1. Iberia Wolves are found in the north-western quadrant of Iberia including the western Basque country. Not in the Pyrenees, but south as far as Ávila. A very small number of wolves is isolated in the Sierra Morena mountains in southern Spain (Blanco and Cortés 2002, Álvares 2005).2. Western-Central AlpsThe population occupies an area that includes most of the Western Alps in France and Italy, many wolf packs territories being transboundary along the French-Italian border south of Valle d’Aosta. Isolated animals are dispersing regularly into Switzerland as far as Grisons but failed, until now, to establish a permanent pack (Boitani 2003, Marucco et al. 2005, Tropini et al. 2005). 3. Italian peninsulaWolves occur in the whole Apennines range from Liguria to Calabria (Aspromonte) and extending into northern Lazio and central western Tuscany (provinces of Siena, Grosseto and Pisa) (Ciucci and Boitani 1998, Corsi et al. 1999, Boitani 2003).4. Dinaric-BalkanThe population cover a vast area from Slovenia to north-central Greece and it includes the whole Dinaric mountain range through Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, western Serbia and Kosovo, Montenegro, F.Y.R.O. Macedonia, Albania, western and southern Bulgaria. 5. CarpathianThe central Carpathian mountains in Romania are home of one of the healthiest and more numerous wolf population in Europe. This population extends across several countries, from Northern Bulgaria to Eastern Serbia, Romania, south-western Ukraine, Slovakia and southern Poland. Wolves are rarely reported in the Czech Republic.6. BalticThis population covers eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, northern Ukraine and the Russian oblasts of Kaliningrad, Lenningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Smolensk, Bryansk, Moscow, Kursk, Belgorod and Orel.7. KareliaWolves occur in Finland (mainly in the south) and Russian Karelia. The Finnish wolf population is a fringe population of a large Russian population.8. ScandinaviaThe distribution range of the population is in central Sweden and, to a lesser extent, in south-eastern Norway. It is spreading slowly toward southern and northern Sweden and into southern Norway.9. Germany/western PolandThis population consists of scattered packs living in eastern Germany (Saxony) and western Poland.

population:
Because of the diversity in climate, topography, vegetation, human settlement and development of wolf range, wolf populations in various parts of the original range vary from extinct to relatively pristine. Wolf densities vary from about one per 12 km² to one per 120 km². Sillero et al. (2004) provide details, for each range country in the world, on subspecies present, population status, approximate numbers, the percentage of former range occupied at present, main prey (where known), legal status, and cause of decline. The European wolf population is a large metapopulation with several distinct fragments, although dispersal could theoretically connect almost all fragments. Following the bottleneck of the 1960s and 1970s, the European wolf population is generally increasing in number and expanding the distribution range. However, most European populations are still small and only a few have more than 1,000 animals (see below for specific details). Dispersing animals can be found anywhere in Europe. The total number of wolves in the EU 25 is likely to be in the order of 4-5,000; some of the populations are in continuity with wolf populations living in countries not yet part of the EU. The number of wolves in geographic Europe is likely to exceed 10,000.1. IberiaPopulation size: 2,500 wolves (including c.50 in the Sierra Morena). The Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus) may be a distinct subspecies. After the population reduction up to the 1960s, it is currently increasing in numbers and expanding its range across central Spain. The northwestern population is expanding, having recently crossed the Duero river in Spain. There are three distinct population segments within this population. The largest is that north of the river Duero in both countries. South of the Duero in Portugal there is a small segment of around 50 wolves which has only limited exchange of animals with the segments north of the Duero in Portugal and east to the Spanish segment south of the Duero. The isolated population in the Sierra Morena numbers c.50 individuals and appears to be stable. The nearest wolf population is in the Western Alps and connections between the two are nonexistent or limited to exceptional cases. In Cataluña, there are currently 2-3 wolves that have been genetically identified as members of the Alpine population from where they are assumed to have dispersed naturally (Blanco and Cortés 2002, Álvares 2005). 2. Western-Central AlpsPopulation size: 100-120 wolves. This population is of Italian origin and all wolves share the same Italian genetic haplotype. Individual wolves dispersing from the Apennines first colonized the Alps in 1992 and succeeded in establishing a permanent and expanding population which shows a highly dynamic spatial pattern spreading towards the west and north. The total number is estimated to be 100-120 wolves, increasing on average by 10% per year. The genetic continuity with the Apennines population has been recently assessed at 2.5 individuals per generation, all of them moving from the Apennines to the Alpine population. In 2005, a young radio-marked wolf dispersed more than 1000 km from Parma to Nice, providing evidence of the natural dispersal along the northern Apennines range. In spite of the continuity between the two populations, their ecological and socio-economic contexts are sufficiently different to justify a separation for management purposes (Boitani 2003, Marucco et al. 2005, Tropini et al. 2005, LCIE 2007).3. Italian peninsulaPopulation size: 500-800 wolves. The population has been described in 1921 (Altobello 1921) and confirmed in 1999 (Nowak 1999) as a distinct subspecies (Canis lupus italicus). It is genetically recognized by the presence of a unique mtDNA haplotype. After the population bottleneck of the 1960s, when total numbers were estimated to be about 100 animals, the population has steadily recovered and expanded into the western Alps. In 2006, the population was estimated to be 500-800 wolves. The nearest population (apart that in the Western Alps, see above) is in Slovenia (Dinaric-Balkan population). However, a large portion of the central Alps and the agricultural Po river valley effectively separate the Italian and the Dinaric populations (Ciucci and Boitani 1998, Corsi et al. 1999, Boitani 2003).4. Dinaric-BalkanPopulation size: 5,000 wolves.There is continuity of the population and suitable habitats throughout the range although the population might be significantly structured within the elongated range. The population is estimated to number c.5,000 individuals, although locally the densities may vary greatly and its overall demographic trend is unknown. In Croatia and Slovenia, the population has recovered significantly following active management started in the 1990s. To the north, the population has no contact with the nearest population in Italy, although dispersing animals are reported in Austria and eastern Italy. To the east, the population may exchange individuals with the large wolf population of the Carpathians which extends into northern Bulgaria (Iliopoulos 1999, Kusak et al. 2005, Štrbenac et al. 2005).5. CarpathianThis population is estimated to number c.5,000 animals, the majority of them living in Romania and Ukraine. Slovakia hosts about 400-500 wolves and southern Poland contributes with good wolf habitat in the areas along the south-eastern borders (wolf population in Polish Carpathians is about 180-220 individuals). In the past, there was natural continuity with wolves living in northern Poland and Belarus but the link is now constrained by large areas where wolves have been exterminated. Nevertheless, it is likely that some level of genetic exchange still occurs with the Dinaric-Balkan population in western Bulgaria and with the Belarusian population in eastern-central Poland (Okarma 1993, CLCP 1997-98, 2000, 2001, 2002; Smietana and Wajda 1997, Okarma et al. 2000). 6. BalticPopulation size: 3,600 wolves. The trend throughout the region appears to have been very consistent. At the start of the 20th century populations were reduced, but still widely present, these increased during and after World War 1. In the period between the wars, populations were greatly reduced again, but recovered to peak levels during and after Word War 2, only to be heavily persecuted in the 1950s such that they again reached very low levels in the 1960s and early 1970s. The populations appear to have then increased, peaking in the early 1990s – before being shot down again in the late 1990s. There are about 1,000 wolves in Poland and the Baltic States, about 1,000 in Belarus and 1,600 in the neighbouring Russian oblasts. This population is the westernmost portion of the large Russian population and it connects with the wolf range of Russian Karelia. In Poland, although the distribution is not continuous, it is highly likely that dispersal is still possible between the northern and southern populations (Carpathian), and dispersal towards west (Germany) is still observed (Bluzma 2000, Ozolins and Andersone 2001, Valdmann 2001, Sidorovich et al. 2003, Linnell et al. 2006). 7. KareliaPopulation size: 750 wolves. Following widespread control of the population in the first part of 20th century, the population recovered after the 1980s and 1990s. The current estimates are based on counts of family groups in Finland (about 200 wolves in Finland) and the population is expanding. In Karelia wolf numbers appear to be stable.8. ScandinaviaPopulation size: 130-150 wolves. The population derives from a pair that immigrated from Finland and first reproduced in Sweden in 1983. A third immigrant in 1991 boosted the reproduction and the population is now estimated to be 130-150 wolves (about 20% in Norway), with as many as 15 litters produced in 2006. The population has been steadily increasing from 1983-2001, then slightly decreased in 2002-3, and is currently increasing again. There is evidence of no genetic exchanges with the Finnish/Russian wolf population after 1991. Immigration from Finland is the only possible mechanism to increase the genetic variability of the population.9. Germany/western PolandPopulation size: <50 wolves. Wolves were exterminated in Germany during the 19th century, but individuals that were dispersing from Poland were shot occasionally throughout the 20th century. In the mid 1990s a pack began breeding in Saxony, and there are currently two packs breeding regularly. Wolves in western Poland have had a dynamic history, but presently there are only a few widely scattered packs throughout the region. This population is extremely fragmented internally. Potential connections exist to both the Baltic and Carpathian populations, but the distances are in the order of several hundred kilometers.

habitat:
Wolves live in diverse habitat types and their broad distribution ranges show the species' adaptability to the most extreme habitat conditions. The wolf's habitat has been described as everywhere where humans do not kill it and where there is something to eat. Where wolves depend on wild ungulate prey, their habitat is that of their prey. Habitat quality should thus be interpreted in terms of human disturbance, prey densities and range size. In general, large forest areas are particularly suitable for wolves in Europe, although wolves are not primarily a forest species. The wolf has a very diversified diet and is a true generalist that feeds opportunistically on what is most available in its habitat. The wolf diet may include large prey, such as moose, deer and wild boar, or small vertebrates, invertebrates, vegetables and carcasses. Diet composition throughout the geographic range and seasonal variations depends on the relative abundance of potential prey, as well as accessibility and availability. A wolf typically requires 3-5 kg of meat per day, although it can fast for several days when food is not readily available.

threats:
Human intolerance is perhaps the greatest threat facing wolves in Europe today. Fear, misunderstanding and the fact that wolves do kill livestock have prompted an uneasy relationship with people in many areas, leading to direct conflict and persecution. In some countries unrestricted hunting of wolves poses a threat, while in others, licenses for killing wolves are issued irrespective of biological understanding. Poaching is widespread and probably represents the most important mortality factor for the wolf in Europe. Wolves preying on domestic animals have been a problem since man progressed from hunter/gatherer to farmer, and although the numbers of sheep or cattle taken are, as a percentage very low, livestock depredation remains the primary reason for exterminating wolves. Human encroachment is the most significant threat to wolf habitat. Wolves can live close to humans but they require safe areas in which to retreat. This is not considered in land planning in wolf areas and the small, fragmented populations in Western Europe can result in animals moving into unsuitable habitat. Specific threats to different European wolf populations are as follows:1. IberiaIllegal killing is still common (estimated to account for 50% of the total mortality) and poison baits are used (Blanco and Cortés 2002, Álvares 2005). 2. Western-Central AlpsDocumented causes of mortality include primarily car or train accidents and poaching events. Several cases of illegal killings have been reported in France and Italy, and conflicts with hunters and farmers are constantly reported. Both France and the Regional Government of Piemonte have been carrying out extensive and continuous research and monitoring of the wolf population and the damages to livestock and excellent data is available for management purposes. The number of livestock depredations in the Italian Alps is decreasing, despite the increase in wolf numbers, due to the high efforts in the implementation of preventive practices promoted by the Regional Government of Piemonte. Also if the wolf presence is still far from being accepted by local farmers and livestock breeders, the general attitude is improving (Boitani 2003, Marucco et al. 2005, Tropini et al. 2005).3. Italian peninsulaThe population is protected on paper but the law is poorly enforced and unpersecuted illegal killing is very common throughout the range. Poison baits are increasingly used against dogs, foxes and wolves. Hybridization with dogs has been found and it appears to account for at least 5% of the total wolf population (Ciucci and Boitani 1998, Corsi et al. 1999, Boitani 2003, Verardi et al. 2006). 4. Dinaric-BalkanLegal hunting and illegal killing are taking an unknown number of wolves throughout most of the range. Other pressures are commonly reported: widespread use of poisons, habitat fragmentation due to construction of fenced highways and shortage of wild preys (Huber et al. 2002, Iliopoulos 2005).5. CarpathianPoison baits and illegal killing are widespread throughout the range. In Ukraine, wolves are often treated as a pest species.6. BalticThe Latvian population appears to be on the way to being divided into two, with the area south of Riga starting to appears as a carnivore free area. This development will greatly increase the vulnerability of carnivore populations in western Latvia. 7. KareliaThe main threat to wolves in this region is killing by humans. In Finland, wolves cause very limited damage to livestock; predation on domestic dogs is the most frequent damage that cause strong resentment from the public. 8. ScandinaviaThe inbreeding coefficient is very high, on average higher than for full siblings mating (Liberg et al. 2005). Predation on domestic dogs, sheep and reindeer are the most frequent damages that cause continuing debate on wolf conservation.9. Germany/western PolandThe main risk for this population is its very small size, highly fragmented internal structure, and long distance from any other source. Coordination between Germany and western Poland is crucial. A single litter of wolf-dog hybrid pups was born in 2003.

conservationAction:
The species is strictly protected by the Bern Convention (Appendix II) and is in Appendix II of CITES. In the European Union the species is protected by the Habitats Directive but there are several exceptions:1) in Spain, wolves north of the Duero river are not protected2) in Greece, wolves north of 39°N are not protected3) in Finland, wolves occurring in the reindeer herding area in northern Finland fall under Annex V of the Habitats Directive; wolves outside the reindeer herding area fall under Annex IV4) in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) wolves are harvested (HD Appendix V)In general, habitat restoration is required in key areas to increase a healthy prey base and encourage wolves to move back into their former territory where appropriate. Corridors of land between small populations need to be established to allow movement of animals and prevent local extinctions. Conflict with humans needs to be addressed by involving local people in wolf management plans and through education programmes to increase people' s understanding of wolf biology and behaviour. Problems resulting from wolves preying on domestic animals need to be tackled by livestock protection schemes and compensation systems. Details of specific conservation measures for European wolf populations are given below: 1. IberiaWolves are fully protected in Portugal and south of the Duero river in Spain. North of the Duero, wolves are game species under various management regimes depending on legislation of 8 autonomous regional governments. Asturias has a wolf management plan and Galicia and Castilla y León are about to approve their plans. The autonomous regions are gradually approving their action plans. However, management coordination among the regional governments and between Spain and Portugal is very limited. The sub-population of Sierra Morena require ad-hoc management to ensure its viability (Blanco and Cortés 2002, Álvares 2005).2. Western-Central AlpsThe population is fully protected under the French, Italian and Swiss law. In France and Switzerland the national Action Plans include provisions for legal take of few wolves under strict conditions of damages on livestock. The three countries have recently (2006) signed a formal agreement of cooperation for the management of the entire population, marking an innovative procedure based on the recognition that the biological population needs to be managed through a common and accepted approach.  3. Italian peninsulaFully protected by a national law, while damage compensation is provided by 14 different regional laws. Compensation paid per wolf has been estimated to be the highest among European countries, but the effectiveness of compensation programs has never been assessed and it is increasingly questioned. Apart from formal protection the population is not actively managed. The species occur in several protected areas throughout its range but the size of these areas is far too small to protect a viable population. In spite of formal protection, illegal killings are estimated to take a substantial portion of the population every year (up to 15-20%). A national Action Plan sets the broad strategic ground for management but is not being implemented by the national and regional governments (Ciucci and Boitani 1998, Corsi et al. 1999, Boitani 2003). 4. Dinaric-BalkanManagement is fragmented by several national laws. It is a game species in almost all countries, except for Slovenia, Croatia and Greece south of 39° latitude where wolves are fully protected. In Croatia, an effective Action Plan is in place and implemented (Štrbenac et al. 2005). In general, law enforcement is weak or totally absent even in protected populations.5. CarpathianIn Slovakia wolves are game species with hunting season 1.11-15.1 and no quotas per season; in the Czech Republic they are protected game species, but hunting is prohibited; in Poland they are protected and in Romania they are protected game species with hunting quotas decided yearly; in Ukraine wolves are not game species nor protected (often treated as “pest” species, with bounties of c.20 Euro per individual) (Salvatori et al. 2002). 6. BalticThe standard management practice for most of the 20th century was open harvest, often with bounty incentives, all with the view of exterminating wolves, or at least seriously reducing their numbers. This situation persisted until the 1990s, when restrictions on their harvest gradually came into place in all countries They are currently protected in Poland, but harvested in the three Baltic States (EU Habitats & Species Directive Appendix V) and in Belorussia and Ukraine. The sub-population of western Poland and Germany requires ad-hoc management to ensure its viability. There is an action plan for the conservation of the wolf in Latvia (Ozolins and Andersone 2001).7. KareliaIn Finland, wolves occurring in the reindeer herding area fall under Annex V of the Habitats Directive; those outside the reindeer herding area fall under Annex IV. Finland has recently approved a National Management Plan that include removal of some wolves under controlled circumstances. In Russian Karelia, wolves are killed throughout the range and at any time. In spite of the small number of wolves, Finland has approved a plan to maintain the population within the current size (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2006). Discontinuous flow of dispersing wolves from Russia allow a reasonable but cautiously positive forecast on the conservation of this population.8. Scandinaviait is fully protected in Sweden and Norway; however, Norway applies a zoning system that includes culling of wolf numbers in the areas where damages are considered unacceptable. Both Norway and Sweden provide full compensation of damages; Sweden applies a preventive compensation system to reindeer breeders that operate in areas where wolves live.9. Germany/western PolandWolves are protected in both countries, but the extent to which protection is enforced in western Poland is questionable.


redListCategoryRationale:
European: The species has a wide range in Europe, and remains abundant in the eastern part of the range. Although population trends in European Russia have not been quantified, they are not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (30% over 10 years or 3 generations). Consequently the species is classed as Least Concern at the European level.EU 25: The lynx was driven extinct in much of western and central Europe over the last few centuries. However, over the past few decades, as a result of conservation action, the status of the species has improved. Reintroductions have restored it to some areas of its former range, although many of these reintroduced populations remain fragmented and extremely small. However, the lynx population within the EU remains small (below the population size threshold for Vulnerable under Criterion C, although it does not currently meet the subcriteria). If ongoing conservation action ceased, it is expected that the species would quickly start to decline again, and could meet Criterion C1 in the near future. Consequently it is assessed as Near Threatened. Continued protection is required to ensure the continuing recovery of this species.1. JuraEndangered (D). This population results from reintroductions in 1974/75. It now numbers c.80 individuals, and the range is expanding. Consequently it qualifies as Endangered under Criterion D (very small population). Although potential corridors to neighbouring lynx populations (Alps, Vosges-Palatinian and Black Forest) exist, there are barriers to dispersal. Furthermore, these neighbouring lynx populations are small and threatened, so no rescue effect can be expected; consequently the Red List category is not adjusted.2. Vosges-Palatinian.Critically Endangered (C2a(ii), D). According to the current estimations, about 30-40 lynx exist in the area of the Vosges Mts.-Palatinian Forest. Whereas the most recent tendencies indicate a slight expansion of the range in the south, it has been decreasing in the north, and an overall decline is suspected. Although there are other lynx populations in relatively close proximity, there are significant barriers to dispersal and neighbouring populations are small and threatened, so no rescue effect is anticipated. Consequently the Red List category is not adjusted.3. Alpine.Overall the Alpine population of c.120 individuals is Endangered (D). If assessed separately, the Western Alps population (80 lynx) is Endangered (D) and the Eastern Alps population is Critically Endangered (D). It is not expected that either population would experience any significant rescue effect from neighbouring populations which are fragmented and tiny. Consequently the Red List category is not adjusted. 4. Bohemian-Bavarian.Critically Endangered (C2a(i)). The current estimate is around 75 animals. Whereas the population was increasing and expanding until the mid 1990s (the population was then estimated to be 70-100), since 1999 a marked decrease has been noticed. All individuals are part of the same subpopulation. Neighbouring lynx populations are small and threatened, and there are barriers to dispersal, consequently no rescue effect from them can be expected and the Red List category is not adjusted.5. Dinaric.Endangered (D). The Dinaric lynx population bases from re-introductions in Slovenia in 1973 where the animals reproduced well and spread quickly southwards. The current size is estimated to be about 130 animals with a stable to slightly decreasing trend, however sound monitoring has only been established recently (except for Bosnia-Herzegovina), and the long-term trend is therefore difficult to assess. The population extends over a continuous area of occupancy of about 24,000 km2, but due to the small population size has to be regarded as Endangered. Although there are other lynx populations in relatively close proximity, there are significant barriers to dispersal and neighbouring populations are small and threatened, so no rescue effect is anticipated. Consequently the Red List category is not adjusted.6. Carpathian.Least Concern. The Carpathians host one of the largest continuous lynx populations in Europe (area of occupancy about 100,000 km2). The overall number is about 2,500 lynx and is stable. An range expansion towards the south (Serbia) was noticed since 2000. For these reasons the population qualifies as Least Concern.7. Scandinavian.Least Concern. In the past few years, the increase of the Scandinavian population came to a halt. This occurred because, owing to conflicts with livestock breeders, lynx were strictly controlled. The population size seems to be more or less stable, with around 2,000 indiviuals occupyng around 650,000 km2 (area of occupancy). Consequently it qualifies as Least Concern. PVA results indicate that this population has low chance of extinction. The merging of the Finish (Karelian population) and Scandinavian distribution areas is recent, but a rescue effect could potentially be expected.8. Karelian.Least Concern. In Finland, there were no animals left by 1950, before recolonisation from Russia started. Since then, the population has been increasing and expanding, especially during the past two decades. The estimation in Finland was 1050-1100 animals in 2004 with an increasing and expanding trend. The 2005 estimate for Karelia oblast was 510 and appears to be stable. Although the Karelian population is relatively small (potentially close to 1,000 mature individuals), it is in continuity with large neighbouring populations, and there would be likely to be a significant rescue effect if this population were to decline. For all these reasons, the Karelian population is assessed Least Concern.9. Baltic.Least Concern. The population consists of around 3,400 lynx, of which 1,600 are found in the Russian portion. Although there was some reduction in numbers in Estonia and Latvia during the 1990s, numbers appear to have stabilised following the adjustment of hunting quotas. The numbers in Russia appear to be stable. The highly fragmented distribution of animals throughout Lithuania, northern and western Belarus and northeastern Poland is, however, a cause for concern. This population is connected to the Karelian population and the large Asian Russian population.10. Balkan.Critically Endangered CR(C2a(i)). The total size of the population is estimated to be about 100 individuals at best, distributed over different patches, indicating a strong population fragmentation. It is impossible to assess the recent trend in population size or distribution, however local experts indicated a decrease for both 1990-1995 as well as 1996-2001.

range:
The Eurasian lynx is one of the widest ranging of all cat species. It was once distributed throughout Russia, central Asia and Europe. It was probably absent from some of the larger islands such as Ireland and Sicily and from countries with few forests. It was also absent from the Iberian Peninsula, where the smaller Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus occurs. From this extensive distribution, lynx were exterminated from almost all of western Europe. In western and central Europe, they survived only in the Carpathian Mountains, the southern Dinaric Mountains in Macedonia and Albania, and parts of Fennoscandia and the Baltic (where populations were heavily reduced), although larger populations persisted in European Russia. Human activities reduced the lynx to its minimum numbers in the 1950s. Lynx have been released in several areas of Europe in an effort to reintroduce this elusive predator, including in Switzerland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany and France. Lynx occurring in Europe can be viewed as belonging to a number of distinct populations (LCIE 2007):1. Jura.Countries: France and Switzerland. Description: This population stretches across the Jura Mountains from central-eastern France north of the Rhone to western Switzerland between Geneva and Basel.2. Vosges-Palatinian.Countries: France and Germany. Description: Distributed along the French Vosges Mountains and in the German Palatinian Forest and its surroundings.3. Alpine (comprising two segments - Western Alps and Eastern Alps).Countries: Switzerland, Slovenia, France, Italy, Austria. Description: Two main extant populations can be identified: One in the western to central Swiss Alps (mainly in the cantons of Valais, Vaud, Fribourg and Berne), stretching into the French Alps, and the western Alps in Austria (Vorarlberg); the other one in the western part of Slovenia (west of the Jesenice-Ljubljana-Triest highway), stretching into the adjacent regions of Italy (Tarvisiano) and Austria (Carinthia). Outside these two sub-populations, a more scattered distribution with no permanent lynx presence exists in France (south-east of the country, from the lake of Geneva as far south as to the department of Hautes-Alpes), eastern Italy (Friuli VG, Veneto (Bellunese), and Austria (northern Kalkalpen, Upper Carinthia, Niedere Tauern).4. Bohemian-Bavarian.Countries: Czech Republic, Germany, Austria. Description: The population stretches in the triangle of the three range countries: in the western Czech Republic (Sumava Mts., NW-part of the Cesky les Mts. = Oberpfälzerwald, the Sumava foothills, S-Novohradske Mts.; in the north more isolated, small but constant occurrence in the Brdy highlands in connection with the core population), eastern Germany (Bayerischer and Oberpfälzer Forest, Fichtelgebirge, Frankenwald), and northern Austria (Böhmerwald, Mühlviertel, Waldviertel).5. Dinaric.Countries: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Description: From central-southern Slovenia (S and SE of the Jesenice-Ljubljana-Triest highway) over Croatia (Gorski Kotar and Lika) up to West Bosnia (no data available for sporadically present areas).6. Carpathian.Countries: Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria. Description: The distribution area covers at present almost the entire mountain chain of the Carpathians, and is further expanding into Serbia, and most probably south into Bulgaria.7. Scandinavian.Countries: Sweden, Norway. Description: Lynx occur from central-south to north-east Norway and almost all over Sweden. 8. Karelian.Countries: Finland, Russia. Description: The population stretches from the Republic of Karelia over to Finland where it is only permanently present in the south-east of the country. The occasional presence in northern Finland is consistent with the situation in Murmanskaya Oblast, where indications are also much more scarce compared to Karelia. 9. Baltic.Countries: Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia. Description: In the north (Estonia, north-eastern Latvia, and northern Belarus) the distribution is coherent with Russia. The rest of the range (southern Latvia, Lithuania, main parts of Belarus, Poland, the Ukraine, and Kaliningrad) is highly fragmented.10. Balkan.Countries: Albania, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, potentially Greece. Description: Scattered distribution. Lynx occurs in the Albanian Alps and central-central east Albania, in western FYR Macedonia (mainly in the areas in and between the national parks Mavrovo, Galicica and Pelister, but most probably also in the Shar Planina Mts. bordering with Kosovo), as well as in Serbia (Kosovo and Metohija province) and Montenegro. From time to time single, unconfirmed observations in the border regions of Greece with FYR Macedonia and Albania.

population:
Lynx in Europe were widely extirpated within the past several hundred years, reaching a nadir in the 1950s. Populations were reintroduced from the late 1970s onward, and the total number of lynx in Europe (excluding European Russia) is c.8,000. Populations in central and southern Europe remain very small and fragmented, although there are larger populations in Fennoscandia, the Baltic states, and European Russia (Breitenmoser et al. 2000). The lynx's stronghold is a broad strip of southern Siberian woodland stretching through eastern Russia from the Ural mountains to the Pacific. There is little information on population status and trends from the lynx's wide Asian range (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Cat Specialist Group 2002). For the European populations, detailed status and trend information can be found on ELOIS - the Eurasian Lynx Online Information System for Europe (http://www.kora.unibe.ch/en/proj/elois/online/index.html).

habitat:
Throughout Europe and Siberia, lynx are associated primarily with forested areas which have good ungulate populations (Nowell and Jackson 1996). In Central Asia they occur in more open, thinly wooded areas. Small ungulates are the lynx's primary prey (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Cat Specialist Group 2002). In Europe, the lynx's preferred diet includes roe deer and chamois. Lynx will also take larger ungulates such as red deer, moose, or wild boar occasionally. Where ungulates are not available, birds, hares and rodents form important prey. In Norway, Sweden and Finland, lynx also kill significant numbers of semi-domesticated reindeer. Depredation on sheep is also a problem in some countries.

threats:
Lynx are vulnerable to destruction of their ungulate prey base. Hunting pressure may also play a role in lynx population declines. Habitat destruction through clear-cutting can have a negative effect on lynx abundance. There is no information beyond harvest reports on which to base an assessment of the biological impact of commercial trapping for furs, and thus its significance as a threat is difficult to judge (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Cat Specialist Group 2002). The lynx's disappearance in lowland Europe was due to human persecution, deforestation, loss of prey species, expansion of agriculture and an increase in human populations. Although the lynx is not endangered, these threats still affect it today throughout Europe. Habitat loss, loss of prey due to logging and hunting, and human population pressures have serious negative impacts. Humans still present a major threat to the lynx, particularly to small or reintroduced populations. These groups can be devastated by traffic accidents or by unsustainable hunting and poaching. In Norway in 1998, licensed hunters killed 112 lynxes out of a total population of just 400-500. This scale of hunting may be unsustainable, particularly when compounded by illegal hunting. Threats to specific European populations are detailed below:1. JuraIllegal killing, traffic accidents, limited dispersal.2. Vosges-Palatinian.Illegal killing in the Vosges Mts., in general small population size with a rather limited potential to expand.3. Alpine.Threats include illegal killing, infrastructure development (especially road constructions), vehicle and train collisions, and limited dispersal. A potential threat for the population in the Alps is the narrow genetic base: all of the relatively few founder animals came from the same region and some of them were probably closely related. First genetic analysis indicated that the Alpine population has a reduced allelic diversity compared to the Carpathian source population, and that it has today the smallest level of heterozygosity of all European lynx populations.4. Bohemian-Bavarian.Illegal killing, habitat fragmentation due to road constructions.5. Dinaric.Legal and illegal shooting, collisions with vehicles/trains, limited prey base.6. Carpathian.Potentially illegal killing and habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure developments and wood cutting.7. Scandinavian.Illegal killing, potentially legal harvest.8. Karelian.Potentially harvest.9. Baltic.Population fragmentation (in the south-west of the range), potentially illegal killing.10. Balkan.Small population number, limited prey base and habitat degradation (especially in Albania), probably illegal killing.

conservationAction:
Included on CITES Appendix II, protected under the Bern Convention (Appendix III) and strictly protected under the EU Habitats & Species Directive (Annexes II and IV). Conservation measures in place and recommended for the European populations are as follows:1. Jura.Lynx is legally protected in both countries. Stock-raiding animals can however be removed. For this, similar criteria have been established in France and Switzerland. In practice, depredation is much more pronounced in the French than in the Swiss Jura. The Ministries of Environment are responsible for the management of the species. There is co-operation on scientific and administrative level, but no systematic common monitoring and no common management plan for the entire population. Most important conservation measures needed: Continuation and improvement of monitoring, genetic surveillance of the population, law enforcement, improve connectivity to other lynx populations or occurrences.2. Vosges-Palatinian.In France as well as in Germany, lynx is fully protected by law. Most important conservation measures needed: Improve potential corridors, mitigate the problem of illegal killings, continue monitoring and cross-border co-operation.3. Alpine. Lynx is at present protected in all Alpine countries. In Switzerland, Slovenia, and France lynx causing too much damage to livestock can be removed. With the exception of Austria, national environmental agencies have the authority for lynx management. In Austria, the owners of the hunting grounds are responsible for the management of the species, but are supervised by the states (Bundesländer), which have the legal power. With the exception of Switzerland, national management plans are lacking. Current management practices: In the early 1990s, scientists from all Alpine countries formed an expert group to survey the status of and co-ordinate actions for the Alpine lynx population. The SCALP (Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population) defined common standards to interpret the monitoring data collected, and has developed a Pan-Alpine Conservation Strategy (PACS, Molinari et al. 2003), which was adopted by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. Most important conservation measures needed: Promote the expansion of the area occupied, improve law enforcement, continue monitoring of demographic and genetic parameters, increase acceptance of lynx by local people. To prevent genetic problems, conservation priority should be given not only the expansion of the range (fusion of the two subpopulations), but also the genetic exchange of individuals between different populations, e.g. between all reintroduced populations and the source population.4. Bohemian-Bavarian.Lynx of the Bohemian-Bavarian population are fully protected by law. Co-operation and exchange of information amongst scientists has started some years ago, and the establishment of a discussion platform for management issues was suggested (CELTIC – Conservation of the European Lynx: Management and International Cooperation). However, there is no common management approach yet. In Germany and Austria, wildlife management is in the responsibilities of the federal states (Bundesländer), and as there are no national management strategies for lynx, it is difficult to implement international co-operation. Most important conservation measures needed: Find solutions against the widespread illegal killing, improve connectivity first within the population, but then also to neighbouring occurrences, get a clear commitment and a more strenuous involvement of the authorities.5. Dinaric.Lynx was granted legal protection in Croatia in 1998. By becoming a member state of the European Union in 2004, Slovenia has ratified the EU Habitats Directive and hence legally protected lynx. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, no proper legislation exists. National management plans are in place in Croatia (since 2005) and in preparation in Slovenia, however a coherent strategy for the entire population is missing. Most important conservation measures needed: Develop a cross-border conservation strategy (including defining the legislation in Bosnia-Herzegovina), improve and continue the monitoring of lynx and prey, increase prey base. A specific survey in southern Bosnia-Herzegovina is required to clarify whether there is a connection between the Dinaric and the Balkan population. This knowledge would be of great importance for the assessment of the Balkan lynx, which might be considered a different subspecies.6. Carpathian.In all countries but Romania, lynx is completely protected by law, though since only recently in Slovakia (2001). Until 2000, the annual legal harvest was almost 15 animals in Slovakia and considered a threat to the population. In Poland, lynx received full protection in 1995. Of the Carpathian population, Romania is therefore the only country left were lynx is legally hunted. Yet the number of lynx shot has been very modest compared to the number of lynx estimated and the potential quota set per year. It is however assumed that there is no control over the real extent of hunting, as numbers differ in the literature found. The 2003 Carpathian Workshop on Large Carnivore Conservation aimed to start the elaboration of a Carpathian Action Plan for large carnivores, a measure recommended by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. According to this action plan the countries are then requested to draft and implement national action plans. Most important conservation measures needed: Improve the monitoring and census systems, habitat conservation, public education, conduct field research in different parts of the Carpathians to find out more about the species' biology in this region, develop a general strategy for the lynx in the entire Carpathians.7. Scandinavian.The Nordic countries apply more or less the same census methods and management regime, namely the controlled hunting of the species in certain areas where livestock depredation is considered too high. As a matter of fact, depredation is intense: Up to 10,000 sheep and several ten thousands of reindeer have yearly been killed by lynx from 1996-2001 in the area of the Nordic population. Whereas in Norway, sheep depredation is the most extensive, reindeer is the species mainly affected in Sweden. In both countries, the state pays for domestic animals killed. Sweden has implemented a management plan in 2000, Norway a government white paper in 1997, which sets the management guidelines (a new edition is in place since 2004). The harvest numbers in each of the two countries were around 90 lynx per year in 1996-2001. Most important conservation measures needed: Change sheep husbandry in Norway, set the hunting quotas at sustainable level.8. Karelian.The lynx is protected in Finland since 1995. Complete protection can however be derogated in accordance with article 16 of the EU Habitat Directive (resulting in a kind of quota hunting). Finland maintained the same level of harvest throughout the 1990s, with no change after 1995. The level (59 lynx annually in 1996-2001) is however considered sustainable. A management plan has been implemented in Finland in 1996. In Russia, lynx is a game species. Most important conservation measures needed: Establish a monitoring system in Russia, find solutions to mitigate human-livestock-carnivore conflicts in Finland, set the annual quotas on the basis of good census data, establish co-operation between the countries.9. Baltic.Lynx is only hunted in Estonia and Latvia (reservation for including the lynx in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive) as well as in Russia, in all other countries the species is fully protected. Legislation has in most of the countries strongly improved in the past few years due to harmonizing national laws with requirements of the European Union during the process of accession. Both Estonia and Latvia have prepared and implemented a lynx management plan. Such a plan is also planned for Lithuania. Furthermore, a cross-border network of researchers, conservationists, state officials and other stakeholder representatives from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was created in 2000 under the umbrella of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe LCIE: the Baltic Large Carnivore Initiative. A report on the status of the large carnivore conservation in the Baltic States including an action plan for the Initiative for 2001-2005 has been published. The report focuses on how the national management plans fulfil the guidelines and recommendations in the European Action Plan. There is however no such framework and strategy yet that would include all countries sharing the population. Most important conservation measures needed: Expand the population towards the south (southern half of Latvia and Lithuania), improve the connectivity within the population in the south-western part and create a broad corridor towards the occurrences in north-eastern Poland across Lithuania along the border with Belarus, improve and coordinate the monitoring of the species, develop a comprehensive conservation strategy based on a metapopulation concept and considering habitat quality and connectivity, continue with the Baltic Large Carnivore Initiative.10. Balkan.The species is fully protected by law in all range countries. No national management plans exist, however it is one of the aims of an ongoing cross-border conservation project to develop a recovery strategy for the Balkan lynx from which national actions can be derived. Most important conservation measures needed: Conduct a systematic field survey covering the whole potential distribution area, establish a standardised monitoring of lynx and prey species, research the ecology and life history of the Balkan lynx, define taxonomic status, raise public awareness, law enforcement, habitat and prey base enhancement.

redListAssessors:
Manuela von Arx (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe / Cat Specialist Group)


taxonomicNotes:
Previously considered conspecific with Lynx lynx by some authorities, now accepted as a distinct species on the basis of both genetics (Johnson et al. 2006, Eizirik et al. 2008) and morphology (Werdelin 1981, Wozencraft 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
The Iberian Lynx occurs only in isolated pockets of southwestern Spain, and its continued survival in Portugal is uncertain. There are only two known breeding populations in Spain, and the latest survey results suggest a minimum of 84 and a maximum of 143 adults surviving in two breeding populations (in the Coto Doñana and near Andújar-Cardeña in the eastern Sierra Morena). The Doñana population numbers 24-33 adults and the Sierra Morena is the stronghold of the species with an estimated 60-110 adults. These populations are isolated from one another making them even more vulnerable. None of the remaining potential populations in East Montes de Toledo, West Sistema Central and some areas of central and western Sierra Morena is thought to include animals that breed regularly. Current numbers are not sufficient for the survival of the species in the long term and experts agree the cat is now on the brink of extinction (IUCN 2007).With a total population of 84-143 adults, the Iberian Lynx qualifies as Critically Endangered under C2a(i).  There has been a continuing decline due to severe depletion of its primary prey, the European rabbit, by disease and over-hunting, with additional threats of high rates of non-natural lynx mortality and habitat destruction and fragmentation.   The effective population size of the largest subpopulation (Sierra Morena) is likely less than 50 mature breeding individuals, based on the general measure for felids (the proportion of the adult population contributing to the gene pool through successful raising and recruitment of offspring is 50%: Nowell et al. 2007).

range:
The Iberian lynx is restricted to the Iberian peninsula, confined to scattered groups in the southwestern quadrant of the Iberian peninsula as a result of the fragmentation of their natural habitat by agricultural and industrial development. Only two or three groups in Spain are considered to have populations which could be viable in the long term. It is possibly extinct in Portugal (IUCN 2007).

population:
The Iberian lynx occurs only in isolated pockets of Spain and possibly Portugal. The latest survey results from Spain suggest a minimum of 84 and a maximum of 143 adults surviving in two breeding populations: iin the Coto Doñana and near Andújar in the eastern Sierra Morena. The Doñana population numbers 24-33 adults and the Sierra Morena is the stronghold of the species with an estimated 60-110 adults. These populations are isolated from one another making them even more vulnerable. None of the remaining potential populations in East Montes de Toledo, West Sistema Central and some areas of central and western Sierra Morena is thought to include animals that breed regularly. Current numbers are not sufficient for the survival of the species in the long term and experts agree the cat is now on the brink of extinction. The latest population estimates represent a Spanish decline of more than 80 per cent since the last survey (1987-1988) suggested as many as 1,136 lynxes. A similar decline of 80 per cent was estimated in Spain for the period 1960-1978 (IUCN 2007). In Portugal a sign search, camera trapping and box trapping survey conducted in 2002 by the Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza failed to detect a single lynx (Sarmento et al. 2004). The most recent evidence of the presence of lynx in Portugal comes from the discovery of a scat in the Guadiana area in 2001, which was identified by molecular analysis (Pires and Fernandes 2003). During the 1990s, a national survey based on personal interviews and dead animal records suggested a population of about 40 lynxes fragmented in small subpopulations in five different areas: Algarve mountains, Sado Valley, Guadiana, S. Mamede and Malcata. However, further local field surveys indicated the absence of resident animals, pointing to a pre-extinction scenario (Pinto 2000, Fernandes et al. 2001, Sarmento et al. 2004)

habitat:
The Iberian lynx occurs in Mediterranean woodland and maquis thicket. It favours a mosaic of dense scrub for shelter and open pasture for hunting rabbits (ICONA 1992). Palomares et al. (1991) examined habitat preferences of lynx in the Coto Doñana area of south-western Spain, including the national park and environs. Lynx were generally absent from cropland and exotic tree plantations (eucalyptus and pine), where rabbits were also scarce. In the park, radiotelemetry showed that more than 90% of daytime resting spots used by lynx were located in thick heather scrub (Beltrán et al. 1987). The Iberian lynx is a specialised feeder, with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) accounting for 80-100 per cent of its diet. Other species occasionally taken include rodents, hares, partridges, ducks, geese, juvenile deer, and fallow deer, but these do not form an important part of the lynx's diet. Lynx often kill other carnivore species, including those regarded as pests by humans, such as feral cats and foxes, but do not eat them. The lynx's highly specialised diet makes it a naturally vulnerable species and the rapid decline in rabbit populations since the 1950s has had a direct impact on lynx numbers (IUCN 2007).

threats:
The Iberian Lynx is a naturally vulnerable species because of its dependence on only one prey species, the rabbit, and its narrow habitat spectrum. The dramatic decline in rabbit populations, caused by habitat changes and myxomatosis since the 1950s and Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) since the late 1980s, has therefore had a direct impact on lynx numbers. Over-hunting of rabbits and other human activities have further compounded the problems of prey scarcity. In recent years, prey scarcity has been compounded by high rates of non-natural mortality and habitat destruction and fragmentation. Habitat destruction, deterioration and alteration have impacted negatively on the lynx for centuries. Notable examples since the middle of the 20th century include the planting of Mediterranean scrublands with pines and eucalyptus and more recently the over stocking of deer and livestock on private estates and the opening up of roads and forest tracks in previously remote areas. The lynx's preferred habitat mosaic has also suffered at the hands of afforestation and scrub clearance schemes, road building, dam construction, and the building of holiday homes. New infrastructure projects continued to fragment lynx populations and created new barriers in corridor areas between the remaining populations in the 1960s. More than forty separate lynx populations in Spain and Portugal appear to have collapsed since the early 1980s. WWF Spain/Adena has identified 53 different public works that will affect important areas for the Iberian lynx. Heavier and faster traffic is also taking an unacceptably high toll on lynx each year as juveniles venture away from their areas of birth in search of new habitats. This high mortality has been an important factor in the decline of the species, particularly in the areas surrounding Doñana National Park. The Iberian Lynx received protection against hunting in the early 1970s and since then hunting has dropped off. However, some lynxes are still shot and killed in traps and snares set for smaller predators, particularly on commercial hunting and shooting estates (IUCN 2007).

conservationAction:
Lynx pardinus is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, and on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annexes II* and IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. It is also fully protected under national law in Spain and Portugal, and is classed as Critically Endangered on the national Red Lists of both countries (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005). Public awareness and education programs have helped change attitudes towards the lynx particularly among private landowners in lynx areas. Two international seminars have been held, in 2002 and 2004, to establish a coordinated strategy to save the Iberian lynx from extinction (Olszanska and Breitenmoser 2004). A captive breeding programme has been started in Spain. In Portugal, the National Action Plan foresees a re-introduction programme. The construction of facilities for breeding and reintroduction has been prepared (ICN 2003, Sarmento et al. 2004).In the short term, in situ conservation efforts must concentrate on preserving the last two breeding populations in Coto Doñana and Andújar-Cardeña. Priority must also be given to maintaining several large areas (of at least 500 km²) of suitable habitat to harbour new lynx populations. The central and western regions of Sierra Morena and the Toledo Mountains, as well as other areas in Spain and Portugal naturally rich in rabbits, will be vital for this purpose. All lynx habitat must be strictly protected from further destructive infrastructure projects. Captive breeding is of critical importance for lynx recovery. In addition to providing a vital gene bank for the survival of the species, captive lynxes will be needed to recolonise the many areas where populations have collapsed. Efforts to stimulate rabbit recovery must also be intensified. Without sufficient prey density, lynx populations will continue to decline and reintroductions will not be feasible (in spite of recent rabbit conservation measures in Doñana National Park, such as restocking, protection of burrows and vegetation management, rabbit numbers remain low). An adaptive conservation process based on careful monitoring of the last populations and the results of the measures implemented is necessary to facilitate the survival of the Iberian lynx. Recovery plans in all regions where the lynx has occurred over the past decade also need to be rapidly implemented (IUCN 2007).


taxonomicNotes:
Includes six subspecies, only the nominate occurs in Europe.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)In Europe and the Caucasus Felis chaus is declining rapidly and only a small number of mature individuals survive in the wild. It is listed in the Red Books of the Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. At the European regional level the species is considered Not Applicable because only a very small proportion (much less than 1%) of the global population occurs within the region. This listing should not detract from the fact that population declines in this species are a major cause for concern.

range:
The jungle cat has a very broad range, from Southeast Asia west through India, Southwest and Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and finally into Africa along the Nile River Delta.

population:
It is a relatively common species throughout much of the range. In Europe, it is of marginal occurrence, with small populations in Cis-Caspian region and the Caucasus along the Caspian Sea. The European population has been rapidly declining since the 1960s. There have been no records of this species in Astrakhan State Reserve (Russian Federation) since the 1980s. Marked population fluctuations are characteristic of this species, probably because of absence of adaptations to cold winters. Despite these fluctuations the long-term trend in Europe is of decline in both population and area of occupancy. Data from Russia suggest that there are about 500 animals left in the wild (Prisazhnyuk and Belousova 2007). A very small population persists in Georgia (I. Macharashvili pers. comm. to K. Tsysulina 2007).

habitat:
The jungle cat, despite its name, is not strongly associated with closed forest, but rather with water and dense vegetative cover, especially reed swamps, marsh, and littoral and riparian environments. It is able to satisfy these requirements in a variety of habitats, from desert to scrub woodland and dry deciduous forest, as well as cleared areas in moist forest (Nowell and Jackson 1996).

threats:
Jungle cats do well in cultivated landscapes (especially those that lead to increased numbers of rodents) and artificial wetlands. However, reclamation and destruction of natural wetlands, ongoing throughout its range but particularly in the arid areas, still pose a threat to the species, as density in natural wetlands is generally higher (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Thousands of jungle cat furs have been confiscated in illegal trade in India (Mukherjee 1998). In Europe, population and range declines since the 1960s have been attributed to illegal hunting and artificial landscape change.

conservationAction:
Included on CITES Appendix II. Hunting is prohibited in Bangladesh, China, India, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Thailand and Turkey (Nowell and Jackson 1996). This species is considered threatened in a number of range states in Europe and the Caucasus, and is included in the Red Books of the Russian Federation, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It is considered possibly extinct in Georgia.

redListAssessors:
Global assessment by IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team


taxonomicNotes:
Populations of wildcats occur on Crete, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands. Some authorities consider these populations to be discrete subspecies, related most closely to the lybica group, and among the most endangered populations in Europe (see Nowell and Jackson 1996 for references). Vigne (1992), Hemmer (1999) and Gippoliti and Amori (2006) on the other hand, consider them to be feral forms of domestic cats introduced centuries before by humans. 

The Sardinian wildcat has been assigned to the libyca group on the basis of both morphological and genetic evidence (Ragni 1981, Ragni and Randi 1986, Ragni and Possenti 1996, Randi et al. 2001); and a similar case could be made for the Corsican wildcat (Salotti 1993) and that of Crete (Ragni et al. 1999). However, the wildcat of Sicily is generally considered to be an autochthonous population of F. s. silvestris, and may warrant the status of a conservation unit, given its genetic distinctness from the mainland Italian population (Randi and Ragni 1991, Randi et al. 2001, Gippoliti and Amori 2006).

redListCategoryRationale:
European: Least Concern, given that there are large and stable populations in the eastern portion of the region. The category “Least Concern” can be misleading, for although the wildcat is probably the most widespread and numerous felid in the region, it is seriously threatened in some areas by genetic loss through hybridization with domestic cats. EU 25: Near Threatened (approaching A4e). It is expected that hybridization with domestic cats will cause population declines approaching 30% over 15 years (3 generations) including both the past and the future. It is unlikely that there would be a rescue effect from the eastern populations because of increasing habitat fragmentation. There is particular concern for the wildcat population north of the Alps. It is clearly adapted to the cold climate, and if conservation fails it could not be replaced by animals from the Mediterranean. The Scottish wildcat is scarce and declining, and is currently listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It may warrant uplisting to a higher category of threat.The Iberian subpopulation is suspected to be declining at a rate of >30% over 3 generations in the past or future, and should be listed as Vulnerable.Other isolated subpopulations (France/Germany, Italy, some Mediterranean island populations) face a greater level of threat than the species as a whole. These subpopulations are significant units for conservation, and thus it might be helpful to carry out separate subpopulation Red List assessments in the future; listing in a threatened category (e.g., Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) would be the likely outcome.

range:
The wildcat has a very wide distribution stretching across Europe (F. silvestris, silvestris group), South West and Central Asia (F. silvestris, ornata group), and Africa (F. silvestris, lybica group) (Nowell and Jackson 1996). In Europe it was formerly very widely distributed and absent only from Fennoscandia. Severe declines and local extirpations occurred in Europe between the late 1700s and mid 1900s, resulting in a fragmented relict distribution (Stahl and Artois 1991, Nowell and Jackson 1996, Peichocki 2001). Previously considered extinct in the Netherlands (Nowell and Jackson 1996), but it may be recolonizing from populations in the Eifel or Ardennes forests (Canters et al. 2005). It was considered regionally extinct in Austria (Spitzenberger 2005), but vagrants still occur and the Italian population is spreading northwards into Austria (Lapini and Molinari 2006). It is possibly extinct in the Czech Republic (EMA Workshop 2006). Wildcats (silvestris group) occur on Sicily, and populations of cats assigned to the libyca group occur on Crete, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands. Feral domestic cats are also found on numerous other small Mediterranean islands.  It occurs from sea level to 2,250 m in the Pyrenees (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In some parts of the wildcat's distribution (e.g. Scotland, Stromberg in Germany) it is possible that, as a result of hybridization with the domestic cat, very few genetically pure wildcats remain (Macdonald et al. 2004, Battersby 2005, Herrmann and Vogel 2005).

population:
One of the major barriers to the effective conservation of the wildcat in Europe is the lack of information regarding its current status and population trends (Macdonald et al. 2004). There have been no recent large-scale surveys or European regional reviews of the status of the species (Macdonald et al. 2004). During the European Mammal Assessment process, information (ranging from detailed national surveys to expert opinion) was collated for a number of European range states and is presented here, but this is by no means a comprehensive review. A review of the status of the wildcat in Europe in the 1980s and early-mid 1990s can be found in Stahl and Artois (1991) and Nowell and Jackson (1996).Scotland (UK): Recent estimates have varied between 1,000 and 4,000 (compared to 1.2 million feral cats in Britain), but as few as 400 cats with classical wildcat pelage may survive, and it is possible that very few genetically pure wildcats remain (Macdonald et al. 2004, Battersby 2005). If so, this putative subspecies would be Critically Endangered (Kitchener et al. 2005). Surveys show that 30% of populations have declined, whilst only 8% are increasing (Battersby 2005). The Scottish wildcat is currently listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Portugal: The population is suspected to be decreasing (M. Fernandes pers. comm. 2006). Considered Vulnerable at the national level, on the basis of suspected declines reaching 30% over three generations in the past or future (Cabral et al. 2005).Spain: In some places it is increasing and others decreasing (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Considered Vulnerable at the national level, on the basis of suspected declines of over 30% over the last three generations (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).Belgium: Evidence from wild cats found dead on roads indicated that the species is gradually expanding its range to the north and west. There are no data on population size (Libois 2006).Germany: The population was recently estimated at 1,700-5,000 individuals (Knapp et al. 2000). The population is increasing and occupying new areas (M. Stubbe pers. comm. 2006). Switzerland: The wildcat persists in the Jura Mountains in northwestern Switzerland, adjacent to the French population. It was very rare in the 1970s, but records started to increase in the late 1980s (Doetterer andBernhart 1996) and are now reported on a low, but regular frequency over the whole of the Swiss Jura Mountains. No population estimation available. Italy: The estimated number of wildcats is between 750 and 1000 individuals (Ragni 1981, Ragni et al. 2001), which remains unchanged due to the slight range expansion in the middle and north-east, accompanied by extinction in the north-western peninsula (Ragni 2006). Slovenia: The population is estimated (on the basis of density and habitat suitability) at no more than 2,000; it is stable. Recently expanded highways possibly pose some threat in south-east part of its high density range. (B. Kryštufek pers. comm. 2006)Poland: Estimated number of wildcats in Poland is between 100 and 150 individuals, estimated density is 1-1.3 per 1000 ha (Okarma et al. 2002). The current distribution of wildcat in the Polish Carpathians, mainly along the borders with Slovakia and Ukraine, shows that the Polish population forms a continuum with Slovak and Ukrainian populations. Together they constitute the northernmost part of the larger Carpathian population of this species. The species is decreasing and is considered endangered (EN) in Red Data Book of Poland (Wolsan et al. 2001).Slovakia: The estimate of the Slovakian population in 2000 was about 1,500 individuals (unpublished data of the Slovak Environmental Agency: A. Olszanska pers. comm. 2006). Serbia: There are large populations along the southern Danube (EMA Workshop 2006).Macedonia: The species is widespread (EMA Workshop 2006).Greece: The wild cat is widespread in continental Greece with sightings in all forested areas and many wetlands. There are apparently more sightings in north and north-east Greece, where the population density seems to be higher. The population trend has not been quantified but is believed to be stable. On Crete it occurs at low densities (G. Giannatos pers. comm. 2006).Romania: The population is estimated to number c.10,000 individuals, but this is not based on quantitative data (Red Data Book of Romania). Bulgaria: There are no quantitative data, but the species is considered relatively abundant (Spassov et al. 1997).European Russia: The population size and trend have not been quantified, but there are thought to be large, relatively stable populations (EMA Workshop 2006).In Scotland, 88% of wild-living cats may be hybrids or feral domestic cats (Kitchener et al. 2005), and in Italy and Hungary the proportion of hybrids is estimated at 8% and 25-31% respectively (using genetic nethods: Pierpaoli et al. 2003, Lecis et al. 2006). On the basis of museum specimens, the proportion of hybrids in Bulgaria was estimated at 8-10% (Spassov et al. 1997), but the extent of hybridization may have increased since specimens were collected. Wild cats of mixed origin have also been found in Belgium, Portugal, Germany (only one animal) and Switzerland (Pierpaoli et al. 2003). In general the genetic distance to the domestic cat is larger in the north of the range than in the south (Pierpaoli et al. 2003). Eastern European populations are generally considered to be relatively pure (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Assessing the status of the wildcat is difficult, becuse it is a cryptic species and, moreover, because it may be difficult for some experts to distinguish between specimens of European wildcat and domestic cat (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Morphological critera established by Kitchener et al. (2005) should help to resolve these problems.

habitat:
European wildcats are primarily associated with forest and are found in highest numbers in broad-leaved or mixed forests with low densities of humans. They are also found in Mediterranean maquis scrubland, riparian forest, marsh boundaries and along sea coasts. Areas of intensive cultivation are avoided (Nowell and Jackson 1996). As with other wildcats, rodents are the staple of the diet of European wildcats across much of their range (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Biro et al. 2005) However, rabbits are a major prey where they occur (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Lozano et al. 2006). Birds (both passerine and ground-dwelling) are of secondary importance (Biro et al. 2005). The composition of the diet shows only minor seasonal variations: rabbits or rodents are the major year-round food items. In Italy, historical (1968-1983) and recent (1994-2004) diets of wildcats show highly significant differences in composition, with an overwhelming occurrence of arthropods, reptiles and murines in the most recent period; the change appeared to be directly correlated to the expansion of wood vegetation and growth of atmospheric temperature over the last twenty years (Ragni 2006). Wildcats will also scavenge food and cache their kills, especially in winter (Nowell and Jackson 1996). The overlap in trophic niche between wildcats and feral domestic cats is large (Biro et al. 2005), indicating the potential for competition between these two taxa. Age at sexual maturity is 10-12 months for females and 9-10 months for males, interbirth interval is typically one year (although females may exceptionally breed twice in a year if the first litter is lost), and longevity is exceptionally up to 15 years, but more typically up to 5-6 years  (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Macdonald et al. 2004).

threats:
Habitat loss and persecution by humans caused the dramatic decline of this species in Europe in the 18th to mid 20th centuries. Today, the main threats are hybridization, disease transmission, and competition with feral domestic cats. There is ongoing habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation in some areas (e.g., Mediterranean bushland); although in some other parts of Europe forest cover is increasing as a result of abandonment of extensive agricultural land. The fact that wildcats have failed to recover across much of their former European range, despite decades of strict legal protection, indicates that although persecution has largely ceased, other factors are now limiting populations of this species.European wildcats suffer from hybridization with domestic cats, which descend from African wildcats. The process of domestication began thousands of years ago in North Africa and Southwest Asia, and domestic cats are now found in large numbers throughout the world, living in peoples' homes as well as feral in the wild. Feral cats compete with wildcats for prey and space, and there is also interbreeding or hybridization, which is leading to a strong decline in genetically pure wildcats in some areas. There is also a high potential for disease transmission between domestic cats and wildcats (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Fromont et al. 1998, Daniels et al. 1999), with some infections being maintained permanently in wildcat populations by transmission from domestic cats, when otherwise the diseases would die out (Fromont et al. 1998). A further risk is presented by the selective resistance of silvestris x catus  hybrids to viral disease infection (Ragni and Possenti 1991, Ragni 1993). Other threats include significant human-caused mortality, especially road kills (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Lüps et al. 2002, Schulenberg 2005). The species is still considered a pest in Scotland and is illegally persecuted. Predator control measures in a number of European countries may result in this species being killed as bycatch. In Europe at least, the species has never been commercially exploited for its fur (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Introduced feral domestic cats cause serious harm to native species in many parts of the world, and there have been suggestions that virus-vectored immunocontraception should be developed as a control method (Courchamp and Cornell 2000). Any such development should take into account potential risks to wildcats. In recent years there have been a number of cases of people taking young wildcats from the wild in the mistaken belief that they would make good pets (8 cases in two years in two areas in Germany, and another cat that was introduced from France into the Netherlands: Canters et al. 2005, Simon et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
Included on CITES Appendix II. The species is fully protected across most of its range in Europe and eastern areas of Central Asia, but is only protected in part of its African range (Nowell and Jackson 1996). It is listed on the EU Habitats & Species Directive (Annex IV) and the Bern Convention (Appendix II). It is classed as threatened at the national level in many European range states.

redListAssessors:
Mathias Herrmann, Andrew Kitchener, Holger Meinig, Michael Stubbe, Margarida Fernandes, Jim Conroy, Giorgos Giannatos, Juan Herrero, Andreas Kranz, Agnieszka Olszanska


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is generally assumed to have been introduced to Europe, perhaps a long time ago. Although there is little evidence regarding the exact date of introduction, it is considered likely to have been before 1500. The species is widespread and common in at least part of its range. There appear to have been some range and population increases in recent years, but this may be due to better observation.

range:
This species is found mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, from Senegal and Gambia to East Africa, then southwards in Angola, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique. It is absent from much of southern Africa, but present in NE Namibia, N Botswana, N and E Zimbabwe and the extreme eastern parts of South Africa (Palomares in press). In North Africa, ranges in a narrow coastal strip from Western Sahara to Tunisia, and also from N and E Egypt southwards to Ethiopia (Palomares in press). It is also found from the Sinai Peninsula to the south of Turkey, and the Iberian Peninsula (Delibes 1999). More specifically, in Europe this species is found in southern and central Portugal (Borralho et al. 1995) and south-western Spain (Delibes 1999). At the beginning of the 20th century, it was also present in the northwestern part of the Iberian Peninsula (Delibes 1999). An individual was recently recorded near Leon (Castile and Leon, Spain) (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). It is generally considered to have been introduced to Europe, on a zoogeographical basis (Delibes 1999) and on the grounds that the species is absent from the European fossil record although late Pleistocene and Holocene fossils are known from North Africa (Dobson 1998). It has been speculated that the introduction occurred "perhaps a long time ago" (Delibes 1999). It has been reported to 3,000 m asl in the Ethiopian highlands (Yalden et al. 1996).

population:
In the 19th century it regularly occurred in the north-west of the Iberian peninsula, but it subsequently became restricted to the south-west. In recent years, there have again been records from the north-west (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). “The status of its population in Europe is unknown, but numbers and probably range have increased in the last 20 years, in both Portugal and Spain (Delibes 1999).” Abundance increases from north to the south, reaching densities of 1.2 individual per square kilometer in southern Spain (Delibes 1999).

habitat:
Mainly associated with habitats with understorey vegetation in coastal, lacustrine and riparian (streams, rivers, marsh, swamps) habitats (Palomares in press). This species avoids humid forests and extreme deserts (Delibes 1999, Palomares in press). In tropical Africa, the Egyptian mongoose occurs where there are termitaries, which Kingdon (1977) suggested could satisfy a need for secure shelter. In Europe, “it is found in Mediterranean maquis, with a clear preference for humid and riparian habitats (Delibes 1999).” Egyptian mongooses have home ranges of about 3 square kilometers, and are diurnal and omnivorous (Delibes 1999).

threats:
There are no major threats to this species. Incidental poisoning by rodenticides is a localized threat, and trapping with boxes is legal in Portugal (F. Palomares pers. comm. 2007). Deliberate illegal poisoning of carnivores sometimes occurs (European Mammal Assessment Workshop 2006). “It is considered a pest by hunters, because of its presumed impact on small game species" (Delibes 1999). The range of this species in south-western Europe has experienced reductions due to increased agricultural production, yet increases in range have also occurred due to the reduction of its natural predators (Delibes 1999).

conservationAction:
This species is present in many protected areas across its range. It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and Annex V of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (Delibes 1999).

redListAssessors:
Juan Herrero, Paolo Cavallini, Francisco Palomares


redListCategoryRationale:
European: Vulnerable (A2cd). The European population is very small (ca. 2,260 individuals), and although the Fennoscandian part of the regional range is stable, there have been sharp declines in the (much larger) Russian area over the past 30 years owing to overharvesting and decline in prey populations (reindeer). It is not anticipated that there would be a rescue effect from populations in Asian Russia, as these are suspected to be declining too.EU 25: Vulnerable (D1). Wolverine numbers in Sweden and Finland are stable, but the total population is very small. Outside the EU, the Russian wolverine population is sharply declining, and the Norwegian wolverine population is very small, so it is not expected that there would be any significant rescue effect and the Red List category is not adjusted.1. Scandinavian wolverine populationVulnerable (D1). The Scandinavian part of the geographical European range is stable, but the population is very small (750 wolverines). The Scandinavian population is only narrowly connected with the Karelian population and genetic analyses have shown that these two populations are clearly distinct, consequently it is assumed that there would not be a significant rescue effect and the Red List assessment is not adjusted.2. Karelian wolverine populationEndangered (C2a(ii)). The population in Karelia is very small (450 wolverines, of which 60 in Finland and 390 in Russia). Although the population trend in the Finnish part of the range is slowly increasing, the trend in the much larger Russian population is believed to be decreasing (although it is poorly known). The population trend in Karelia is suspected to be declining overall. All individuals are part of the same subpopulation. In Russia in general there have been sharp declines in wolverine populations over the past 30 years owing to overharvesting and decline in prey populations (reindeer). Consequently, although the Karelian population is connected to populations further east in Russia, it is not expected that there would be a significant rescue effect because the populations are declining.

range:
In addition to their circumpolar distribution across Siberia and North America, wolverines once occurred throughout the European part of Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states, and north-east Poland. During the 19th century, wolverines disappeared from the southernmost of these areas in Europe mainly due to persecution, but also due to deforestation and other human impacts. In Europe the species is now found in Norway, Sweden, Finland and European part of Russia. Within these countries wolverines are mainly found north of 60ºN. According to the Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores (LCIE 2007) two populations are recognized in Scandinavia and Karelia:1. Scandinavian wolverine populationThis population is distributed mainly along the border of Norway and Sweden, with extensions into the southern Norwegian mountains, and the northern Norwegian county of Finnmark and adjacent areas of northwest Finland (the region of Lappland). Within this range there are three population segments, the south Norwegian, the central population segment along the Norwegian/Swedish border, and a few animals breeding in the boreal forest areas of eastern Sweden.2. Karelian wolverine populationThis population extends across southern and central Finland (all Finland excluding Lappland) and the Russian oblasts of Murmansk and Karelia. The main distribution appears to be continuous, but there is a relatively isolated population segment in western Finland.

population:
The European population of Gulo gulo is currently estimated to be approximately 2,300 individuals. The European distribution is connected to the Asian Russian population along the Urals. The overall European population forms a more or less continuous distribution with a few geographically and genetically distinct units, and constitutes a smaller fraction of the large Eurasian population. During the last decades, there has been a increase in population numbers and distribution of wolverines in the Fennoscandian countries, but decreasing trends in Russia.1. Scandinavian wolverine populationPopulation size: 750 wolverines. Genetic surveys for the Scandinavian population have shown a low genetic variability and subdivision among populations indicating that the wolverine in Scandinavia has potentially lost variation due to a previous bottleneck event and that the current populations are the result of a recent common genetic background. The southern part of the population seems to form a sink with a few individuals emigrating from the northern continuous population. The southern Norwegian population segment was naturally re-established during the late 1970s and was a result of protective legislation. This population segment has recently increased in numbers and distribution, but seems to have stabilized at around 100 individuals. Genetic surveys have shown that the southern Norwegian population segment is genetically distinct from the northern population segments (about 220 individuals in Norway), but the geographic gap between the southern population and the main population to the north and east has decreased from 100-200 km by the early 1990s to virtually connectivity by 2006. There are an estimated 380 individuals of 1 year and older in the Swedish portion of the central population segment. Recently, during the 1990s a small and distinct reproducing population became established in the southern boreal region of the country. Population data for the past 9 years (1996-2004) suggest a fairly stable over all population trend, with a slight increase during the past 5 years.2. Karelian wolverine populationPopulation size: 450 wolverines.

habitat:
Wolverines inhabit a variety of habitats in the alpine, tundra, taiga, and boreal forest zones. They are found in coniferous, mixed, and deciduous woodlands, bogs, and open mountain and tundra habitats. Sometimes known as “hyaenas of the north”, wolverines have evolved to scavenge from the kills of wild ungulates abandoned by more efficient predators such as wolves and lynx, as well as victims of accidents and disease. However, wolverines also prey on hares, rodents and occasionally animals as large as moose given certain snow conditions. They can also prey heavily on domestic sheep and semidomesticated reindeer. The wolverine has vast home-ranges (Landa et al. 1998a) and good dispersal abilities. Faecal DNA sampling has detected dispersal distances of more than 500 kilometres (Flagstad 2005, Flagstad et al. 2006).

threats:
Wolverines are scarce in Europe today. Their continued survival is threatened due to their small and fragmented distribution, and the potential for their future survival may be weakened by the likelihood of low genetic diversity. Habitat loss per se is not a substantial threat to wolverine conservation. Large areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland are still covered by forests and mountains that offer a suitable prey base and habitat for wolverines. The problem is that these are not wilderness areas, and wolverines come into conflict with a low, but crucial, number of human land uses. The fact that there are no large areas within their distribution where there is no conflict potential with sheep or semidomestic reindeer means that human tolerance for wolverines is low. This results in a difficult situation for wildlife managers who are forced to try and balance wolverine conservation with the conflicts they create with livestock. In Norway, farmers no longer use traditional sheep-herding methods that once deterred depredation, so wolverines are often controlled in an effort to protect livestock. Poaching also occurs. In Russia, overharvesting and declines in key prey species are major threats.1. Scandinavian wolverine populationHigh levels of depredation on domestic sheep in Norway, and on semi-domestic reindeer in Norway, Sweden and Finland, generate large conflicts. These lead to pressure for population reduction through both legal and illegal killing. Finding ways to reduce depredation on sheep is crucial. It is unclear if the existing levels of harvest, especially in Norway, are sustainable. With respect to depredation on semi-domestic reindeer solutions are harder to find as wolverines depend heavily on semi-domestic reindeer for food.2. Karelian wolverine populationThe Russian economic depression during the 1990s is believed to have led to widespread poaching of ungulate game species. Furthermore, there has been a reduction of the semi-domestic reindeer herding industry due to large calf/breeding losses. This is believed to have indirectly negatively affected wolverine populations in western Russia. The wolverine's main prey base (wild and domestic reindeer) became less abundant and the population has faced a decrease in numbers and distribution during the last decades.

conservationAction:
The wolverine is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annex II* and Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. European range states have different monitoring and management regimes. The species is strictly protected in Finland and Sweden, but is subject to licensed harvest and control measures in Norway.1. Scandinavian wolverine populationWolverines are subject to both de facto hunting and government organised lethal control activities in Norway. The Norwegian national goal is to control the total population within the limits of 39 yearly active natal dens. Control measurements, killing of family groups in early spring and licensed harvest is used as a management tool to restrict wolverine predation on unattended sheep during summer and domestic reindeer all year around. The national goal in Sweden is to reach a minimum of 90 annual reproductions which equals approximately 550 individuals. Wolverines in Sweden are protected, although there is some limited use of lethal control following acute depredation events. The Norwegian and Swedish population is monitored through annual den inventories and there is cooperation and data exchange between the two national programmes. In Finland the species is monitored through a national fauna monitoring programme based on tracks crossing fixed 4x4+4 km triangles. 2. Karelian wolverine populationWolverines are protected in Finland and Russian Karelia.

redListAssessors:
Arild Landa (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe)


taxonomicNotes:
Some authors considered Japanese otters as a distinct species (Lutra nippon) (see Wilson and Reeder 2005 and references therein), however they are maintained here as a distinct population of Lutra lutra.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)EU 25 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)In both cases, the species is listed as Near Threatened because it has undergone historical declines but is now recovering across most of Europe (although declines are ongoing in some areas). However, if conservation actions for the species were stopped or reduced, the species would very quickly move back into a threatened category. Hence the Near Threatened listing is a precautionary one based on Criterion A3 and A4, as it is suspected that if conservation measures ceased, declines over a 12 year (=3 generation) period in the future, or including both the past and the future, might approach 30%.

range:
The Eurasian otter has the widest distribution of all otter species. Its range covers parts of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. Originally the species was widespread throughout Europe, but it declined dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s, and has disappeared from parts of central and northern Europe (it is probably extinct in Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and Switzerland: Prigioni 1999). It is not found on most of the Mediterranean islands due to the lack of appropriate habitat, although it is found on Corfu (Greece). Little is known about the original distribution in Africa and Asia. Otters have been found in brackish waters below sea level in the Netherlands, and up to 2,400 m in the Pyrenees. Outside Europe they have been recorded up to 4,120 m in Tibet (Reuther and Hilton-Taylor 2004).

population:
Expanding throughout most of its European range following historic declines up until the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; although in the European part of Russia there have been recent marked declines, and isolated populations in countries like Turkey, Italy, Georgia, Armenia are still declining. The UK population started to recover in the 1960s (Battersby 2005). The population in Portugal is stable and did not show much decrease historically (Cabral et al. 2005). In Norway, although the range is increasing on the south-western coast, the population appears to have declined again since the mid 1990s (T. Heggberget pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It is known from a wide variety of aquatic habitats, including highland and lowland lakes, rivers, streams, marshes, swamp forests and coastal areas. It is very adaptable, using saltwater as well as freshwater habitats, and even sewerage systems in urban areas. In most parts of its range otter distribution is correlated with presence of riverbank vegetation. Otters in different regions may depend upon different features of the habitat, but the important component of otter habitat, for breeding purposes, is the presence of holes in the river bank, including cavities among tree roots, piles of rock, wood or debris. The Eurasian otter avoids deep water. Their distribution in coastal areas is strongly correlated with the presence of freshwater. The location of breeding holts is not confined to river banks; there is evidence to indicate that sometimes the species breeds well away from water and the pups are moved to holts on the river banks once they are a few months old (Reuther and Hilton-Taylor 2004).

threats:
The aquatic habitats of otters are extremely vulnerable to man-made changes. Canalisation of rivers, removal of bank side vegetation, dam construction, abstraction of water for irrigation, draining of wetlands, agricultural activities and associated man-made impacts on aquatic systems are all unfavourable to otter populations. Pollution is major threat to the otters in western and central Europe, the main pollutants posing a danger to otters are the organochlorines dieldrin (HEOD) and DDT/DDE, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the heavy metal mercury. Coastal populations are particularly vulnerable to oil spills. Acidification of rivers and lakes results in the decline of fish biomass and reduces the food resources of the otters. The same effects are known to result from organic pollution by nitrate fertilisers, untreated sewage, or farm slurry. In addition, major causes of mortality from several countries are drowning, road kills, and poaching. Fyke nets set for eels and other fish as well as creels set for marine crustaceans are very attractive to otters, and many that try to enter these traps are entangled and drowned. A further potential threat is strangulation by transparent, monofilament drift net. A potential risk comes from traps designed to kill other species, especially underwater cages constructed to drown muskrats. Illegal hunting is still a problem in many parts of their distribution range. In several European countries political pressure especially by fishermen has resulted in granting of licenses for killing otters (Reuther and Hilton-Taylor 2004). Illegal killing for the trade of pelts is on the increase in Ukraine and Danube Delta, and probably in the eastern parts of its global range (European Mammal Assessment Workshop 2006).

conservationAction:
It is strictly protected under international legislation and conventions: CITES Appendix I (Reservation by Russian Federation), Bern Convention Appendix II, EU Habitats and Species Directive Annexes II and IV, and EC 338/97 Annex A. Additionally it is protected under national law in many range states. A European Breeding Programme (EEP) for self-sustaining captive populations was started in 1985. Monitoring programmes have been established in many range states in Europe. Road barriers and tunnels under roads are required to reduce the impact of road kills (especially in countries like Germany where road kills are the main threat). Much more monitoring is required, but also better survey techniques are required. For example, the population on the Shetlands is well-surveyed, and survey results show no indications of decline, but evidence from other sources (breeding holts, changes in diet, etc.) indicate that declines are in fact happening (J. Conroy pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Jim Conroy, Andreas Kranz, Paulo Cavallini, Margarida Fernandes, Alexei Tikhonov, Juan Herrero, Michael Stubbe, Tiit Maran


taxonomicNotes:
Some of the island populations are taxonomically quite distinct, although the significance of this is not yet clear (see Krystufek 2004a, 2004b). In addition, they may be threatened, as they would meet Red List criteria on range alone (W. Duckworth in litt. 2006).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, its large population, its occurrence in a number of protected areas, and because it is unlikely to be declining at nearly the rate required to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

range:
The stone marten is widespread, occurring throughout much of Europe and central Asia. It is found from Spain and Portugal in the west, through central and southern Europe, the Middle East, and central Asia, extending as far east as the Altai and Tien Shan mountains and north-west China. In Europe, it is absent from the United Kingdom, the Scandinavian peninsula, Finland, the northern Baltic, Ireland and northern European Russia. At the end of 20th century the species extended to the north and east in European Russia, as far as the Moscow Province in the north and across the Volga River in the east (Abramov et al. 2006). The species occurs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan. It was recently found in northern Myanmar (Rabinowitz and Khaing 1998). The species was introduced to Ibiza, Balaeric Islands (Spain) but failed. It was also introduced to Wisconsin, U.S.A. (Long 1995). It is found from sea level to 3,400 m in Kazakhstan and 4,200m in Nepal.

population:
It is common in at least parts of its range (Macdonald and Barrett 1993). Populations in western and central Europe have increased since the 1960s and 1970s. The beech marten is recolonising areas in the Netherlands from which it had disappeared.

habitat:
The stone marten prefers more open areas than other martens (Sachhi and Meriggi 1995). Its habitat preferences vary in different parts of its range. It is typically found in deciduous forest, forest edge, and open rocky hillsides (sometimes above the tree line). However, in Switzerland, Austria, north-east France, and southern Germany, it is very common in suburban and urban areas, often building its nest in house attics, outhouses, barns, garages, or even car engine spaces. In some areas they are common in towns and rare in woods. Commensal beech martens may cause damage to roofs, insulation, and electrical wiring and pipes in houses and cars (Broekhuizen 1999).

threats:
This species has no major threats. It is sometimes persecuted as a pest. The species is hunted for its fur in India and Russia; and is also hunted for food in some parts of its global range (not in Europe).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in many protected areas. The Indian population is listed in Appendix III of CITES, as Martes foina intermedia (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Alexei Tikhonov, Paulo Cavallini, Tiit Maran, Andreas Kranz, Juan Herrero, Giorgos Giannatos, Michael Stubbe, Roland Libois, Margarida Fernandes, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, large population, occurrence in a number of protected areas, tolerance to some degree of habitat modification, and because it is unlikely to be declining at nearly the rate required to qualify for listing in a threatened category. The population is stable to increasing.

range:
The pine marten has a wide distribution in the Palaearctic, being found throughout most of Europe, Asia Minor, northern Iraq and Iran, the Caucasus, and in westernmost parts of Asian Russia (Western Siberia). It is widespread in continental Europe, with the exception of most of Iberia and Greece, and parts of Belgium and the Netherlands (Bright 1999, Matos and Santos-Reis 2003). It is found on the Mediterranean islands of Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily (Bright 1999). It was introduced historically to the Balearics (S. Roy pers. comm. 2006). It was formerly widespread in the British Isles, but is now restricted to northern Britain and Ireland, where it is still locally common (Battersby 2005, S. Roy pers. comm. 2006). Altitude ranges from sea-level to the timber line (2,300 m in the Pyrenees: Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
In the more northern and eastern parts of its range it remains widespread, and it is fairly abundant owing to its large range. Population declines and range contractions occurred in many parts of its distribution, yet it was difficult to quantify these population declines because historical data were lacking for many range states. Hunting bags in Russia were 80% lower in the late 20th century than they were in the 1920s (Grakov 1993), and Russia constitutes a large part of the species' range. The pine marten has also declined in the Netherlands (Bright 1999), and has become extinct in many parts of the British Isles where it formerly occurred (Battersby 2005). In northern and central Europe, this species declined from the 1950s to the 1980s, but has since stabilized and is now regionally increasing due to implementation of hunting controls. Since 1990, in the Russian Federation the population has been increasing again in forested areas; in 1999 the number was estimated as 170,000 (A.Abramov pers. comm. 2006). In the United Kingdom, the species' range has increased in Scotland in recent years, but the population trend has not been quantified (Battersby 2005).

habitat:
It inhabits deciduous, mixed, and coniferous woodlands, as well as scrub. Optimal habitat appears to be woodlands with an incomplete canopy and dense understorey vegetation. Pine martens have a predominantly carnivorous diet, consuming voles, mice, squirrels, rabbits, birds, and amphibians. Carrion is a major food source in the winter. Bee nests, mushrooms, and berries are also sometimes eaten. Solitary, but not highly territorial. The home ranges very often overlap partially or even totally. Female may mate with several males while on heat. There is delayed implantation after 165-210 days. In the eastern parts of distribution area (Ural Mts) it can hybridize with sympatrically distributed sable M. zibellina (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006).

threats:
Threats to the pine marten include unsustainable hunting and trapping, incidental poisoning, and the loss and fragmentation of woodland habitats. The marten is still hunted and trapped for its fur in some parts of its range. Its decline in Britain was due to persecution, and the species is still subject to persecution even in some countries in which it is protected. Efforts to control other carnivore species sometimes result in pine marten deaths.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annex V of the Habitats Directive, and it occurs in a number of protected areas throughout its range. In The United Kingdom it is listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Hunting controls need to be implemented and enforced across its range.

redListAssessors:
Andreas Kranz, Alexei Tikhonov, Jim Conroy, Paulo Cavallini, Juan Herrero, Michael Stubbe, Tiit Maran


taxonomicNotes:
The species occasionally hybridizes with Mustela putorius (Tumanov and Abramov 2002). Genetic studies have shown that the western populations (Spain and France) have very low genetic variability and southern populations show moderate genetic variability, whilst the eastern populations have the greatest variability (Lode 1999; Davidson et al. 2000; Michaux et al. 2004, 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European: There has been considerable reduction in the population of this species across most of its historic range. However, there is considerable uncertainty about current population size and rate of decline, which makes it difficult to determine what the true status of this species should be (given better data a Critically Endangered listing might be warranted). There has certainly been more than a 50% population reduction in the past ten years. This decline is likely to continue given the current threats, but it is hard to say if criteria A3 and A4 should be used under Endangered or even Critically Endangered.EU 25: Critically Endangered (A2ce). This assessment refers only to the isolated population in Spain and France. The French population is declining rapidly. In Spain the overall number of European mink is decreasing, and the species is disappearing from rivers in the north and centre of its range, although a concurrent slight extention of the range to the east has been observed (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). The rate of decline has not been quantified, but an 80% reduction in the past ten years seems reasonable. The species could well become extinct in France in the near future, but probably not in the next ten years.

range:
Mustela lutreola is largely restricted to Europe. A century ago it was widespread throughout the continent, with a distribution extending from northern Spain in the west to the river Ob (just east of the Urals) in the east, and from the Archangelsk region in the north to the northern Caucasus in the south (Youngman 1990). However, over the last 150 years it has severely declined and been extirpated or greatly reduced over most of its former range (Maran 1999). The current range includes an isolated population in northern Spain and western France, which is widely disjunct from the main range in Eastern Europe (Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, central regions of European Russia and the Danube delta in Romania). It occurs from sea level to 1,120 m (Palazon et al. 2003).

population:
Since the mid-19th century, this species has undergone dramatic declines throughout its range, and is now extinct in most European countries. It now occupies less than 20% of its original range, and the remaining population is small and fragmented and continues to decline (Maran 1999). Recent population estimates include 500-1,000 individuals in Spain (Palazon et al. 2003), several hundred individuals in France (Fournier and Maizeret 2003, Stephane Aulagnier and Roland Libois pers. comm. 2006), and <1,000 individuals in the Danube Delta (A. Kranz pers. comm. 2006). In Ukraine, at the beginning of the 21st century, the population was estimated at 350-400 individuals, with the majority of those found in the Danube Delta (>200 individuals) (Volokh 2004). The most viable population in western Europe is that of the Danube Delta, but even this population may be rapidly declining: in 250 trap nights (2006) only one animal was caught, compared to one in 20 nights in 2003 (A. Kranz pers. comm. 2006). Other viable populations are found in the northeastern part of European Russia.The current European mink range in Russia consists of isolated distant habitats of different size. These fragmented populations are scattered across western Russia, the Urals, and the northern Caucasus. The only parts of the range where the American mink is absent are rivers in the Archangelsk Region and Komi. Everywhere else populations of European mink are vanishing or becoming increasingly fragmented and localised, and in a greater part of historical range in Russian the European mink is not met any more. The Russian population of European mink has been estimated at c.20,000 (Tumanov 2003, 2006), but this is not based on quantitative data as no large-scale census has been done. Hunting bags suggest that the European mink is rapidly becoming less abundant by comparison with the American mink: for instance, in Vologda and Kostroma regions the proportion of European mink skins in the hunting bag of the two mink species decreased from 50-70% to 1-10% within the last 5-7 years (to 2006). For the whole of Russia, recent records refer only to the capture of single individuals or to local populations consisting of some ten of individuals (Skmatov and Saveljev 2006).

habitat:
European mink have specialised habitat requirements. They are semi-aquatic, inhabiting densely vegetated banks of lakeshores, rivers, streams and marshlands, and are rarely found more than 100 meters away from fresh water. They forage at night, hunting both on land and in water for a wide range of animal prey including small mammals, birds, frogs, molluscs, crabs, fish and insects (Youngman 1990, Maran 1999, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Females become mature at 19 months (Youngman 1990).

threats:
Habitat loss and degradation is a serious threat to the European mink. Ongoing destruction and degradation of freshwater and associated terrestrial habitats is caused by by inter alia hydroelectric developments, channelisation and water pollution. Accidental trapping is also a threat, even though the fur of the European mink is less valuable than that of the American mink Neovison vison. In France, secondary poisoning and trapping of European mink has occurred as a result of efforts to control coypu (Myocastor coypus) and small carnivores (e.g. polecat). Accidental mortality through vehicle collisions is a problem in some areas, and small remnant populations may be driven extinct by threats such as predation by feral dogs and accidental mortality in fish traps (T. Maran pers. comm. 2006). Competition and direct aggression from the American mink is a further threat to depleted remnant populations (Maran 1999). The Aleutian disease could also have an impact, but diseased animals have not yet been found. In Spain and France, hybridization with Mustela putorius may be a threat (Davidson et al. 2000).

conservationAction:
Legally protected in all range states (Schreiber et al. 1989) including the Russian Federation (Alexei Tikhonov pers. comm 2006). At least part of the population occurs within protected areas. Studies have been undertaken to determine the mink's ecological requirements, to analyse the causes of its decline, and to assess the genetic variability of western populations. In Spain and France programmes have been started to control the American mink population. A captive breeding programme was launched in 1992 by the European Zoo Association (the Catalonian Government's captive breeding programme is part of this European initiative). Efforts are being made to reintroduce European mink to areas where they formerly occurred in Germany and the Russian Federation. An introduction programme is underway on the island of Hiiumaa (to Estonia) in the Baltic, where the American species has been excluded. In France a national action plan for the conservation of the European mink was initiated by the Ministry of Environment and has been coordinated by the SFEPM (French Mammal Society). Conservation needs vary throughout Europe, and include the following:·National and regional authorities need to increase attention and allocate sufficient resources for European mink conservation. Otherwise this species will disappear soon.·There is a need for large-scale efforts to secure the survival of the last small remaining populations in different areas inside of the historical range of the species, but also restoration and/or establishment of new populations is required. ·For remaining in situ populations, the maintenance or restoration of sufficiently large areas of suitable habitats has to be secured by designation of new protected areas and improvement of management of existing protected areas. ·The impact of the American mink on local European mink populations has to be monitored and controlled, and whenever possible and feasible the alien mink populations should be removed. Local authorities have to pay more attention to the effects of the American mink on the local fauna, including the European mink. They should support further studies and actions to mitigate the effect of alien mink to the native mink species. ·Aleutian diseases and other pathologies must be monitored in all remaining in situ populations of the European mink. ·For French and Spanish wild populations which appear to be highly inbred further research needs to be carried out to identify whether these seemingly genetically highly uniform populations suffer from inbreeding depression. The introduction of individuals from ex situ stock from genetically diverse eastern populations has to be considered as a potential conservation measure, if further research confirms the need for this. In addition to genetic studies, comparative studies on ecology and behavior of the disjunct mink populations (Spanish/French, Romanian and eastern European) should also be conducted to support the findings of genetic studies.  ·The ex situ conservation breeding program has to be enhanced and promoted, as it guarantees the survival of the  species in case in situ efforts fail. It also provides opportunities for the restoration of already vanished wild populations and reinforcement of existing populations whenever needed. ·There is a need for developing an all-European conservation breeding program with secured long-term funding.·Further studies are needed about the current the status of the European mink in Romania, Ukraine and elsewhere in eastern part of Europe.

redListAssessors:
Tiit Maran, Stéphane Aulagnier, Roland Libois, Andreas Kranz, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The weasel is a widespread species that is locally abundant in at least parts of its range. Although declines have been observed in the UK and are suspected in other parts of Europe, it is not thought that these approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (30% in ten years or three generations). Monitoring is required, and if new evidence emerges suggesting that declines are of a greater magnitude than is presently thought, the species should be reassessed.

range:
The weasel has a very large circumboreal distribution, taking in much of Europe and North Africa, Asia and northern North America. An introduced population exists in New Zealand. It is found throughout Europe and on many islands, including the Azores, Britain (but not Ireland), and all major Mediterranean islands. The populations on the Azores and many Mediterranean islands are widely considered introduced (Dobson 1998, R. McDonald pers. comm. 2006). It occurs from sea level to at least 3,860 m. It is also found on Honshu, Hokkaido, Kunashiri, Etorofu, and Sakhalin Islands (Abe et al. 2005).

population:
In the European part of its range, there are documented population declines in some areas (e.g. Britain: Battersby 2005), and suspected declines in others. Although it has a wide distribution, it is considered rare in North America (Sheffield and King 1994). In Eurasia, it is relatively common, but not often seen (Sheffield and King 1994). Local densities of 0.2 to 1.0 individuals per hectare can occur in favored habitats when prey are abundant (Sheffield and King 1994). However, over wider areas, the average density may be as low as 1 to 7 per 100 hectares (Goszczynski 1977). Populations fluctuate both seasonally and annually, sometimes involving large increases of up to 10-fold, concurrently or within 9 months of a population peak of small rodents, and lasting 6 to 18 months (Sheffield and King 1994).

habitat:
Weasels tolerate a wide range of habitats, including forests, farmlands and cultivated fields, grassy fields and meadows, riparian woodlands, hedgerows, alpine meadows and forests, scrub, steppe and semi-deserts, prairies, and coastal dunes (Sheffield and King 1994, Pulliainen 1999). This species is a specialist predator of small mammals (especially rodents), although it will also occasionally feed on birds’ eggs, lizards, frogs, salamanders, fish, worms, and carrion (Sheffield and King 1994). Habitat selection is usually determined by local distribution of rodents. Foraging individuals avoid open spaces, where they are most vulnerable to predation by raptors (Sheffield and King 1994). They prefer dense, rank grassland where microtines (voles and lemmings) are abundant (R. McDonald pers. comm. 2006).

threats:
Threats include incidental poisoning with rodenticides (Sheffield and King 1994) and persecution. The weasel prefers open agricultural habitats, which are declining owing to changes in agricultural practices (rural abandonment) in parts of Europe, as open fields undergo succession.

conservationAction:
This species is found in many protected areas. It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention (Pulliainen 1999), and is protected under national and sub-national legislation in a number of range states (e.g. Sichuan, China: Yi-Ming et al. 2000). Monitoring is required to quantify the population trend in Europe.

redListAssessors:
Alexei Tikhonov, Paulo Cavallini, Tiit Maran, Andreas Kranz, Juan Herrero, Giorgos Giannatos, Michael Stubbe, Jim Conroy, Boris Kryštufek, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft, Robbie McDonald


taxonomicNotes:
The origin of the Moroccan population has been debated; some authors contend that it is a feral population of M. putorius ‘furo’, although fossil remains found in 2001 and ascribed to M. putorius suggest that the species may be native to Africa (see Griffiths and Cuzin in press, and references therein).

redListCategoryRationale:
European: Least Concern. The species has a wide range extending to the Urals. Certainly in the northern and eastern parts of its range it appears to be common, widespread and under no major threat despite hunting pressures.EU 25: Near Threatened. There are declines in parts of the range, especially in central Europe and the situation is not clear in Portugal and Spain. There are concerns about loss of prey, persecution, loss of suitable habitat, etc. Hence the species is listed as Near Threatened as it almost qualifies under Criterion A4. The assessment is not adjusted because it is difficult to say if there would be a rescue effect or not and likewise it is unknown if the European population is a sink or not.

range:
Mustela putorius is widespread in the western Palaearctic up to the Ural Mountains in the Russian Federation (absent from Ireland, northern Scandinavia, and much of the Balkans and eastern Adriatic coast). The species occurs only marginally in northern Greece. It is found in Morocco in the Rif Mountains from sea level to 2,400 m (Griffiths and Cuzin in press). Feral populations of the domesticated form M. putorius 'furo' (ferret) have become established in a number of areas including northern Britain, the Isle of Man (United Kingdom), Texel (Netherlands), some Mediterranean islands, the Azores, and New Zealand (Birks 1999, Clapperton 2001, W. Duckworth in litt. 2006).

population:
The species is common in forested areas of European Russia. In western Europe, the species is scarce, typically occurring at densities of about 1 individual per 1000 hectares, and rarely exceeding 5-10 individuals per 1,000 hectares even in optimal habitat (Birks 1999). The population appears to be stable in the eastern parts of its range, but there are reports of recent declines from a number of countries in western Europe (e.g. Switzerland, Germany and Denmark: Birks 1999). In Portugal population numbers and trend have not been quantified, but a declining trend is possible related to the decrease in rabbit numbers (Cabral et al. 2005). In Morocco, Griffiths and Cuzin (in press) suggests that populations may be decreasing. In central Europe, a main prey item (the common hamster Cricetus cricetus) has declined and thus polecat numbers may also be decreasing (EMA Workshop 2006). Populations in the United Kingdom and Estonia are now increasing (Battersby 2005, Tiit Maran pers. comm. 2006). This increase in the United Kingdom follows a major persecution driven decline from the 1800s to 1920s, which nearly led to the extinction of the species there (Birks 1999, Battersby 2005).

habitat:
A generalist, it is found in almost every type of lowland habitat. It is often found in lowland woods in riparian zones, and in areas close to farms and villages in the winter; but it also uses wooded steppe, sand dunes, marshes and river valleys, agricultural land, forest edge and mosaic habitats (Birks 1999, Cabral et al. 2005). Mountainous areas are avoided. It feeds on live rodents (voles, mice, hamsters) and other vertebrates, also sometimes on invertebrates and carrion. In wetland areas it often feeds on amphibians (Birks 1999).

threats:
In western and central Europe, it was formerly widely hunted for sport and fur and persecuted as a pest, although this threat has become less serious as the species is now protected in a number of range states and rates of hunting have greatly reduced (Birks 1999). Accidental mortality in car collisions and via secondary rodenticide poisoning is a problem (Birks 1999, Battersby 2005). Declines in prey species, e.g. hamsters (Nechay 2000) and rabbits in southern Iberia (Cabral et al. 2005) may contributing to declines in parts of the range. In European Russia, the species is commonly hunted (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006). Hybridisation with the ferret is a possible threat in the United Kingdom (Battersby 2005). Possible competition with the American mink may also be a problem. In Morocco, the species may be captured in some areas for hunting.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annex V of the EU Habitats Directive. It is listed on Schedule 6 of the WildLife Countryside Act (UK). It occurs in a number of protected areas across its range. Better monitoring of the species is needed, and measures should be taken to reduce hunting pressure where this is excessive. There is also a need to control release of ferrets into the wild.

redListAssessors:
Margarida Fernandes, Tiit Maran, Alexei Tikhonov, Jim Conroy, Paulo Cavallini, Andreas Kranz, Juan Herrero, Michael Stubbe, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Not Applicable (NA)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)This species is listed as Not Applicable at the European regional level because it is of marginal occurrence in the region.

range:
This species is found in northern Myanmar, China, Japan (Tushima, introduced to western Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku), North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia (from Kirov Province, Tataria and western Ural Mountains throughout Siberia to Far East), Taiwan, and northern Thailand (Wilson and Reeder 2005). There is also a historical record from Thailand (Lekagul and McNeely 1977). In Japan, it has been introduced to Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu Islands (Abe 2005). It is native on the islands of Sakhalin, Kamishima, and Quelpart (Abe 2005). The distribution in southeast Asia is poorly known (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006). The species was recorded in two locations in national parks in Thailand (Kanchanasaka, pers. comm.) and in one location in Nakai-Nam Theun National Biodiversity Conservation Area in 1996 in Laos (Duckworth 1997). It occurs from sea level to over 3,000 m in Nepal and to 5,000 m in China (GMA Small Carnivore Workshop 2006). This species is of marginal occurrence in Europe, where it is found only in the Ural mountains.

population:
The species is widespread and abundant in Siberia and China (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006). It is also common in northern central Korea as well, where few other mammals other than rats and squirrels are easily seen (W. Duckworth in litt. 2006).

habitat:
The species occurs in primary and secondary deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests, as well as open areas with small patches of forest enclaves and forest steppe. It is also found along river valleys. It feeds on small mammals, such as voles, squirrels, mice and pikas, amphibians, fish, and carrion, and occasionally on vegetative matter (e.g. pine nuts) (Global Mammal Assessment Small Carnivore Workshop 2006).

threats:
There are no major threats known to this species (Global Mammal Assessment Small Carnivore Workshop 2006). It is legally hunted in Russia for its fur (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
This species is listed on CITES Appendix III (Tibet) (Yi-ming et al. 2000). There is a large, legal harvest of pelts of this species, which is apparently sustainable (W. Duckworth pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Global assessment by Alexei Abramov and Will Duckworth, regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team


taxonomicNotes:
The infra-specific taxonomy is not clear and further work on this is required (most of the work so far has been done on pelts). The nominate subspecies is found in Europe.

redListCategoryRationale:
European: Listed as Vulnerable under criterion A2c. It seems reasonable to infer at least a 30% reduction in the population in the last ten years due to the loss of steppe habitat. This reduction may continue into the future but it is difficult to say if it would be at the same rate. The assessment was not adjusted as there is unlikely to be any rescue effect and the European population is unlikely to be a sink.  EU 25: Of the EU 25 countries, it occurs only in Greece, where there are few records. Less than 1% of the global population is estimated to occur in the EU 25, so the species is classed as Not Applicable in this region as it is of marginal occurrence.

range:
The marbled polecat has a distribution extending from south-east Europe, through Asia Minor, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, to northern China and Mongolia. In Europe, it is found in Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkish Thrace, and parts of Ukraine (the polecat has disappeared from most of this country and is now present only in the east) and the Russian Federation and the northern Caucasus (the steppe areas, not the mountains). It is also known to be widespread throughout the Middle East, having been recorded from just across the Sinai eastern border in Gaza (Harrison 1968), in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and northern Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1951, Harrison 1968, Nader 1991). Saleh and Basuony (1998) report the first records of this species from Egypt, as it was recorded from two localities on the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula (southeast of Bir El Abd and just north of Gabal El Maghara). It occurs from sea level up to 3,000 m in the Tien Shan mountains.

population:
It is rare throughout much of its range, and is classed as 'Rare' in the Russian Federation. Its northerly range is receding in the Balkans and Ukraine (Rozhnov 1999), and in European Russia. It has declined substantially in Europe in line with the loss of steppe habitats. Declines are also suspected in central Asia. It is less rare in central Asia than elsewhere, but not common there. The species has always been naturally rare in most areas, although it appears to be common throughout northern Sinai, and well known to the local Bedouins there (Saleh and Basuony 1998). The largest population in the Middle East is reported to be in Israel (Michael Stubbe pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
It inhabits desert, semi-desert and steppe habitats. It is a specialized predator, feeding mainly on desert and steppe rodents such as gerbils, ground squirrels, and birds. It is the most fossorial of all weasels.

threats:
The major threat to this species is the loss of natural steppe and desert habitats. Steppe habitats are declining in Europe as they are converted to cultivated farmland. Secondary poisoning by rodenticides may also be a threat, as are population declines in key prey species (a number of steppe rodent species are declining in Europe). In China, desertification is the major threat to the species.

conservationAction:
It is strictly protected under Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive. Hunting for this species is prohibited in most countries across its range. It occurs in a number of protected areas across its range, but there is a need to increase the size of these. There is an urgent need to protect the remaining steppe habitat of this species. It is a flagship species for the steppe. A number of animals are in captivity, but a breeding program is not necessary. Russia's and China's Red Lists note the species as Vulnerable.

redListAssessors:
Alexei Tikhonov, Paulo Cavallini, Tiit Maran, Andreas Kranz, Juan Herrero, Giorgos Giannatos, Michael Stubbe, Jim Conroy, Boris Krystufek, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


range:
This species is found in "China (Xinjiang to then northeast), Japan (Hokkaido); Mongolia, DPR Korea, Russia (Ural Mountains to Siberia, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Kunashiri, and Etorofu)" (Abe 2005, Wilson and Reeder 2005). This species is of marginal occurrence in Europe, where it is found only in the Ural mountains.

population:
The species' population was fragmented due to hunting and has since recovered and is now such that the species is now fairly abundant in Siberia and the Far East (Monakhov 2001). In 1990-1999 the numbers of sable in Russia were estimated as 800-1,100 (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006).

habitat:
The species is primarily found in dense coniferous forests, but can tolerate other types of forests. It feeds on small rodents, voles, squirrels, pikas, doves and berries. For this species in the Ob region of Russia, Monakhov (2001) found that young animals tended to live near floodplains (lowland forest), while adult animals lived on watersheds (upland forest).

threats:
This species is still commercially hunted, and logging of primary dense coniferous habitat in Siberia and the Far East is a threat. The species is heavily farmed for fur (A. Abramov pers. comm. 2006). In Japan, introduced Japanese marten Martes melampus can be a competitor of the endemic subspecies Martes zibellina brachyura (T. Murakami pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
Studies are needed on the effects of hunting on this species, in order to develop methods to control its populations and use them commercially without decreasing annual population growth (Monakhov 2001).

redListAssessors:
Global assessment by Alexei Abramov, regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team


taxonomicNotes:
Previously the genus Meles was considered as monotypic. According to recent morphological and genetic studies the genus has been split into three different species: M. meles, M. leucurus and M. anakuma (Abramov 2002, 2003, Abramov and Puzachenko 2005; see also Wilson and Reeder 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This species is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, relatively large population, occurrence in a number of protected areas, and because it is unlikely to be declining at nearly the rate required to qualify for listing in a threatened category.

range:
According to Wilson and Reeder (2005) this species is found in “Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China (Xinjiang), Crete, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia (eastward up to Volga River), Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Ukraine.” It occurs from sea level to 3,300 m in Pamir Mountains, up to 2,500m in the Caucsasus (A.V. Abramov pers. comm. 2006), and up to 2,200 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002).The boundary between the distribution ranges of the European M. meles and Asian badger M. leucurus is the Volga River (up to the Middle Volga). M. meles is distributed west of the Volga River, M. leucurus is distributed from the Volga River to the east. The European badger M. meles was found in the Nizhnii Novgorod Province (on both sides of Volga River). M. meles is distributed in the west and north districts of Kirov Province, the east and south of Kirov Province are inhabited by M. leucurus. The sympatric zone between these species is the country between the Volga and Kama rivers (Abramov et al. 2003).

population:
The species is abundant throughout its range, and populations are generally stable or increasing. Densities of this species have increased in Europe during recent decades (Holmala and Kauhala 2006). In central Europe the population is increasing due to the reduction of rabies, in western Ukraine the population has increased, and in the United Kingdom there was a 77% increase in the total population size from the 1980s to the 1990s (Battersby 2005). There are large differences in population densities across its range (Prigioni 1999). In Finland, near the northern limit of its distribution, the population density is low at about 0.2 to 0.25 individuals per km2 (Kauhala in litt. 2006), whereas in the UK densities of up to 19.7 individuals per km2 have been recorded (Prigioni 1999).

habitat:
It prefers deciduous woods with clearings, or open pastureland with small patches of woodland. It is also found in mixed and coniferous woodland, scrub, suburban areas and urban parks (Prigioni 1999). It is an opportunistic forager with an omnivorous diet, including fruit, nuts, bulbs, tubers, acorns, and cereal crops. It also consumes a variety of invertebrates (especially earthworms), wasp and bee nests, birds' eggs, carrion, and live vertebrate prey such as hedgehogs, moles, and rabbits. In the northern parts of its range the species hibernates during the winter months. The home ranges of this species in Finland are very large, with a mean of about 15 km2 (Kauhala et al. 2006), and their social system is peculiar, with large overlapping home ranges without any communal den (K. Kauhala in litt. 2006). In Finland, it does not reproduce every year, and the litter size is small (Kauhala et al. 2006).

threats:
It is sometimes persecuted as a pest. In central Europe the population was formerly severely reduced by rabies, but that threat has now decreased with rabies controls. In the United Kingdom and Ireland the species is associated with bovine TB, which is used as a pretext to eradicate the species. During hunting for foxes or raccoons the badger is often killed as bycatch. In the Russian Federation the species is sometimes hunted for its meat and fat which is used as a medicine. The species is sensitive to habitat fragmentation and the size of the remaining patch is important for the continued survival of the species. In Germany, the species is hunted annually. It is possible that the introduced raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) competes with the badger in parts of its range, and a project in Finland is looking into this possible threat (K. Kauhala in litt. 2006). Badgers are heavily hunted in Finland, the annual harvest has increased in recent years, being about 10,000 badgers now (K. Kauhala in litt. 2006). The hunting season in Finland is the whole year, with the exception of females with young being protected in May, June, and July (K. Kauhala in litt. 2006).

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It is protected under national legislation in a number of range states: e.g. Schedule 6 of the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Protection of Badgers Act (UK), and Schedule 5 of the Irish Wildlife Acts. In Albania it is considered Endangered. The species is found in many protected areas.

redListAssessors:
Andreas Kranz, Alexei Tikhonov, Jim Conroy, Paulo Cavallini, Juan Herrero, Michael Stubbe, Tiit Maran, Margarida Fernades, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)This is a widespread and abundant species with no significant major threats, hence it is listed as Least Concern.

range:
The stoat has a very large circumboreal range, inhabiting central and northern Eurasia, northern North America and north-eastern Greenland. It has been introduced to New Zealand. In Europe, it is present as far south as 41ºN in Portugal (Santos Reis 1983), and is found on most islands with the exception of Iceland, Svalbard, and some small North Atlantic islands; it does not occur on Mediterranean islands. In Japan, it is present in central mountains (northern and central Japan Alps) to northern part of Honshu (primarily above 1,200 m) and Hokkaido (Abe et al. 2005). Its vertical range is from sea level to 3,000 m (Pulliainen 1999).

population:
The density and structure of populations of this species are unstable, due to short life spans and high reproductive capacity; populations are greatly influenced by fluctuations in prey supply (especially small mammals) (King 1983, Pulliainen 1999). Population fluctuations of stoats and their prey tend to increase in magnitude at more northerly latitudes (Pulliainen 1999), although fluctuations have also been recorded in Spain (Blanco 1998, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). In France, it was declining, but now has stabilized as a result of full protection (EMA Workshop 2006). In Spain it has been speculated that the population may be declining as a results of declines in the southern water vole Arvicola sapidus (Palomo and Gisbert 2002), but the population trend has not been quantified in Spain or Portugal (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005). Despite population fluctuations, it is a widespread and abundant species.

habitat:
Stoats occupy a wide range of habitats. They are often found in successional or forest-edge habitats, in scrub, alpine meadows, marshes, riparian woodlands, hedgerows, and riverbanks that have high densities of small mammals, especially Microtus and Arvicola species (King 1983). Pulliainen (1999) states that coniferous and mixed woodlands are preferred, but that many other habitats are used including tundra and the summits of fells and mountains. Dense forests and deserts are avoided (King 1983). This species is a specialist predator of small mammals, but will occasionally feed on fruit, earthworms, insects, eggs, and birds (King 1983). Its local distribution is typically related to that of small rodents and lagomorphs (King 1983, Pulliainen 1999). Estimates for home range size range from 4 to 200 hectares for males, most often falling between 10 to 40 hectares (King 1983).

threats:
In the Iberian Peninsula the species is dependent on two Arvicola species, and these are declining, so loss of prey base may be a threat (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Habitat loss (e.g. as a result of urbanization: Pulliainen 1999) is also a problem in parts of the range. The species is commonly hunted in Russia, where there is also a limited fur trade (R. McDonald pers. comm. 2006). In western and central Europe, the stoat was frequently hunted for its white winter fur up until at least the 1930s (with c.30,000 pelts sold in Finland alone during that decade) (Pulliainen 1999). Availability of prey is the principal factor controlling population density (King 1983, Pulliainen 1999), but disease, parasites and other pressures can also contribute.

conservationAction:
It is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. It occurs in many protected areas across its range. Monitoring of exploitation is required by the Bern Convention (R. McDonald pers. comm. 2006). The species is protected under national legislation in some range states (e.g. Spain), although this is not necessarily enforced (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). However, in many parts of its global range the species is not protected and trapping is quite legal (R. McDonald pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Margarida Fernandes, Tiit Maran, Alexei Tikhonov, Jim Conroy, Paulo Cavallini, Andreas Kranz, Juan Hererreo, Michael Stubbe, Giorgos Giannatos


redListCategoryRationale:
European: Least Concern as it has a wider distribution range, is more common and does not appear to be declining as much as in the western parts of the range. The range is more continuous eastwards.EU 25: Endangered C2a(i). The population in the European Union is very small (probably less than 1,000 mature individuals) and is undergoing continuing decline and is severely fragmented with each subpopulation containing < 250 mature individuals. There is unlikely to be a rescue effect from the eastern populations, hence the assessment is not adjusted.

range:
The steppe polecat occurs from central and eastern Europe in the west through southern Russia, northern Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan to Mongolia and northern and western China. Wilson and Reeder (2005) list the following countries of occurrence for this species: Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. According to Wolsan (1999), in Europe this species is represented by two major populations that are separated by the Carpathians. The western of these two major populations (subspecies Mustela eversmanii hungarica) is found in the Czech Republic, eastern Austria, southern Slovakia, Ukraine south of the Carpathians, Hungary, northern Serbia, and western Romania; and the eastern (nominate subspecies) is restricted to northern Bulgaria, southern Romania, Moldova, Ukraine east and north of the Carpathians, southeastern Poland, southern European Russia, and Kazakhstan (Wolsan 1999). It occurs up to 800 m in Europe and to 2,600 m in central Asia.

population:
This species is still numerous in Europe, particularly in southern European Russia. However it is unevenly distributed across its range, and especially in the western parts of its range (e.g. in the EU) it is scarce and patchily distributed. Population densities vary spatially and temporally, with fluctuations linked to the abundance of prey species. It is capable of spreading and colonizing new areas rapidly (Wolsan 1999). There has been no evidence for any decline in Europe (except in Austria and the Czech Republic). However ground squirrels are declining and this is an important prey species, so this could have an impact on the population in Europe. It is widespread and common in Central Asia and Siberia.

habitat:
It inhabits a variety of relatively dry habitats including steppes, semi-deserts, pastures, and cultivated fields (Wolsan 1999). Its diet consists mainly of rodents, including sousliks, marmots, hamsters, pikas, gerbils and voles. It avoids forests, and is primarily nocturnal.

threats:
In western Europe it is seldom intentionally hunted (although it may be taken as bycatch) but is heavily impacted by persecution (EMA Workshop 2006). However in at least parts of its range (e.g. Russia) it is commonly hunted for its fur.

conservationAction:
It is protected under Appendix II of the Bern Convention (Wolsan 1999). It occurs in many protected areas. There is a need to address the hunting and persecution issues for this species. It is listed as Vulnerable in the Red Data Book of Ukraine.

redListAssessors:
Alexei Tikhonov, Paulo Cavallini, Tiit Maran, Andreas Kranz, Michael Stubbe, Boris Kryštufek, Alexei Abramov, Chris Wozencraft


taxonomicNotes:
Three recognized subspecies: rosmarus: Atlantic Walrus; divergens: Pacific Walrus (Illiger, 1811); and, laptevi: Laptev Walrus (Chapskii, 1940)

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is a vagrant in the marine region covered by the European Mammal Assessment, consequently it is classed as Not Applicable.

range:
Walruses have a discontinuous circumpolar Arctic and sub-Arctic distribution. The Pacific subspecies is found in the Bering and Chukchi Seas to the East Siberian Sea in the west and the western Beaufort Sea in the east. The Atlantic subspecies occurs in numerous subpopulations from the Eastern Canadian Arctic to the western Kara Sea, including the Barents and White Seas, and Svalbard and Franz Josef Land. Vagrants have been reported from Iceland, and from Norway south to the Bay of Biscay. The Laptev walrus is confined to the Laptev Sea north of central Russia. All three subspecies of walruses are found in relatively shallow continental shelf areas, and rarely occur in deeper waters (Scheffer 1958, Fay 1982, Rice 1998, Kastelein 2002).

population:
The Pacific walrus population recovered from a depleted state in 1950 to historical high levels in the 1980s (Fay et al. 1997). The population was estimated at over 230,000 in 1985 (Gilbert 1989), and 201,000 in 1990 (Gilbert et al. 1992). However, difficulties with associated with conducting these surveys greatly reduced the precision of these estimates (Gilbert 1999). The current population level is unknown (Angliss and Lodge 2004). The Atlantic walrus has been extirpated from some areas but estimates are that between 10,000 and 19,000 animals occur from the eastern Canadian Arctic to the Kara Sea (Born et al. 1995, Kastelein 2002). The Laptev population was estimated at 4,000-5,000 animals according to a report cited in Fay (1982), and the current status is unknown. The walrus is a vagrant in the marine region covered by the European Mammal Assessment.

habitat:
Walruses are highly gregarious animals and are frequently found in close knit groups that regularly number in the tens to many hundreds, and aggregations of animals including many groups of these sizes can number in the low thousands. Walruses also haul out on ice floes and beaches on islands or remote stretches of mainland coastlines forming dense groups of animals lying pressed together and on top of one another. At sea, walruses can be found alone or in large aggregations.Courtship and mating occurs in the winter. It is believed that walruses are polygynous, the males forming a type of lek, or establishing small aquatic territories where they vigorously vocalize and display adjacent to females hauled-out on ice floes. Males have an unusual adaptation for producing bell-like sounds underwater. A pair of elastic pharyngeal pouches in the neck can be inflated with air to serve as resonance chambers that make this unique sound. There is also intense male-male fighting at this time. Tusks are used for interspecific aggression, defense against predators, which include polar bears and killer whales, and for aids in hauling-out on ice, but not for digging up food. Walruses are one of the largest pinnipeds.  Males reach about 3.6 m and 880-1560 kg, females about 3 m and 580-1039 kg.  Newborns are 1-1.4 m and weigh 33-85 kg. Although females can ovulate at four years of age, the majority do not give birth until they are 7-8 years old and usually only produce one calf every three years. Gestation lasts 15 months, including a delay of implantation time of 3-3.5 months. The period of calf dependency is long, regularly taking two years, and can extend longer if a female does not give birth every three years. Males become sexually mature between 7-10 years old, but are not physically and socially mature enough to successfully compete for breeding opportunities until they are approximately 15 years old. Longevity is approximately 40 years (Fay 1981).Walruses are primarily bottom feeders and shallow divers. Most prey taken is found in the upper few centimeters of sediment, or on or just above the bottom. A wide variety of benthic invertebrates, with several species of clams, make up the majority of food for most animals. Their diet also includes other species of mollusks, and many species of worms, snails, soft shell crabs, amphipods, shrimp, sea cucumbers, tunicates, and slow-moving fish. Some individuals regularly prey on seals, small whales, and seabirds, and occasionally scavenge marine mammal carcasses (Fay 1982).

threats:
All three walrus populations were severely depleted by episodic commercial hunting that was heaviest from the 18th through the mid-20th centuries. Native people of the Arctic have depended on walruses for food, hides, ivory, and bones since first contact, and subsistence harvests of all three subspecies continue today in most parts of their ranges. Direct conflicts with fisheries are low; however trawl fisheries can disturb important benthic feeding area (Born 2003).  Human disturbance at land-based haul-out sites, low-level aircraft over-flights, and near-shore passage of vessels can have serious effects on walruses out of the water, as they are highly susceptible to disturbance, and easily panicked into stampedes. Fay and Kelly (1980) documented an instance of a mass mortality of approximately 1,000 animals from a stampede event at Saint Lawrence Island. The cause of the stampede is unknown; however this mass mortality event underscores the risks of any source of disturbance to aggregations of hauled-out walruses.    Global warming and any associated reduction in the extent, timing, and characteristics of seasonal sea ice cover could negatively effect walrus populations. Declining sea ice reduces suitable strata for pupping and breeding aggregation, and limits access to offshore feeding areas (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, Moore 2005). In contrast Stirling and Derocher (1993) suggest that climatic warming could result in more favorable conditions for bearded, harp, and harbor seals and walruses if it causes sea ice to become less consolidated in winter, and the summer open water period to lengthen. Reduction in sea ice could also lead to the addition of commercial sea lanes in rarely visited portions of the walruses’ range, with increased risk of spills and discharge of pollutants, disturbance, and coastal development (Reijnders et al. 1993, Tynan and Demaster 1997, Moore 2005).

conservationAction:
Coastal Alaska Natives have hunted walruses for subsistence purposes in the United States under an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act since 1972. No quotas or limits have been established, but all animals taken are required to be harvested in a non-wasteful manner. Quotas on harvest have been imposed in Canada and in the Russian Federation. Walrus hunting in east Greenland has been banned and is regulated in other areas of Greenland. In the Laptev Sea, only natives and members of scientific expeditions are allowed to kill walruses (Reijnders et al. 1993).


range:
Hooded seals are found in the Arctic Ocean and in high latitudes of the North Atlantic. They breed on pack ice and are associated with it for most of their lives, shifting their distribution with seasonal fluctuations in ice cover (Sergeant 1974). There are four major pupping areas: near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, north of Newfoundland and east of Labrador in an area known as the “Front”, the Davis Strait, and near Jan Mayen (Reeves and Ling 1981). Hooded seals wander widely, and animals have beached as far south as Portugal and the Canary Islands in Europe, and from New England south to several islands in the Caribbean, in the Americas. Since the mid 1990s large numbers of wandering vagrants have been found away from the Arctic in some years, and the numbers of these sightings are increasing for unknown reasons (Mignucci-Giannoni and Haddow 2002).

population:
The current worldwide population of hooded seals is unknown. From the 1950s to the 1980s various estimates were published giving a population from 300,000-600,000 animals. However, the methods used to generate these past estimates are poorly documented and the estimates are considered unreliable (Kovacs and Lavigne 1986). Counts of pups born in the western Atlantic breeding areas have been used to extrapolate an estimate of approximately 400,000-450,000 animals for the Front and Gulf of Saint Lawrence herds (Waring et al. 2005). Using similar methods, the Jan Mayen stock has been estimated at 200,000 animals (Reijnders et al. 1993).

habitat:
Hooded seals are markedly sexually dimorphic pinnipeds. Adult male hooded seals average 2.5 m in length and 300 kg (Kovacs and Lavigne 1986), with very large animals reaching over 400 kg (Kovacs 2002). Adult females are smaller, averaging 2.2 m and 160 kg (Kovacs and Lavigne 1986), but can reach 300 kg (Reeves and Ling 1981). Pups are born at approximately 1 m in length and 25 kg (Kovacs 2002).Hooded seals pup on pack ice in March and early April. The breeding season for this polygynous species is very short, usually lasting about two weeks, and mating takes place in the water (Boness et al. 1988).  This species has the shortest lactation period for any mammal, with most pups being weaned in four days at an average weight of 42.6 kg (Bowen et al. 1985).  Most animals congregate in the Denmark Strait or north of Jan Mayen for a post-breeding molt in early summer, followed by dispersal in the North Atlantic (Kovacs and Lavigne 1986).  With the exception of the breeding and molting periods where they form short-lived, loose aggregations in specific areas, hooded seals live solitary lives that can last 25-30 years (Kovacs 2002).Hooded seals are capable divers and spend approximately 90% of their time at sea submerged. The majority of dives are from 100-600 m in depth and last 5-25 minutes, however, very deep dives to over 1,000 m and others lasting almost an hour have been recorded (Lavigne and Kovacs 2002).  Although their diet is not well known, hooded seals have been reported to feed on a wide variety of fish and invertebrates, including species that occur throughout the water column.  Examples of typical prey are Greenland halibut, cods such as polar and Atlantic cod, redfishes (Sebastes spp.), herring, capelin, squid, and shrimp (Reeves and Ling 1981, Kovacs and Lavigne 1986).  Polar bears, killer whales, and Greenland sharks are known hooded seal predators (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988).

threats:
Hooded seals were subjected to episodes of intense commercial hunting in the 19th and 20th centuries. Harvests were often conducted in association with harp seal harvests and commercial fisheries for Greenland sharks. Norway, the Soviet Union, Canada, and Greenland have been principally involved in the commercial harvests. Following World War II this was primarily focused on newborns, because of their highly prized blue-back pelt, however, many adults females were taken when defending their pups. Annual harvests of hooded seals continue in Canada and Greenland (Lavigne and Kovacs 2002).  In 1985 a permanent import ban on hooded seal pelts by the European Union ended most of the commercial harvesting of this species, although Canada took approximately 26,000 as recently as 1996. Hooded seals are also taken by Native People of Greenland and Canada for subsistence purposes every year (Kovacs 2002).  Bycatch of hooded seals in coastal net fisheries has been reported from the United States, from trawl fisheries off Norway and Newfoundland, and salmon drift nets used off Greenland (Reeves et al. 1992, Waring et al. 2005, Woodley and Lavigne 1991). Competition for food with commercial fisheries and other predators has been suggested as a factor that may limit population growth or lead to declines (Reijnders et al. 1993).Impacts of oil spills on hooded seals have not been reported; however as an ice breeding species, they might be at risk of mortality from spills during the pupping season when newborn and newly weaned pups could be fouled (St. Aubin 1990). Hooded seals did not suffer fatalities during the mass die-off of harbour seals in European waters from phocine distemper virus in 1998 and 2002. Subsequent testing of a variety of Arctic seals revealed antibodies to the virus in 18-24% percent of the hooded seals sampled indicating exposure and transmission of the virus (Harkonen et al. 2006). The hooded seal is an Arctic pack ice species dependent on ice as a substrate for pupping, molting, and resting, and as such is vulnerable to reduction in extent or timing of pack ice formation and retreat. The productivity of the ice edge ecosystem is also dependent on the dynamics and seasonality of Arctic ice, and alteration of the cycle of formation and retreat could have negative effects on important hooded seal prey such as Arctic cod (Tynan and DeMaster 1997). Decreases in sea ice cover could also lead to more shipping and development of extraction based industries in the Arctic which in turn could negatively affect hooded seals through increased exposure to contaminants and pollution, increased disturbance, and increased risk of shipping accidents and spills (Pagnan 2000).

conservationAction:
Numerous conservation measures, international management plans, harvest quotas, and agreements and treaties, have been developed for the conservation of hooded seals dating back to the 1870s. Molting seals in the Denmark Strait have received complete protection since 1961. Harvest quotas at Jan Mayen began in 1971, hunting was banned from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in 1972, and quotas were placed on the rest of the Canadian harvest beginning in 1974. A European Economic Community ban on importation of all seal products in 1985 reduced the harvest of blue-back hooded seals through loss of the primary market for the furs (Reeves et al. 1992). In addition to establishing quotas, several countries place observers on commercial fishing boats, and monitor subsistence harvests.


range:
Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution in the Arctic and sub-Arctic south of 85 degrees North, usually in water less than 200 m deep (Kelly 1988). A disjunct population inhabits the Sea of Okhotsk, ranging south to Hokkaido, Japan (Rice 1998). They reach the southern Bering Sea and Bristol Bay to the limit of seasonally ice covered waters (Kelly 1988). They also occupy all of Hudson Bay, and range south to Southern Labrador, and northern Iceland and Norway (Kovacs 2002).Bearded seal vagrants have been reported from many locations outside the Arctic including Portugal in the eastern North Atlantic (van Bree 2000), the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, northern Newfoundland, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts in the western North Atlantic (Gosselin and Boily 1994).The ranges of the two subspecies are divided near the central Canadian Arctic in the Western Hemisphere, and Laptev Sea in the Eastern Hemisphere, with the Atlantic subspecies barbatus occurring from the central Canadian Arctic east to the central Eurasian Arctic, and Pacific subspecies nauticus occurring from the Laptev Sea east to the central Canadian Arctic, including animals in the Sea of Okhotsk (Rice 1998).

population:
The worldwide population of bearded seals is unknown (Kovacs 2002). Portions of the range have the following abundance estimates: 200,000-250,000 in the Sea of Okhotsk, including 60,000-75,000 off eastern Sakhalin Island for the period 1968 to 1990, and 250,000-300,000 in the Bering Sea, including 83,000-87,000 in the western Bering Sea (Fedoseev 2000). A minimum estimate for Canadian waters of 190,000 animals was suggested by Cleator (1996), based on data collected over a 35-year period. Angliss and Outlaw (2005) state that there are no current reliable population estimates for the Bering Chukchi stock of bearded seals. No estimates exist for the population in the Atlantic Ocean (Reijnders et al. 1993), or Barents to Chukchi seas area.

habitat:
Bearded seals are the largest phocids in the Arctic. Adults reach lengths of 2-2.5m and weights of 250-300 kg (Andersen et al. 1999) with females typically being slightly larger than males (Kovacs 2002). In the Bering Sea, males have been recorded to reach 390 kg and females 361 kg (Kelly 1988). Sexual maturity is reached at 3-6 years in females, with 80% of females having had a pup by age 6. Males reach sexual maturity at 6-7 years (Kelly 1988). Physical maturity occurs at approximately 9-10 years (McLaren 1958), and they can live 20-25 years (Kovacs 2002). Bearded seal pups are born on the sea ice, but they swim within hours of birth (Kovacs 2002), and before they are weaned they are spending about half their time in the water. Bearded seals primarily feed on or near the bottom, and most diving is to depths of less than 100m (Kovacs 2002).  Therefore they live primarily in waters overlying the continental shelf, like much of the relatively shallow Bering Sea when it is seasonally covered with ice (Burns 1981).  Adults have been recorded to dive to nearly 300 m, and young pups to over 488 m (Kovacs 2002).Ice is also a determinant of habitat. Bearded seals are typically found away from shore-fast ice and unbroken heavily covered ice fields, preferring areas with moving ice where ice movement, currents, weather and land features interact to create broken ice fields, leads, polynas, and other open areas (Burns 1981).  They rarely haul out more than a body length from water (Kovacs 2002).  Bearded seals are typically solitary animals, but will form loose aggregations when ice availability is low (Kovacs et al. 2004). The diet of bearded seals varies by age, location, season, and possibly changes in prey availability in marine communities over long time periods (Kelly 1988).  Their primary foods live on or near the bottom, but also include some infauna and schooling and demersal fish (Burns 1981). At Svalbard, bearded seals took a wide variety of prey and over half of the stomachs examined had 5 or more species. Arctic cod, found in 44% of the animals, sculpins (Cottidae spp.) in 44%, spider crab (Hyas araneus) in 59%, and the crustaceans Sabinea sptemcarinatus 59% and Sclerocrangon boreas 46%, were the most frequently found prey items (Hjelset et al. 1999).In June, following the pupping and breeding season, bearded seals undergo their annual molt. During the molt they spend much of their time hauled out, and are reluctant to enter the water (Kovacs et al. 2004). Animals can be found molting from April to August with a peak in May to June (Burns 1981). Bearded seals usually haul out on ice when it is available, but will haul out on land in the summer in the Sea of Okhotsk, along the Laptev, White, and Kara Sea coastlines (Burns 1981), and at Svalbard (Kovacs et al. 2004).Important natural predators of bearded seals include polar bears (Burns 1981), as well as killer whales, walruses, and Greenland sharks (Kovacs 2002).

threats:
Native Peoples of the Arctic have hunted bearded seals for subsistence for thousands of years, a practice that continues today (Burns 1981). Overall levels of subsistence harvest are not well known. The former Soviet Union had commercial harvests in the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Bering, Chukchi, Barents, and White Seas historically, and harvest levels were at times high. Harvest levels grew from 9,000 to 13,000 from 1957 to 1964, and were 8,000 to 10,000 per year for the Bering and Okhotsk Seas combined from 1964-1967 (Reeves et al. 1992). This commercial over-harvesting probably depleted the population (Kelly 1988).  Bearded seals are now harvested more on a subsistence basis for local use in Russia, although some seals are killed as food for fur-farm animals (Kelly 1988), and are primarily taken from the Bering Sea where harvests of 1,881 and 1,418 were reported for 1988 and 1989 respectively (Reeves et al. 1992).Fisheries interactions appear to be low. Logbooks indicate 14 bearded seals killed and 31 injured in 1991 in the Bristol Bay, Alaska salmon drift net fishery. There were several incidents of incidental take, serious injury, or mortality each in the Alaskan Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands flatfish and pollock trawl fisheries respectively from 1999-2003, when annual mortality was estimated at 1.58 seals (Angliss and Outlaw 2005).  Oil spills from offshore extraction and transportation could negatively affect bearded seals through direct contact with oil, and damage to foraging areas and stocks of prey, particularly benthic invertebrates, which respond poorly to oil contamination (Kelly 1988).Arctic climate change that is currently leading to reduction in the extent and duration of sea ice cover is a threat to many species of marine mammals.  Patterns of Arctic primary productivity and population levels of prey species important to Arctic marine mammals may be altered as a consequence of Arctic warming and changes in sea ice. Pinnipeds, such as the bearded seal that are dependant on sea ice for pupping, molting, resting, and access to foraging areas, may be especially vulnerable to such changes (Tynan and DeMaster 1997). In contrast, Stirling and Derocher (1993) suggest that climatic warming could result in more favorable conditions for bearded, harp, and harbor seals, and walruses if it causes sea ice to become less consolidated in winter, and the summer open water period to lengthen.An increase in human-created noise in the Arctic environment could cause marine mammals, including bearded seals which are very vocal during their breeding season, to abandon areas of habitat (Tynan and DeMaster 1997).  A reduction in sea ice cover would likely lead to increased human activity in the Arctic in the form of shipping and extractive industries, and an associated greater threat of marine accidents and disturbance of marine mammals (Pagnan 2000).  Harp seals, hooded seals, and ringed seals from the Canadian Arctic, where they share habitat with bearded seals, were all determined to carry antibodies to phocine distemper virus (PDV), with harp seals constituting the population with the largest percentage (83%) of positive tests.  Although the disease has not been identified in bearded seals, the opportunity for exposure exists (Duignan et al. 1997).

conservationAction:
Bearded seals are protected by various laws in their range countries and by treaties internationally. Subsistence hunting by Native People of the Arctic is generally for personal use and not regulated, for example, as in Canada and the United States (Cleator 1996, Angliss and Outlaw 2005).Vessel-based commercial hunting in the former Soviet Union ended in 1975 and the harvest continues at much lower levels, more like a subsistence harvest.  Prior to the end of commercial harvesting, the Soviet Union used a system of quotas to regulate the take in an attempt to manage the population (Kelly 1988).  Licensed hunters can take bearded seals in Svalbard, but not in nature reserves or during the breeding season (Kovacs et al. 2004).


redListCategoryRationale:
The Mediterranean monk seal has a very small population (<250 mature individuals) in the European Mammal Assessment area. There is only one breeding population remaining in the region, so it is presumed that all animals belong to the same subpopulation. There are ongoing declines as a result of fisheries bycatch, persecution, human disturbance, and other threats. Consequently the species is assessed as Critically Endangered.

range:
Mediterranean monk seals were once widely and continuously distributed in the Mediterranean, Black and adjacent seas, in North Atlantic waters off northwest Africa south to Cap Blanc, and possibly Senegal and Gambia. They also were found at the Cape Verde Islands, Canary Islands, Madeira Islands and Azores, and north as vagrants to Portugal (Ronald and Healey 1982), and Atlantic France (Israels 1992). Today the distribution is wide but extremely fragmented with three surviving small breeding populations located at opposite ends of the historic range. In the Mediterranean, the stronghold for the species is on islands in the Ionian and Aegean Seas, and along the coasts of Greece and western Turkey. The two surviving colonies in the southeastern North Atlantic are at Cabo Blanco (also known as Cap Blanc or Ras Nouadhibou) on the border of Mauritania and Western Sahara, and the small colony at the Desertas Islands in the Madeira Islands group (Gilmartin and Forcada 2002). Many locations where seals are infrequently or regularly seen, or were seen in the recent or historic past, are reported in the literature and cataloged in reviews and status updates, see Sergeant et al. (1978), Israels (1992), UNEP/MAP (2005).

population:
The Mediterranean monk seal is the most threatened pinniped species in the world, with an estimated population of 350-450 animals. The largest remaining population is that of the eastern Mediterranean, with 250-300 individuals, of which c.100 occur in Turkish waters (Güçlüsoy 2004). Approximately 100 to 130 seals are found at Cabo Blanco in Western Sahara and Mauritania, and approximately 20-23 at Desertas Island, Madeira (Pires and Neves 2001, Gilmartin and Forcada 2002, UNEP/MAP 2005). The population at Cabo Blanco was estimated at 317 seals before the loss of an estimated 70% in a mass mortality event in 1997 (Forcada 2000). Following this event, 24 pups were born at Cabo Blanco in 1997, comparable to the rate of births in 2004 and 2005, but this number rose significantly in 2006 to 46 births (Cedenilla and de Laminoa 2006). A recent review of monk seal occurrences reported at all other locations and countries from 1999-2005 yielded a minimum of 14 additional seals, with 10 of the 14 in Algeria, plus an unspecified number of vagrants (UNEP/MAP 2005).

habitat:
Mediterranean monk seals are medium-sized phocids that reach 2.3-2.8 m (Gilmartin and Forcada 2002). Adults weigh from 240-300 kg, and newborns 15-26 kg (Boulva 1979, Gilmartin and Forcada 2002), with records of a male reaching 400 kg and a pregnant female reaching 302 kg (Sergeant et al. 1978). Mediterranean monk seals once hauled out on open beaches, but this is now rare, and throughout their range they use caves with sea entrances for hauling out and pupping (Gilmartin and Forcada 2002). Sea caves used by seals often have submerged entrances or some other barrier to provide protection from waves. In a study that covered 250 km of coastline inhabited by monk seals in the Cilician Basin region of southern Turkey, 282 caves were searched. Of these, 39 showed evidence of monk seals, including 3 that were used for pupping and 16 that were actively being used. Use of these caves increased in October coincident with the autumn pupping season in Turkey (Gucu et al. 2004). The maximum number of seals from this small Turkish population found in a cave in at one time was 3 (Gucu et al. 2004). Sea caves are also used extensively at Cabo Blanco, particularly northwest of the cape. Two caves separated by 1.1 km accounted for 84% of the births in the area from 1993-1997 (Gazo et al. 1999). In contrast to the situation in Turkey, counts at one cave in the Las Cuevecillas section of the Cabo Blanco colony recorded up to 89 seals hauled out at one time, and never less than 5 animals present (Gonzalez et al. 1997).Female Mediterranean monk seals probably become sexually mature at three to four years. One female at Cabo Blanco became pregnant at 2.5 years and gave birth at 3.7 years, the youngest age known for this species (Gazo et al. 2000b). Females can give birth in successive years. The annual reproductive rate in Mediterranean monk seals is very low at 0.3-0.43 pups to each sexually mature female (Gazo et al. 1999). Pup survival is low (Gazo et al. 2000a). Mediterranean monk seals take a wide variety of prey primarily from shallow water habitats (Sergeant et al. 1978, Kenyon 1981). In the eastern Mediterranean, they have been reported to take a variety of fish, octopus and loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) (Margaritoulis et al. 1996). Examination of two seals from the Aegean Sea yielded five species of prey. By weight 94% of the contents were cephalopods including musky octopus (Eledone moschata) and globose octopus (Bathypolypus sponsalis) (Salman et al. 2001).

threats:
Mediterranean monk seals have a long history of interaction with humans that includes exploitation for subsistence needs, commercial harvest, and persecution as a competitor for fisheries resources. Once abundant, monk seals were written about and illustrated in the literature and depictions of classical antiquity. They became the target of a commercial harvest for skins and oil by the Portuguese as early as the 15th century along the coast of northwest Africa (Israels 1992).Reasons given for the recent population decline include increased human population displacing seals from their habitat, mortality due to fisheries bycatch and persecution, and the possible effects of toxics and pollutants (Boulva 1979). Exacerbating these factors are political instability and wars, the challenge of implementing effective conservation for a species in a complex multi-national environment, weak enforcement of agreements and international laws, diseases, genetic consequences of inbreeding, and other catastrophes such as oil spills and collapse of occupied pupping caves (Israels 1992).Interactions with fisheries are of great conservation concern, particularly for the population in the eastern Mediterranean, where seals are killed through net entanglement and deliberately killings by fishermen. They possibly suffer from depletion of fish stocks, anti-seal methods designed to protect aquaculture facilities, and illegal dynamite fishing (Güçlüsoy 2004). Monk seals have been entangled in a wide variety of fisheries gear including set-net, trawl net, and long-line. They seem most vulnerable to set-nets placed on the bottom, and can also become entangled in abandoned and discarded nets (Tudela 2004).The deaths of 130 seals over a 10-year period ending in 1999 highlighted the significance of deliberate killing as a source of mortality (Tudela 2004). Deliberate killing of monk seals by humans was attributed to 1/3 of all mortalities of 79 stranded animals in Greece, and is considered the single most important source of mortality (Androukaki et al. 1999).The genetic diversity of Mediterranean monk seals is amongst the lowest found in pinnipeds. Only Hawaiian monk seals and northern elephant seals have lower diversity. The consequences of mating between closely-related individuals include congenital defects leading to stillborn pups and a decreased reproductive rate, both of which have been documented in the Cabo Blanco colony. Additionally, low fitness and increased susceptibility to disease may be a problem (Pastor et al. 2004). Morbillivirus was isolated from Mediterranean monk seals after the mass mortality at Cabo Blanco in 1997. The virus most closely resembled dolphin morbillivirus (DMV) that was previously implicated in the 1991 mass mortality of striped dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea (Osterhaus et al. 1992, Van de Bildt et al. 1999). Although this virus was already circulating in monk seals prior to the mass mortality, there is doubt that it caused the deaths.  Dinoflagellate-produced saxitoxins were found in tissues from animals that died during the 1997 event, and the suddenness of death of the animals and other symptoms suggest that the cause of death was from the toxins rather than an epidemic of morbillivirus. Additionally, toxic algal blooms (red tides) are favored by oceanographic conditions near Cabo Blanco, and were reported from nearby Morocco the southeastern North Atlantic during a 25-year period leading up to the mass mortality. Canine distemper virus is present in stray dog populations in Aegean Turkey at a level of approximately 9% in the population. This may be a source for future infections of wild carnivores, including monk seals through contacts in harbors and along shorelines (Gencay et al. 2004).Contaminant burdens have always been suspected to be a threat to the Mediterranean monk seal, and should be investigated and routinely monitored (Boulva 1979, Reijnders et al. 1993). Tissues collected during the 1997 mass mortality and analyzed for PCBs and DDT detected levels of pollutants comparable to those found in other marine mammals not believed to be experiencing contaminant related health or reproductive effects (UNEP 2005).Mediterranean monk seals are at an unknown but suspected high level of risk from oil tanker and other ship accidents, spills and groundings. Animals could be oiled or coated in fuels and lubricants, exposed to other toxic or environment-altering chemicals or products, and experience disturbance at haul outs or coastal feeding areas. Mauritania is planning to explore offshore oilfields which would lead to increased vessel traffic in the area, and greater chance for accidents, disturbance, and collisions near important habitat. Three accidents or spills have occurred near monk seal habitat in the recent past, including a supertanker that spilled oil off of Morocco in 1989 (Israels 1992), an oil spill in the Madeira Islands in 1994 (UNEP 2005), and the grounding of a bulk carrier near Cabo Blanco in 2003 (UNEP 2005). None of these spills or accidents had any known impacts on monk seals, but they underscore the threat of significant impacts from a major maritime accident near an important monk seal site (UNEP 2005).Human disturbance has been identified as a primary factor in the decline in numbers of monk seals through displacement of animals from habitat. Traditionally, this was the result of expanding human populations and coastal development. Since the 1970s, a new threat has emerged in the form of people seeking out monk seals to view at the few remaining locations. Tourism has grown to become one of the most significant hazards faced by monk seals, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean (Johnson and Lavigne 1999). Besides disturbance, tourist activities increase the risk of vessel accidents, spills, transmission of disease, and the discharge of pollutants and waste near the seals.

conservationAction:
The Mediterranean monk seal is protected throughout its range. Two protected areas have been established for monk seals, the Desertas Islands in the Madeira archipelago, and the Northern Sporades Islands national marine park in Greece. There are future plans to set up nature reserves to protect more habitat for monk seals in the region.Numerous agreements, conventions, and treaties are in force to protect monk seals internationally, and many workshops and conferences have brought together scientists and managers to discuss monk seal conservation issues and problems. Israels (1992) summarizes 30 years of this conservation history, and provides details on accomplishments and failures to meet objectives. Other measures in place include Action Plans completed in 1978 and 1988 for the conservation and management of monk seals, and the 2005 plan for the recovery of the monk seal in the eastern Atlantic.Many actions have been taken on a local scale including outreach and education programs, restrictions on gear and location for fisheries, development of monitoring programs and protocols, and increasing the capability to rehabilitate sick and injured animals (Gonzalez 2004).


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is widespread and abundant. Population size well exceeds the threshold for the population size criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. less than 10,000 mature individuals in conjunction with appropriate decline rates and subpopulation qualifiers). Population trend has not been quantified, but it is not believed to approach the threshold for the population decline criterion of the IUCN Red List (i.e. declining more than 30% in ten years or three generations). For these reasons, the harbour seal is evaluated as Least Concern at the European level. There is concern, however, for the Baltic Sea and Svalbard populations.

range:
Harbour seals are one of the most widespread of the pinnipeds. They are confined to coastal areas of the Northern Hemisphere, from temperate to polar regions. Five subspecies are recognized: P. v. vitulina occurs in the eastern Atlantic from northern Portugal to the Barents Sea in northwestern Russia, and north to Svalbard; P. v. concolor occurs in the western Atlantic from the mid-Atlantic United States to the Canadian Arctic and east to Greenland and Iceland; P. v. mellonae only lives in several lakes and rivers in Quebec, Canada that drain into Hudson and James Bays; P. v. richardii is found in the eastern Pacific from central Baja California, Mexico to the end of the Alaskan Peninsula, and possibly to the eastern Aleutian Islands, and P. v. stejnegeri ranges from either the end of the Alaskan Peninsula or the eastern Aleutians to the Commander Islands, Kamchatka, and through the Kuril Islands to Hokkaido in the western Pacific.

population:
Combining recent estimates yield a world-wide population of 350,000 to 500,000 animals. P. v. stejnegeri  of the western Pacific (approximately 7,000), and P. v. mellonae (120-600), of the seal lakes of the Ungava Peninsula, Canada, may be the subspecies most at risk due to low population numbers. Populations in Svalbard and the Baltic Sea, both in the hundreds, are also dangerously low, although they are not considered to be separate subspecies from P. v. vitulina.

habitat:
Harbour seals are mainly found in the coastal waters of the continental shelf and slope, and are also commonly found in bays, rivers, estuaries, and intertidal areas. Although generally considered non-migratory species with a high degree of site fidelity to a haul out, juvenile dispersal, emigration, and establishment of new haul out sites are all possible reasons for long range movements of harbor seals (Burns 2002).Harbour seals are generalist feeders taking a wide variety of fish, cephalopods, and crustaceans obtained from surface, mid-water, and benthic habitats. Generally, a few species dominate the diet at any one location and time of year. Harbour seals also take many commercially important fish species such as Atlantic cod, many kinds of salmon, herring, and flatfishes, and this aspect of their foraging puts them into conflict with coastal fisheries. Although primarily coastal, dives to over 500 m have been recorded (Burns 2002).Male harbour seals become sexually mature when four to five years old. Longevity is typically 35 years for females and 25 years for males.

threats:
Harbour seals live in coastal areas in some of the most heavily fished waters on earth, and as a result there are significant entanglement and by-catch issues, as well as effects on the food chains they depend on for their prey. Historically there have been organized population reduction programs and bounties for taking seals in many parts of their range, and licenses, permits, and legal allowances are also available in a number of countries today to commercial fishermen to take animals that depredate nets, traps, and lines. Harbor seals may still be taken by subsistence hunters in Canada, Greenland, and the United States. Mass die-offs from viral outbreaks have claimed thousands of harbor seals.  In 1988 and 1989 more than 18,000 harbor seals are estimated to have died from a phocine distemper virus (morbillivirus) epidemic in European waters. Other disease outbreaks occurred both before and after this large epidemic in both Europe and the western North Atlantic, but resulted in much smaller levels of mortality. Because many harbor seals live and feed in close proximity to large populations of humans they are exposed to and can accumulate high levels of industrial and agricultural pollutants. Immunosuppression is one effect regularly attributed to exposure to high levels of certain organochlorines, and these and other contaminants probably contribute to poor condition and overall fitness of a number of animals in some areas. Both chronic oil spills and discharges, and episodic large scale spills cause direct mortality, and have long term impacts on harbor seal health and their environment.

conservationAction:
Hunting of subspecies P. v. vitulina is currently only permitted in Norway and Iceland, where there may be an annual catch of 5,000-7,000. In the United Kingdom, shooting licenses may be issued in order to protect fishing activities. In the United States the harbour seal is protected from all but subsistence hunting by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which also prohibits importation of parts or products from all seals. Coastal reserves in Norway which exclude commercial fishing have been shown to reduce harbour seal mortality. Hunting is now prohibited in the Wadden Sea area (Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden) (Reijnders et al. 1993).


taxonomicNotes:
Five recognized subspecies: hispida; botnica; ladogensis; saimensis; and ochotensis.

redListCategoryRationale:
The only subspecies of ringed seal that occurs regularly in the marine area covered by the European Mammal Assessment is the Baltic ringed seal, P.h. botnica. Consequently the European regional assessment refers to this subspecies only. Although this subspecies was severely depleted by overharvesting in the past, it is now recovering. Whilst the number of mature individuals is still less than 10,000, the Bothnian Bay population, which constitutes c.75% of the total, is increasing at approximately 4.5% per year, and has done so consistently for more than ten years. As the regional population is expanding at a steady rate overall, it is classed as Least Concern, even though numbers remain low and there is serious concern for seals in some parts of the Baltic (e.g. the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga). Ongoing conservation efforts are necessary to ensure that the population continues to recover. The Saimaa ringed seal P.h. saimensis qualifies as Endangered under Criterion D as it has a very small population (<250 mature individuals) but it is not declining at present.The Ladoga ringed seal P.h. ladogensis qualifies as Vulnerable under Criterion D2 owing to its very restricted range.

range:
Ringed seals have a circumpolar distribution throughout the Arctic basin including near the North Pole (Rice 1998), and range widely into adjacent seas. They are found in the Bering Sea, Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Hudson Bay and Straits, Davis Strait, and Greenland, Barents, Kara, Laptev and East Siberian seas. Separate populations occur in the Baltic Sea, Lake Ladoga in the Russian Federation, Lake Saimaa in Finland, and the Sea of Okhotsk south to northern Japan (Frost and Lowry 1981, Reeves 1998). Vagrants have been recorded south to Portugal and the Azores in Europe, southern California and New Jersey in the United States, and Zhejiang in China (Rice 1998). Ringed seals are distributed in waters of nearly any depth, and their distribution is strongly correlated with seasonally and permanently ice-covered waters, and food availability (Frost and Lowry 1981, Reeves 1998). Shore-fast ice is considered to be the most important habitat for pupping, although the importance of pack ice is not well known (Reeves 1998).

population:
The world-wide population of ringed seals is not known. Citing many factors such as vast geographic area occupied by the species, highly variable densities found within areas that have been surveyed, the unknown relationship between the numbers of seals observed versus those not seen, and other factors, Frost and Lowry (1981) state that it is “unwise to attempt an estimate of the world population of this subspecies” (P. h. hispida). Despite numerous surveys conducted since, Reeves (1998) believes that “this conclusion remains appropriate.” Nevertheless, published world-wide population estimates exist including 6-7 million (Stirling and Calvert 1979), and 2.5 million for the most widespread subspecies, P. h. hispida (Miyazaki 2002). The population of P. h. botnica is estimated at 5,000 to 8,000 (Reeves 1998), and in excess of 6,000 (Harkonen et al. 1998). P. h. ladogensis and P. h. saimensis have been estimated to number 10,500-12,500 (Reeves 1998) and about 5,000 (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998) for the former, and <200 (Reeves 1998) or about 200 (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998) for the latter.

habitat:
Ringed seals are usually found singly or in small groups, and when inhabiting sea ice, can be difficult to find. They swim in leads among floes, and maintain breathing holes with their claws, excavate snow lairs, and utilize naturally occurring cracks and cavities within pressure ridges when seas freeze (Smith and Stirling 1975, Frost and Lowry 1981, Kelly 1988).Sexual maturity is usually attained between 4-7 years for females and 5-7 years for males.  Physical maturity is reached between 8 and 10 years old. Maximum ages of 43 years (McLaren 1958), and 46 years (Reijnders et al. 1993) have been reported.A single pup, rarely twins, is born from March to May, with most pups born in early April (Frost and Lowry 1981). Most births occur in lairs excavated under snow that accumulates upwind and downwind of ice ridges (Smith and Stirling 1975), or in cavities occurring between blocks of ice in pressure ridges (Mclaren 1958, Kelly 1988). Lairs are believed to provide protection from a variety of predators and periods of very cold air temperatures and high wind chill (Smith and Stirling 1975, Kelly 1988).  Ringed seals take a wide variety of fish and invertebrate prey and show variation in diet between seasons and in different geographic areas. The most important species and groups include Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) and saffron cod (Eleginus navaga), and a variety of crustaceans including amphipods, euphausiids, mysids, and shrimps (Lowry et al. 1980, Kelly 1988). Saimaa and Ladoga ringed seals are confined to freshwater lakes where they prey on a wide variety of fish and some invertebrates, especially smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), vendace (Coregonus albula), burbot (Lota lota), perch (Perca fluviatalis), roach (Rutilus rutilus), and whitefish (Coreogonus lavaretus) (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998).

threats:
Ringed seals are very important to northern communities, and many thousands are taken annually in subsistence harvests. Reeves (1998) reports an annual quota for shore-based hunters in the Sea of Okhotsk of 7,500, and a combined estimate of 10,000 taken per year from the Bering, Chukchi, and Western Beaufort Sea by Russians and native Americans. Reeves et al. (1998) estimate that the annual removal of ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic is in the “high tens of thousands” at present, and that in 1980s, including animals killed and lost, the harvest was between 60,000 and 80,000, and may have exceeded 100,000 in some years. Another substantial annual harvest occurs in Greenland with nearly 100,000 taken per year in the 1970s, and approximately 70,000 taken annually in the early 1990s (Teilmann and Kapel 1998). The species is not currently harvested in the marine region covered by the European Mammal Assessment.Commercial harvests of ringed seals in the early to mid 20th century were sometimes large, and probably had significant local impacts on certain populations. Annual harvests of 72,000 from 1955 to 1965 in the Sea of Okhotsk, 20,000 in the Baltic Sea (Reeves 1998), and commercial and reduction harvests in Lakes Ladoga and Saimaa (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998) are examples of the negative effect of localized overharvesting on ringed seal populations.Ringed seals carry loads of organochlorine and heavy metal contaminants from human industry and agriculture.  Chlorinated hydrocarbons have been implicated in uterine pathology in Baltic ringed seals (Bergman and Olsson 1986), and high concentrations of mercury in Saimaa ringed seals is thought to have reduced pup production in the 1960s and 1970s (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998).Vessel traffic and noise, and the effect of noise from offshore oil and gas exploration or construction can affect ringed seals and cause mortality, abandonment of breathing holes and lairs, and a decrease in abundance near the activity (Smith 1987, Reeves 1998). Manipulation of water levels, recreational snow machine operation, net fishing, boating, tourism, and development of cottages on the shoreline at Lake Saimaa, and industrial pollution, net fishing and poaching on Lake Ladoga have been implicated in past or present mortalities, population impacts, or disturbance to their respective ringed seal populations (Reijnders et al. 1993, Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998).  Global warming may pose the greatest threat to ringed seals if it leads to large losses of stable shore-fast ice habitat used for pupping and foraging (Tynan and DeMaster 1997).  Also, changes in precipitation and weather patterns could negatively effect ringed seal populations if there is insufficient snow cover to protect pups in lairs in the spring (Stirling and Derocher 1993, Ferguson et al. 2005).  Climate change could be particularly acute for ringed seals living in restricted habitats such as the Ladoga and Saimaa Lake populations (Learmonth et al. 2006), and possibly in the Okhotsk and Baltic seas.  An increase in human created noise in the Arctic environment could cause marine mammals, including ringed seals, to abandon areas of habitat (Tynan and DeMaster 1997). Reductions in sea ice cover would likely lead to increased human activity in the Arctic in the form of shipping and extractive industries, and an associated greater threat of marine accidents and pollution discharge (Pagnan 2000). However, Moulton et al. (2005) found no more than slight effect on ringed seals from construction, drilling, and operation of the Northstar offshore island oil production facility in the Beaufort Sea.

conservationAction:
Ringed seals are protected by numerous laws and quotas in different parts of their range. The population in Lake Saimaa has been protected since 1955, and additional protection has resulted from establishment of two national parks at the lake, and regulation of shoreline development. Similarly, the hunting of seals in Lake Ladoga was prohibited in 1980 (Sipila and Hyvarinen 1998). In the United States ringed seals can only be harvested for subsistence purposes by Alaskan Native Subsistence Hunters, and they have been protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the implementation of which reduced annual mortality by eliminating all hunting by non-native people (Angliss and Outlaw 2005). Quotas and licensing of hunting have been in place in various parts of the Russian Federation/former Soviet Union for decades and have led to protection of Sea of Okhotsk, Barents and White seas, and Lake Ladoga ringed seals (Belikov and Boltunov 1998, Reeves 1998). Baltic ringed seals were protected from all killing by the Soviet Union in 1980, by Sweden in 1986, and by Finland in 1988 (Harkonen et al. 1998). State Nature Reserves at Franz Josef Land and in the White and Kara seas protect large areas of ringed seal habitat in the western Russian Arctic (Belikov and Boltunov 1998).


range:
Harp seals are widespread in the North Atlantic and the adjacent Arctic Ocean. Their range extends from northern Hudson Bay and the Foxe Basin, Baffin Island, and the Davis Strait, and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Newfoundland in the western north Atlantic, east to somewhat south of Greenland, continuing east to Iceland and from there to Northern Norway, the White Sea and all of the Barents and Kara Seas. The northern limit in the eastern North Atlantic is at least to Franz Joseph Land and Svalbard and may continue to between 82-85 degrees north depending on ice conditions (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988, Rice 1998, Lavigne 2002). Harp seals often wander south outside this range and vagrants have reached the United Kingdom (Ronald and Healy 1981), the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Germany, France, and Spain (Heptner 1976, Van Bree 1997, Bloch et al. 2000).

population:
The population level in 2000 for the animals breeding in Canadian waters of the western North Atlantic, on “the Front” off Newfoundland and Labrador and in Gulf of St. Lawrence, was estimated to be 5.2 million animals (95% CI 4.0-6.5 million). Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims the population has recovered in the past from an estimated low of around 1.8 million in the early 1970s to more than 5 million today (Anon. 2005). The breeding group on the West Ice near Jan Mayen was estimated at 296,000 in 1994. The White Sea breeding group is made up of approximately 1.5-2.0 million animals as of 1999 (Lavigne 2002). Totaling the figures from Lavigne and each area estimate gives a world population of 5.8-8.8 million, making harp seals the most abundant pinniped in the Northern Hemisphere.

habitat:
Harp seals are medium-sized phocids, with adult males averaging lengths of 1.83 m and weights of 135 kg. Females are slightly smaller at 1.79 m, weighing 120 kg. Females in the northwest Atlantic mature at about 4-5 years, compared to males at 5-8 years. The Jan Mayen and White Sea breeding groups reach maturity about a year earlier (Ronald and Healey 1981). The maximum life span of a harp seal is approximately 30 years, and it is not unusual for them to reach over 20 years of age. Both males and females are sexually active until their 20s, and females may give birth every year until they are at least 16 years old (Ronald and Healey 1981).Harp seals are migratory, and after breeding, Canadian seals follow the pack ice up the coast of Labrador, with small numbers into Hudson Bay, to Baffin Island, and both sides of the Davis Strait, to Greenland. The Jan Mayen and White Sea groups migrate and mix in the Barents Sea. The Jan Mayen group reaches the high Arctic, up to 85 degrees north.Harp seals consume a wide range of prey that varies along the migration route. Their diet, according to Lavigne (2002), consists of 67 species of fish and 70 species of invertebrates. Pups and juveniles take euphausiids (Thyanoessa spp.) and amphipods (Parathemisto spp.) (Nilssen et al. 2001), whereas adults take pelagic crustaceans and a variety of fish (Kapel 2000).

threats:
Harp seals have been harvested for thousands of years by native peoples of the Atlantic Arctic, including coastal Northern Europeans (Stora and Ericson 2004). Basque whalers began taking harp seals in the 1500s.  By the mid-1600s, French settlers began the hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, developing land-based netting techniques on the St. Lawrence River in the 1700s.  The French Canadians exported 500 tons of oil per year by the mid-1700s, based on an estimated take of 6,000 seals per year. In Newfoundland, English settlers hunted harp seals on a larger scale that accounted for an estimated 7,000-12,800 seals per year for most of the 1700s, including 50,000 whitecoats (juvenile harp seals) killed in 1773.  By the 1800s, schooner-based sealing developed, and the number of seals harvested rose dramatically; from 1803-1816 the average annual was 117,000.  The peak of sealing in the northwest Atlantic occurred between 1818 and 1862, when 500,000 seals were harvested in many years, reaching a maximum of 640,000-740,000 in single years.  During that time, it is estimated that 18.3 million harp seals, mostly whitecoats, were killed for oil.  The records show somewhat lower figures for the northeast Atlantic. At Jan Mayen, the catch began falling in the late 1850s, attributed to overhavesting.  From 1860 to 1900, an estimated 12.8 million seals were harvested there (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988).   The 20th century saw the advent of steel-hulled ships, and the hunt continued, though harp seals became more valued for their pelts than their oil.  143,000 seals were taken in 1917. This number fell during the war years, then rose again in the 1950s, when it averaged 312,000 seals per year. In 1960, Canada became concerned about the large numbers of adults being killed, so it placed limits on the length of the hunting season.  During the 1960s, an average of 284,000 seals were taken per year.  In 1964 observers sent by humane organizations described the clubbing of whitecoats, and the subsequent public outcry led to seal protection regulations controlling the methods of the kill, and the types of vessels used. Adult females were protected on the breeding grounds, and Norway was excluded from sealing in Canadian waters. In 1971 a quota management program was set up, and from 1970 to 1987 the quotas varied, from 127,000 per year to 245,000 per year, but the actual harvest was often much lower (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988).In 1983, the European Economic Community imposed an import ban on all whitecoat (juvenile harp seal) products, and the average annual harvest in Canadian waters fell to 52,000 seals from 1983-1995. By 1987, Canada outlawed the killing of whitecoats, and the focus of the hunted switched to beaters (post-weaning to 13 months of age) (Anon. 2006a). From 1999-2003, the estimated annual mortality of harp seals in the northwest Atlantic was 453,962, broken down into an average of 232,915 taken in the commercial harvest by Canada, 83,010 taken from 1999-2002 in Greenland, and 4,881 taken in the Canadian high Arctic, plus a bycatch of 18,566 in the Newfoundland lumpfish fishery, with an average annual struck and loss rate of 119,430 from all harvests  (Waring et al. 2005). Since the late 1970s large numbers of harp seals have been leaving the Barents Sea, and possibly the Greenland Sea, to forage along the coast of Norway, resulting in the deaths of thousands of seals in shore-based net fisheries.  Bycatch mortality from nets was estimated to be 56,647 (perhaps up to 100,000) in 1987, and 21,474 in 1988 (Haug et al. 1991, Woodley and Lavigne 1991). Another threat to harp seals is the overharvesting of their prey, including herring and capelin. There have also been calls for an increased cull of harp seals to protect the  Atlantic cod fishery, for some years in a steep decline  (Lavigne 2002).  Oil spills in the northwest Atlantic off the east coast of Canada remain a threat to seals. There is a concern about the impacts of tanker traffic, particularly in places like Lancaster Sound in the eastern Canadian Arctic, which is an important harp seal summering area (Reijinders et al. 1993). Additionally, harp seals have been found to carry significant loads of contaminants including heavy metals, organochlorines and PCBs (Ronald et al. 1984a,b).  Phocine distemper virus (PDV) was first found in harp seals from the West Ice off Jan Mayen in 1987 and 1989.  It is widespread in harp seals, but it is not known if there are significant health effects or mortality from the infection. The harp seals may have been carriers infecting harbor seals, which did experience a mass mortality in Europe in 1988 (Markussen and Have 1992).

conservationAction:
Canada has in place sealing regulations pursuant to the 1993 Marine Mammal Regulations that require annual quotas, referred to as “Total Allowable Catches,” hunting licenses, and official observers of the commercial hunt (Anon. 2005). In the northeast Atlantic, quotas for sealing are based on recommendations made by the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO). Russia is responsible for managing seals in the southeast part of the Barents Sea, while Norway is responsible for managing stocks in the Greenland Sea by Jan Mayen (Anon. 2006b).


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is widespread and abundant, and European populations are stable or increasing. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
Grey seals have a cold temperate to sub-Arctic distribution in the North Atlantic waters over the continental shelf (Hall 2002). There are three populations isolated both geographically and by timing of reproduction (Bonner 1981). In the western Atlantic, the population is centered in northeastern North America from the Gulf of Maine to southern Labrador, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The eastern Atlantic population is found at Iceland, the Faroe Islands, from the Kola Peninsula south to southern Norway, around most of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and in Brittany in France. The Baltic Sea stock is entirely confined to the Baltic Sea (Bonner 1981, Hall 2002). Vagrants are known from as far south as New Jersey in the western Atlantic and Portugal in the eastern Atlantic (Rice 1998).

population:
Grey seal numbers are increasing at some locations while declining in others. The total world population is not completely known. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimates its present population at 250,000 divided into in two herds, mainly in the southern Gulf of St Lawrence, and at Sable Island (Anon. 2006). Aerial surveys in 1997 provided an abundance estimate for the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Sable Island populations at 195,000 animals. The Sable Island population is increasing by 13% per year. The Gulf of St. Lawrence population is decreasing by and unspecified amount. There are approximately 7,300 gray seals in United States waters, where its numbers are increasing (Waring et al. 2005). The population estimates for areas in the eastern North Atlantic are: Iceland, 11,600 (Hauksson 1987), Norway, a minimum of 3,100 (Wiig 1986), Ireland 2,000, the White Sea 1,000-2,000, and the United Kingdom 110,000 and increasing at 6% per year (Hall 2002). The Baltic Sea population is given as 17,640 (ICES 2005).

habitat:
Grey seals are large sexually dimorphic phocids. In the United Kingdom, adult males are on average 2.07 m long and weigh an average 233 kg, with a maximum of 310 kg. Adult females are smaller, averaging 1.79 m and 155 kg. At birth, pups are 90-105 cm, with male pups averaging 15.8 kg and female pups averaging 14.8 kg in weight (Bonner 1981). Adults in the western Atlantic are larger, with males averaging 2.25 m and 300-350 kg, and females averaging 2 m and 150-200 kg (Mansfield 1988), with males reaching a maximum of over 400 kg and females over 250 kg (Hall 2002).Pupping occurs from September to March with peak dates differing significantly between populations: in the western Atlantic, January; eastern Atlantic, September-December; and in the Baltic Sea, late February to early March, which probably reproductively isolates each group (Bonner 1981).  Pups are born on ice or land in the western North Atlantic, land in the eastern North Atlantic, and ice in the Baltic (Bonner 1981).  Pups are born with a woolly lanugo that is molted several weeks after weaning. The pup stays on land from birth until the molt is finished, losing up to 25% of its body weight from fasting (Mansfield 1988). In the United Kingdom, pups molt before weaning; adult females molt from mid-January to mid-February, and males molt from mid-February to early April (Bonner 1981).Grey seals not known for being long-distance migrants. In one study, they spent 43% of their time within 10 km of frequently used haul-out sites, traveling to sandy areas, or gravel sea-bed sediments, the preferred habitat of sandeels, an important part of the grey seal’s diet. Short trips away averaged 2.3 days (McConnell et al. 1999). In Canada, tagging revealed that some animals travel 350-800 km, and in the United Kingdom, they took short-range trips. Occasionally, long treks of up to 2,100 km were made, crossing deep water from northern England to the Shetlands or Orkneys, and from the Faroes into the North Sea.  In the Baltic Sea, grey seals make short trips, spending roughly 75% of their time within 50 km of haul-out sites (Sjoberg and Ball 2000).Grey seals' diet varies by location, though they are largely demersal or benthic feeders (Hall 2002).  In some areas, the food consumed can be over 70% sandeels (Ammodytes sp.). In the United Kingdom, sandeels, cod and Dover sole accounted for 56% of the diet by weight (Prime and Hammond 1990).

threats:
Grey seals have been important in subsistence harvests throughout the history of their contact with humans. They have been hunted by peoples of the Baltic Sea coast for more than 10,000 years (Harkonen et al. 2005). Commercial harvesting has been ongoing in many areas for hundreds of year, and at times grey seals have been important to local economies (Mansfield 1988). Overharvesting in the Baltic in the early 20th century led to a large decline, from a population that once numbered an estimated 30,000 to perhaps as high as 200,000 to a low of 1,500-2,000 by the early 1980s (Kokko et al. 1999).Government culls, bounties, and licensed kills for harvest and protection of fishing gear have been put into effect in many countries, and continue to be used in some in efforts to control grey seal numbers and reduce their impact on commercially important fisheries. Grey seals feed on a number of commercial species, and by damaging nets and traps, they are in direct conflict with fisheries. Indirectly, grey seals are a vector for seal worm, also known as cod worm, a destructive parasite of Atlantic cod (Mansfield 1988, ICES 2005). Entanglement in commercial fishing nets causes bycatch mortality in most parts of the grey seals’ range (Woodley and Lavigne, 1991). Bycatch levels are approximately 300 per year in Swedish fisheries in the Baltic (ICES 2005). Of 528 deaths of tagged seals in the United Kingdom, 148 were attributable to fishing nets. However, this may overestimate the rate of entanglement-related mortality due to the high rate of tag returns from fisheries. It was also estimated that 1-2% of animals less than a year old die in fishing gear (Woodley and Lavigne 1991).  Grey seals are known carriers of the morbillivirus known as phocine distemper virus (PDV), in all populations (Ross et al. 1992, Duignan et al. 1995, Harkonen et al. 2006). However, they have suffered almost no mortality from the disease.  Harkonen et al. (2006) report grey seal mortality of approximately 230 (equal to 1% of the harbour seal mortality) in the 1988 epizootic in Europe, and the death of 30 gray seal pups in the Baltic were attributed to PDV.  Because grey seals haul out with harbour seals in the Wadden Sea, and are known to travel more widely than the sedentary harbour seal, it is presumed that they had a role in the outbreak and spread of the 2002 epizootic of PDV in harbour seals.As a coastal species, grey seals are exposed to and ingest industrial and agricultural pollutants through the food chain.  PCBs and DDT contaminant loads are extremely high in Baltic gray seals, despite the fact that tissue burdens have declined since the 1970s.  Analysis of samples collected from 1996 to 1998 indicated that gray seals still have a very heavy load of contaminants when compared to other seals outside the Baltic (ICES 2005). Health effects on grey seals have been suggested to be linked to very high exposures of PCBs and DDT. Baltic grey seals have a relatively high rate of colonic ulcers, sometimes fatal, associated with hookworm infestations. This condition occurs in Baltic ringed seals as well, but essentially not found elsewhere in either species (ICES 2005). Uterine stenosis and a range of pathologies in other organs have been attributed to long-term exposure to environmental toxins, particularly in older Baltic gray seals. These are specifically linked to reproductive and population declines for this subspecies, and are conditions not seen in other populations (Bergman et al. 2001). However, no negative effects have been attributed to heavy metal contaminants in Baltic gray seals (Bergman et al. 2001, ICES 2005).Grey seals are generalist predators, and their population has increased in recent decades during periods of declines of some commercial fish stocks that are important grey seal prey. The risks of overfishing or climate-induced declines of fish stocks on grey seals are unclear at this time. One potential threat is the risk of a demand for larger culls and control of grey seal populations to help rebuild fisheries stocks that are affected by, or are presumed to be affected by, grey seals. This would be similar to the efforts to manage harp seals after the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery, as discussed by DeMaster et al. (2001).  Despite the fact that the collapse of the cod fishery is probably not attributable to seal predation, there has been ongoing pressure to cull the populations of harp seals and gray seals (Yodzis 2001).The potential effects of climate change, either warming or cooling, on gray seals are not well known. Although not a high Arctic species, some grey seals pup on ice and are seasonally associated with ice in parts of their range (Bonner 1981).  It is unknown how decreases in sea-ice cover might affect gray seals, although Learmonth et al. (2006) identify the gray seal as a species that will probably undergo a decrease in range because of climate change.None of the above is thought to be a major threat to the species as a whole at present.

conservationAction:
Numerous countries have invoked protective measures to limit grey seal harvests, culls, disturbance, and by-catch (Bonner 1981, ICES 2005). Pollutant loads in Baltic gray seals have declined in step with regulations banning of the use and/or discharge of toxic pollutants such as DDT and PCBs beginning in the 1970s, and the reproductive health of female grey seals has improved as has the population level in the Baltic (Bergman et al. 2001). Establishment of coastal marine reserves for seals in Norway have been more effective in protecting harbor seals than grey seals because the latter are more likely to travel outside the areas closed to fisheries and become entangled in nets (Bjore et al. 2002).


taxonomicNotes:
Phipps (1774) first described the polar bear as a distinct species and named it Ursus maritimus. Other names were suggested including Thalassarctos, Thalarctos and Thalatarctos ultimately settling on Ursus (Thalarctos) maritimus Erdbrink (1953) and Thenius (1953) based on interbreeding between brown bears (U. arctos) and polar bears in zoos. Based on the fossil record and evolution Kurtén (1964) recommended the Phipps (1774) name Ursus maritimus, which was promoted by Harrington (1966), Manning (1971) and Wilson (1976) and is used today (see DeMaster and Stirling 1988, Wilson and Reeder 2005, Amstrup 2003 for review and references).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)The polar bear qualifies as Vulnerable at the European regional level. This assessment is based on a suspected population reduction of >30% within three generations (45 years) due to decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and habitat quality. Polar bears rely almost entirely on the marine sea ice environment for their survival so that large scale changes in their habitat will impact the population (Derocher et al. 2004). Global climate change posses a substantial threat to the habitat of polar bears. Recent modeling of the trends for sea ice extent, thickness and timing of coverage predicts dramatic reductions in sea ice coverage over the next 50-100 years (Hassol 2004). Sea ice has declined considerably over the past half century. Additional declines of roughly 10-50% of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100. The summer sea ice is projected to decrease by 50-100% during the same period. In addition the quality of the remaining ice will decline. This change may also have a negative effect on the population size (Derocher et al. 2004). The effects of sea ice change are likely to show large differences and variability by geographic location and periods of time, although the long term trends clearly reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the annual time frames when ice is present. The winter ice over the continental shelf in the European Arctic will probably disappear completely over the next 100 years (Furevik et al. 2002).While all bear species have shown adaptability in coping with their surroundings and environment, polar bears are highly specialized for life in the Arctic marine environment. Polar bears exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans. These factors make facultative adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios unlikely. Polar Bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past. Due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bears will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years. There is little doubt that polar bears in the European Arctic will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of Polar Bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%. Other population stress factors that may also operate to impact recruitment or survival include toxic contaminants, shipping, recreational viewing, and oil and gas exploration and development.

range:
Polar bears live throughout the ice-covered waters of the circumpolar Arctic, in Canada (Manitoba, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Quebec, Yukon Territory, Ontario), Greenland (to Denmark), Norway, Russian Federation (North European Russia, Siberia, Chukotka), and the United States (Alaska). Some vagrants occasionally reach Iceland. Their range is limited by the southern extent of sea ice. Although some occur in the permanent multi-year pack ice of the central Arctic basin, they are most common in the annual ice over the continental shelf and inter-island archipelagos that surround the polar basin. Polar bears that have continuous access to sea ice are able to hunt throughout the year. However, in those areas where the sea ice melts completely each summer, polar bears are forced to spend several months on land fasting on stored fat reserves until freeze-up. Use of land by polar bears during the ice-free season appears to be increasing in certain locations (Schliebe et al. 2006). Polar bears typically occur at low altitudes (on the sea ice and up to ca. 200 m in coastal areas), although exceptionally they may range far inland, and have been recorded at altitudes of 1,000 m above sea level in Svalbard (O. Wiig and A. Derocher pers. comm. 2006).

population:
There are 19 hypothesized subpopulations or stocks which number in total 20,000 to 25,000 bears. Considerable overlap of putative subpopulations occurs and genetic differences among them are small (Schliebe et al. 2006). In Europe, the Barents sea subpopulation (Norway and the Russian Federation) is estimated at ca. 3,000 individuals (Aars et al. in press).

habitat:
Polar bears occur at low densities throughout their range and are most abundant in shallow water areas near shore or where currents or upwellings increase biological productivity near ice areas associated with open water, polynyas or lead systems. Polar bears are not as abundant in the high central arctic over deeper waters of the polar basin. Seasonally, in the summer open water season in the Canadian arctic islands and Svalbard, and in recent years during the fall in northern Alaska and Russian Chukotka, polar bears may be found on land in higher densities. Breeding occurs in March to May, implantation is delayed until autumn, and birth is generally thought to occur from late November to mid-January. Although some cubs are born in earth dens, most births occur in snow dens that may be occupied between 5-6 months during the maternal event. In Alaska the maternal dens are located on the offshore sea ice. Only pregnant female polar bears den for this protracted period of time, during which time they rely on fat stores for energy and sustenance. The average litter size is less than two. Cubs are dependent upon mothers until after the start of their third year of life. Age of first reproduction is normally 5-6 years for females. These factors contribute to the low reproductive potential for the species (Schliebe et al. 2006).

threats:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment have both predicted that the Arctic is extremely vulnerable to projected climate change. Polar bears will likely be shifted pole-ward if the sea ice retreats. According to new scenarios presented by the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre and others, the polar ice cap will disappear almost entirely during summer in the next 100 years. The winter ice over the continental shelf in the European Arctic will probably also disappear (Furevik et al. 2002). The increasing changes in the sea ice that affect access to prey will have a negative effect on the bears. With less food, polar bears will fail to reproduce more often and give birth to smaller young that have higher mortality rates. Polar bears may be forced on shore for extended periods and rely on fat reserves deposited the previous spring for survival. In such a situation they will be increasingly vulnerable to unregulated hunting. If these periods become excessively long, mortality will increase. Sea ice is also used for access to den areas and if ice patterns change, existing den areas may be unreachable. Warmer temperatures and higher winds may reduce ice thickness and increase ice drift. Because polar bears must walk against the moving ice (like walking the wrong way on an escalator) increased ice movements will increase energy use and reduce growth and reproduction (Schliebe et al. 2006). Polar bears are the apex predator and are exposed to high levels of pollutants that are magnified with each step higher in the food web. A key characteristic of the pollutants is that they tend to persist in the environment and resist degradation. Many of the organochlorine pollutants are lipophilic or "fat loving" and bond tightly to fat molecules. Polar bears are particularly vulnerable to organochlorines because they eat a fat rich diet. Ringed, bearded, and harp seals comprise the main food of polar bears and the blubber layer is preferentially eaten by the bears and subsequently, the intake of pollutants is high (Schliebe et al. 2006). Certain areas of the Arctic, such as north-east Greenland, the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea, have higher levels of pollutants. Based on studies in other species, it is reasonable to believe that the pollutant load of polar bears in some areas are negatively affecting the immune system, hormone regulation, growth patterns, reproduction, and survival rates of polar bears (Derocher et al. 2002). Recent studies have suggested that the immune system is weaker in polar bears with higher levels of PCBs. A major concern with polar bears pertains to their reproductive system. There are suggestions that species with delayed implantation are more vulnerable to the effects of pollution through endocrine (hormone) disruption. Further, female polar bears are food deprived during gestation their pollution loads increase because as they use their fat stores, where pollutants are stored, for energy. Because the cubs are nursed on fat rich milk, the cubs are exposed to very high pollution loads from their mother (Schliebe et al. 2006). Recent studies have indicated that high loads of organochlorines may cause reduction in the size of sexual organs of polar bears in certain areas, thus theoretically impairing reproduction (Sonne et al. 2006).Oil development in the Arctic poses a wide range of threats to polar bears ranging from oil spills to increased human-bear interactions (Derocher et al. 2002). It is probable that an oil spill in sea ice habitat would result in oil being concentrated in leads and between ice floes resulting in both polar bears and their main prey (ringed and bearded seals) being directly exposed to oil. Another concern is that seals covered in oil may be a major source of oil to polar bears. Other studies suggest that Polar Bears are sensitive to disturbance at maternity den sites. Disturbance could occur both when a pregnant female is selecting a den site and during the winter-spring after the cubs are born. If exploration or development occurred sufficiently close to a den, the mother may abandon the den prematurely or abandon her offspring (Schliebe et al. 2006).

conservationAction:
Conservation actions vary by jurisdiction. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears provides guidance, and Article II of the Agreement states that each contracting party "shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices based on the best available scientific information," and according to Article VII, "The Contracting Parties shall conduct national research programs on Polar Bears" and "..consult with each other on the management of migrating polar bear populations". These articles have been important for stimulating governments to support applied research to answer management questions regarding polar bears throughout their range. This work is coordinated through the IUCN SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). Resolutions from the PBSG are developed and directed toward ensuring that the terms and intentions of the Agreement are being met. Coordinated research is ongoing, management actions are reviewed for consistency, and legislation to effect bilateral management for internationally shared populations such as between the US-Russia is being pursued. Additional cooperative management agreements between Canada and Greenland are desirable and currently being developed (Schliebe et al. 2006). Additional details of the Global Status and Management of Polar Bears are contained in the IUCN "Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan: Bears" (Servheen et al. 1999) and at the PBSG website (http://pbsg.npolar.no/). The polar bear is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention, and Appendix II of CITES.

redListAssessors:
Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., Belikov, S.E. and Boltunov, A.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)The European bear population (including western Russia) is relatively large (c.55,000 individuals) and occupies a large range. Overall, the population trend is believed to be stable. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.In the EU 25 there are fewer than 10,000 mature bears. The species was formerly widespread and abundant, but it was driven extinct in much of western and central Europe over the last few centuries. Many remnant populations are tiny and fragmented. If ongoing conservation action ceased, it is expected that the species would decline at such a rate that it would meet Criterion C1 in the near future. Consequently it is assessed as Near Threatened. Continued protection is required to ensure the continuing recovery of this species.1. CantabrianThe two Cantabrian nuclei are assessed separately as there is apparently very little or no interchange between them (there are major barriers to dispersal, and the two nuclei are genetically distict). In both cases the population may number less than 50 mature individuals. Consequently these two nuclei are assessed as Critically Endangered (D).2. PyreneesThe population in the Pyrenees is tiny and isolated. Although it has increased in number in the last decade as a result of translocations from Slovenia, it remains highly vulnerable. Classed as Critically Endangered (D).3. AlpsThe population is tiny and qualifies as Critically Endangered under Criterion D.4. Appenine MountainsThe population is tiny and qualifies as Critically Endangered under Criterion D.5. Dinara-PindosThis population is small (<2,500 mature individuals). It has a structure such that each subpopulation contains fewer than 1,000 individuals. Population trends are poorly known, and although the population seems more or less stable, it is possible that there is a slight continuing decline. Consequently it is classed as Vulnerable (C2a(i)). The assessment is not adjusted because there is little interchange with other populations, and adjacent populations are also threatened. If better information shows that the overall trend is stable or increasing, reassessment should be considered.6. CarpathianThe population is small (<10,000 mature individuals), and all individuals are part of the same subpopulation. The population has been stable in the recent past, although there are concerns that it may be declining slightly at present as a result of infrastructure developments and other threats. Classed as Vulnerable (C2a(ii)).7. BalkanThis population is very small (<1,000 mature individuals) and qualifies as Vulnerable under Criterion D1.8. ScandinaviaThis population is small (potentially less than 2,500 mature individuals). Although there is controlled harvesting, the population is nevertheless growing at a steady and relatively rapid rate. Consequently, as there is no ongoing decline, this population cannot qualify as threatened under Criterion C, even though its population size is small. It is classed as Least Concern.9. Northeastern EuropeThis population is relatively large (c.38,000 individuals) and occupies a large range. Overall, the population trend is believed to be stable. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
The brown bear is the most widely distributed ursid. It once ranged across a large portion of North America, including Mexico, throughout Europe, Asia, and even into several countries in north Africa. It presently ranges across parts of North America, Europe, and Asia, with the largest numbers in Russia, Alaska, and Canada.  Populations in Europe are highly fragmented, and some are extremely small and isolated. Details of the European populations are given below (following LCIE 2007):1. CantabrianPresently there are two bear nuclei in the Cantabrian Mountains in Spain. They are defined as the western and eastern portions.2. PyreneesWestern Pyrenees (9 bears): The Western Pyrenean brown bear subpopulation is found in a 1,000 km2 area located on both sides of the national border between France and Spain in the western portion of the Pyrenees Mountain Range. However, only about one half of this area is used regularly.Central Pyrenees (8 bears): The Central Pyrenean brown bear subpopulation is on both sides of the national border between France and Spain in the central portion of the Pyrenees Mountain Range including Andorra.3. AlpsPresently there are three bear nuclei in the Alps. In Central Austria there is a small nucleus originated from three bears released in 1989-1993, into an area with a naturally occurring male bear. Another nucleus is located in the Central Italian Alps, centered in the province of Trento. This nucleus (20-25 individuals, all originated from the animals translocated in the 1999-2003 period) occupies an area of about 1,500 km2, of which only 240 km2 is used regularly. A third nucleus of bears is present in the Eastern Alps, and originated from individuals that arrived naturally from the Slovenian population. Vagrants from the Dinara-Pindos population are frequently present in the Alps of Slovenia along the border with Austria.4. Appenine MountainsThe population is located in Abruzzo National Park and the surrounding area in the Apennine Mountains in Italy.5. Dinara-PindosThis population consists of brown bears in the forested areas extending from the Dinara range in Slovenia in the north through Pindos Mountains in Greece in the south. The countries involved are Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia, Albania, and Greece. The forested areas in these countries are less contiguous than in the Carpathian area, separating to some degree the functional habitat into more or less isolated sub areas, although there are corridors.6. CarpathianThe Carpathian population includes the brown bears in Slovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Serbia and Romania. The Carpathian Mountains population is the second largest in Europe. The bears are widely distributed within the entire Romanian Carpathian Mountains range, starting from hilly areas and extending to sub-alpine habitats. Bears in Romania occur permanently or sporadically across a total area of 62,000 square kilometers, of which about 44,000 square kilometers  are forested.7. BalkanThe Rila-Rhodope area is located in south-western Bulgaria and north-eastern Greece. It includes the three connected populations in the Bulgarian Rila Mountains and Pirin Mountains and the population in the western Rhodope Mountains on both sides of the national border. Of the total population of about 520 bears, only 25-30 are found in Greece. The connection between the bears in Greece and Bulgaria is likely to consist of dispersing males from Bulgaria, as well as of family groups seasonally dispersing from Greece into Bulgaria. The Stara Planina population is located from Kotlenska mountain in the east to Zlatitsa-Teteven in the west, along a 120 km stretch of the Stara Planina Mountains (Balkan Range). The western end extends into Serbia and a few bears are shared over the border. The Stara Planina population was believed to be isolated from the populations to the south and west but there is recent evidence of bears in the corridors to the south towards Rila-Rhodopean Mountains, including family groups.8. ScandinaviaThe population is shared between Sweden and Norway, but much more than 95% of the individuals are in Sweden. In Norway the bears are found mostly along the Swedish border and most individuals are dispersing young males from Sweden. The delineation is along the Swedish-Finnish border, and further north through Norway. Bears in Norway east of this line are in Northeastern Europe population. The area between the Scandinavian and Northeastern Europe populations is very sparsely inhabited by bears.9. Northeastern EuropeThe North-eastern European population is the largest continuous brown bear population in Europe. Its range stretches from the Ural Mountains in the east (continuous with the bears on the east side of the mountains making it the largest brown bear population in the world) to the west coast of Finland and the Baltic. It ranges from 53° N in the south to 69° N in the north. This population includes bears in north-easternmost Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Belarus.

population:
Brown bears originally occurred throughout Europe (except from the largest islands such as Ireland, Iceland, Gotland, Corsica and Sardinia), but later disappeared from most areas as the human population grew, suitable habitat was lost due to deforestation and agriculture, and the species was persecuted by humans. Today the total number of brown bears in Europe is about 55,000 bears (c. 15,000-20,000 outside Russia) which occur within an area of more than 2.5 million km² (800,000 km² outside Russia). These bears are found in two large (>5,000), three medium (500-2,500), one small (100-500), and six very small (<100) populations. 1. Cantabrian. The two Cantabrian populations apparently have been separated since the beginning of the century and now show genetic differences. Today, they are separated by 30-50 km of mountainous terrain and interchange between the populations is thought to be unlikely, mainly due to unsuitable habitat and a high speed railway and motorway. In the Western Cantabrian Mountains the population seems to be stable or increasing in the last decade and is distributed over an area of 2,600 km2. The most recent estimate using genetic methods (García-Garitagoitia et al. 2004) calculated 85-143 bears for the western nucleus, with an average number of 107. In the Eastern Cantabrian Mountains (20 bears) the population shows less potential for recovery, unless the corridor with the western portion is reestablished. The total population for both Cantabrian nuclei may be approximately 100-150 bears; not all of these are mature individuals. 2. PyreneesThe autochthonous western population was estimated to be 3 individuals. The last documented reproductions occurred in 1995 and 1998. In 2006 the reintroduction action provided 5 (4F, 1M) bears from Slovenia mostly to central area. The autochthonous central population was gone before the last decade of 20th century. In 1996-1997 three bears were reintroduced from Slovenia. There was subsequent reproduction, including one male dispersal to Western Pyrenees. Until recently the Western and Central Pyrenees were treated as separate units. With the dispersal of one male bear from the central to the west portion the connectivity is now reastablished. The local bears have been totally isolated for over one century and had low genetic diversity. The recent reintroductions have resulted in the influx of new genes.3. AlpsThe Central Austrian subpopulation now consists of about <10 bears. After increases following reintroductions and local reproductions, in recent years numbers have declined again. No more than 4 autochthonous bears survived in north-eastern Italy until 10 were reintroduced from Slovenia in 1999-2003. With subsequent reproduction the population has exceeded 20 bears, and continues to grow; in 2006 a population of about 6-7 adults and 16-17 sub-adults and cubs was recorded. At least three individuals from the Trentino nuclei dispersed into Austria, Switzerland and  Germany. None of them became established, but this demonstrated the connectivity of the habitat within the Alps and the potential for recolonization. One bear was legally shot in Germany in July 2006 because of the potential threat it posed to human safety (the bear repeatedly entered villages and broke into barns), whereas the other two bears disappeared without leaving any tracks. Occasionally individuals dispersing from the Eastern Alpine nucleus have reached the Central Italian Alps, confirming a potential connectivity among all the alpine nuclei.4. Appenine MountainsAn estimate yielded a figure of 70-80 bears in 1985. However, since then there has probably been a population decrease and 40-50 bears may be a more realistic estimate. Some expect this population to increase as poaching has been reduced in recent years, and areas surrounding Abruzzo National Park have been protected to secure suitable habitats. However, this population exists within a densely human populated area and there are potential conflicts between bear conservation and development and recreation activities.5. Dinara-PindosThe population seems to be genetically very close to the remnant bears in the Alps. The population overall has been more or less stable in recent years. However, trends vary in different areas, with steady growth in Slovenia and Croatia, a marked drop in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s due to the war, and probably stable or slightly decreasing trends in the south of the Dinarids, whereas in Pindos range it is characterized as stable (150-200) with locally positive trends and recolonization of former range. The population size estimate of 2,800 is based on weak supporting evidence. Approximately half (1,400) of these individuals are mature. The population trend data is likewise based on little quantitative data and it is possible that the trend is declining rather than stable. In countries with bear hunting there might be a political tendency for overestimation to justify higher quotas. In Slovenia in the north this population is close to that of the Alps. There is not a continuous distribution of female bears in the Alps, but there is movement of male bears. In Greece in the south the nearest bears are those of the Rila-Rhodope portion of the Balkan population along the border of Greece and Bulgaria, but there is no evidence of connection.6. CarpathianThe Carpathian Mountains population is estimated at about 8,100 bears and is the second largest in Europe. The Slovakian and Polish bear population was recently reconnected with that of Ukraine. This range expansion occurred rapidly, about 200 km in less than 20 years. Recent estimates of the Romanian population indicate that in Romania about 6,000 bears occur, the population trend being stable. The highest bear densities are found in the areas of Brasov, Harghita, Covasna, Mures, Bistrita, Arges, Vrancea and Sibiu counties (central part of the Romanian Carpathians). During the last 50 years, the Romanian bear population recovered from less than 1,000 individuals to about 6,000 individuals. This recovery process was influenced by both habitat conditions and wildlife management. However, recent developments (e.g. infrastructure developments) have had negative impacts on bears. Problems include behavioral changes (habituated bears), habitat fragmentation and reproductive isolation. Several areas (corridor between Apuseni Mountains and the main ridge of Carpathians, Prahova Valley, southern part of Carpathians - close to Danube) have started to be affected by isolation processes, but there is still connectivity within the entire Romanian Carpathian population. Some dispersers from this population have entered the Czech Republic and Hungary. The next closest population is in northern Bulgaria and north-eastern Serbia, but the migration of individual bears may be very restricted, as the Danube is a major physical barrier.7. BalkanIt consists of two segments: Rila-Rhodope Mountains (520 bears) and Stara Planina Mountains (200 bears). Little is known about genetic structure. The connections between subpopulations were recently proven, and there may be signs of recolonisation. In the early eighties Carpathian bears were released in Rhodope and Stara Planina Mountains. The numbers are not known since there is restricted access to this data.  8. ScandinaviaAfter heavy persecution in both countries, the once numerous brown bear population in Scandinavia was reduced to about 130 individuals in four areas where they have survived since 1930. The population has increased to about 2,550 in Sweden, with approximately 50 bears in Norway. Male bears may disperse between neighbouring female core areas, but when considering demographic viability they should be considered separated. This population consists of three subpopulations. In Sweden, the distribution of bears now resembles that of 1800, with bears occurring in 67% or more of the country. The population is one of the most productive in the world and is increasing at a rate of about 5.5% annually.  This population is viable, both genetically and demographically, but low gene flow has been identified between the southernmost subpopulation and the other subpopulations. The population is connected with the North-eastern European population through dispersing males, but probably not by dispersing females. 9. Northeastern EuropeDensities are generally low, with the highest densities in the south-eastern part of the range and the lowest densities in the north and southwest. The total population size occurring west of 35 degrees east is estimated at c. 38,000 individuals. This population is connected with the Scandinavian one.

habitat:
The original distribution of the brown bear in Europe illustrates its adaptability to different environmental conditions. With little or no human interference, brown bears occupied not only forests, but also steppes and tundra. Today, most of the bear' s former range is no longer suitable habitat due to human habitat alteration and human presence. Components of habitat can be grouped into three main categories: food, escape cover, and den sites. Bear movements and habitat use are strongly affected by availability of food. Furthermore, population density is positively associated with food availability. Areas with a high availability of preferred foods, such as berries, fruits, hard mast, colonial Hymenoptera, and ungulates, are of special importance to brown bears.1. CantabrianThe Cantabrian population inhabits the Cantabrian Mountains, which are partly covered with mixed deciduous forest.2. PyreneesMixed forests and pastures, depending on slope and elevation. 3. AlpsHabitat is predominately Alpine with steep slopes covered mostly by conifers. Human settlements and infrastructure in the valleys contribute to habitat fragmentation. 4. Appenine MountainsMountain habitat in the central Appenines; partly covered by deciduous forest (dominated by beech). 5. Dinara-PindosThe landscape is mountainous, dominated by mixed beech and spruce forest.6. CarpathianThe habitat is mainly the mixed forests in the Carpathian Mountain range. 7. BalkanMostly mountains with deciduous secondary forests.8. ScandinaviaThe habitat is dominated by intensively exploited boreal forest. 9. Northeastern EuropeThe habitat is dominated by intensively exploited boreal forest.

threats:
Bears have a low reproductive rate and are vulnerable to human-related mortality. They require large habitats that make them vulnerable to changes in land use. In Eastern Europe, land use once under centralised state administration has reverted to private ownership, often with no knowledge of wildlife management. Land use developments have tended to follow western examples with more intensive use of productive areas. The best bear habitat has already disappeared in Europe through logging and forest clearance. The planting of exotic conifers has seriously altered local ecosystems in some places. Habitat fragmentation, particularly as a result of road construction, presents serious problems for a species requiring such large areas. Mortality caused by high-speed road and rail networks through bear habitat is a major threat in some areas including Greece and Croatia. Poaching remains a threat to many, but not all populations, and takes place irrespective of population size. Females with cubs, as well as males, are liable to be killed. Poaching has probably worsened in countries such as Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Yugoslav Federation, and FYR Macedonia as a result of declining economic and social conditions. Poaching in Russia, to supply the lucrative market for bear parts in Asian countries, is a particular problem. Five very small, isolated bear populations in southern and western Europe (located in France, Spain and Italy), are highly threatened by their small population size. They could easily become extinct as a result of random fluctuations.1. CantabrianThe main pressure is the loss of adult individuals due to human induced mortality. 2. PyreneesThe main pressure is the loss of adult individuals due to killing by humans. 3. AlpsDamages done by bears have the potential to reduce the public acceptance of this species, and of trouble-making individuals in particular. Intensive management of all bear related problems is under way. Despite the constant increase of the Central Italian nucleus, the limited numbers of individuals characterizing all the alpine nuclei show that all these are Critically Endangered. The loss of more than 15 bears from the central Austrian bear population and 2 dispersers from Italy suggest an unnatural high mortality rate of bears in the Alps. Unfortunately, illegal removals seems to be the most likely explanation.4. Appenine MountainsThe main pressure is the loss of adult individuals due to human induced mortality. The population is critically endangered. The bear population has been totally isolated for over a century, thus there may be genetic problems.5. Dinara-PindosPolitical instability and the lack of financial instruments represent a pressure in the central part of the range. 6. CarpathianThe socio-economic developments in Romania have an influence on bear population on medium and long term and it is considered that the Romanian bear population is vulnerable. 7. BalkanPresently in Bulgaria there is liberal (poorly functioning) system of declaring the problem individuals assigned for removal, as well as poorly controlled poaching. 8. ScandinaviaThe major pressure in Norway is related to damages on unguarded free-ranging sheep. 9. Northeastern EuropeDue to a large total size and large area the population is in favorable conservation status.

conservationAction:
Since 1992, all brown bear populations have been listed on either Appendix I or Appendix II of CITES. In the EU, all populations are listed in Annex A of the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97, that implements CITES in the member states (Knapp 2006). The brown bear is included on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annex II* (except Finnish and Swedish populations) and Annex IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive. Most European range states have national brown bear management plans. General conservation recommendations include the following: Key bear areas and corridors need to be sufficiently managed and protected. Farmers need to be encouraged to use traditional livestock guarding techniques to reduce conflict arising from livestock depredation. Public awareness and education is also needed to inform people in bear areas about bear behaviour and ecology. International and national legislation protecting bears from poaching should be enforced. More research into population dynamics, genetics and bear habitat is also required to carry out work in bear action plans.1. CantabrianThe Cantabrian population is strictly protected but occasional losses due to poaching or other human related accidents do occur (snares set by poachers for wild boars). 2. PyreneesIt is strictly protected but occasional losses due to poaching or other human related accidents do occur.3. AlpsThe Italian and Austrian bear nuclei are under strict protection; in Slovenia a regulated harvest policy is in place. The removal of the bear in Germany caused a great public outcry and quite a controversy between different national and international GOs and NGOs. Fortunately the case also raised awareness for the need of a bear management on the population level. Initiatives to coordinate and harmonize bear management between Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Germany are underway.4. Appenine MountainsIt is strictly protected but occasional losses due to poaching or other human related accidents do occur.5. Dinara-PindosIn the largest part of this population's range (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia) the bear is a game species. In Slovenia the brown bear is hunted under protected status. In Albania and Greece it is strictly protected. Additionally in Greece it is considered as a priority species under the EU Habitat Directive 92/43.6. CarpathianWhereas in Romania and Slovakia bears are a hunted species, in other countries they are harvested under various regimes, mostly related to the damage control system. Annually, in Romania up to 250 bears are hunted (about 4% of the estimated population). In 2005 a national bear management plan was approved by the authorities, its implementation being started by the Ministry of Environment and Water Management together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development. One of the first initiated actions was related to population surveys of larger areas (geographical criteria) and setting up hunting quotas based on the analysis at the national level. Compensation for damages caused by bears is paid by the game administrators, and it is foreseen that in areas where bears are not hunted these compensations will be paid by the Ministry of Environment and Water Management (the authority for protected species).7. BalkanBears in Bulgaria are under protected status that allows the removal of problem individuals. The Greek portion is strictly protected, as well as are the few specimens in Serbia.8. ScandinaviaThere is a quota hunting regime in Sweden. The harvest rate allows the further and steady population growth. In Norway only damage causing bears are removed, but such a reduction is technically sustainable only due to influx of individuals from Sweden.9. Northeastern EuropeBears are game animals in most of this population range under various quota systems.

redListAssessors:
Djuro Huber (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe / Bear Specialist Group)


taxonomicNotes:
There is a high degree of intraspecific variation in this species, which has resulted in many described subspecies; the validity of many of these is unknown, while others may actually represent distinct species (Gaubert et al. 2004, 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The species was introduced to Europe before 1500, and thus it is considered as part of the naturalised regional fauna for the purposes of this assessment. The genet has a fairly large European range, including a number of protected areas, and the population trend is stable. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern.

range:
A widespread species, occurring on the northern Saharan fringe (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya), and then in open and dry savannah zones throughout Sub-Saharan Africa in three large blocks, corresponding roughly to West Africa, East Africa and southern Africa (Delibes and Gaubert in press). For Europe, Delibes (1999) lists this species as occurring in all of continental Portugal and Spain, and much of France (mainly south of Loire River and west of the Rhone River). It is also found on the Mediterranean islands of Majora, Ibiza, and Cabrera (Balearic Islands) (Delibes 1999). There are also scattered records from Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, and northwest Italy (Delibes 1999). This species is generally considered to have been introduced to Europe; the date of introduction is unknown, but remains have been found dating from the Middle Ages (Dobson 1998, Delibes 1999). It has been recorded to at least 3,000m asl in the Ethiopian Highlands (Admasu et al. 2004).

population:
One of the most common small carnivores in its native range, though detailed data on density in Africa are scarce; in Serengeti, Waser (1980) estimated a density of 1.5 + 0.37 individuals per km2. In Europe, this species is moderately abundant, with increasing populations in France, and densities of 0.3 to 0.7 individuals per km2 in Spain (Delibes 1999). The genet is common in suitable habitat throughout the Iberian peninsula (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Populations are either stable or slowly increasing (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). On Ibiza, habitat is declining and becoming more fragmented, thus this species is suspected to be declining.

habitat:
The genet tends to prefer all types of wooded habitats (deciduous and evergreen), where it is often associated with rivers and brooks, but it is a generalist and can be found in other habitats where there is suitable prey. It avoids open habitats, but may occur even in small fragments of woodland in farmland or near villages, and usually is absent from rainforests, dense woodlands and woodland-moist savannah mosaics (e.g. miombo woodland in Angola) (Delibes and Gaubert in press). The common genet is not uncommonly found in proximity to people and human buildings (e.g. Admasu et al. 2004). It feeds mainly on small mammals, but will also take birds, other small vertebrates, insects, and fruit (Delibes and Gaubert in press).

threats:
There are no major threats. They are occasionally eaten by people in some localities, and body parts are used for medicinal purposes while skins may be used for the manufacture of karosses in southern Africa (Delibes and Gaubert in press). In Europe, the genet used to be trapped for its fur (Delibes 1999). In Portugal genets are illegally killed in predator trapping for hunting management. On Ibiza, the genet is threatened by the loss and fragmentation of habitat caused by urbanization and infrastructure and tourism development. The ability of genets to live close to humans and their domestic animals could have implications for disease transmission (Admasu et al. 2004).

conservationAction:
It is present in many protected areas across its range. This species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, as well as EU Habitats and Species Directive, Annex V (Delibes 1999). In Ibiza, it is recommended that semi-natural habitats are protected, and that development takes place in such a way that fragmentation of remaining habitat is minimized.


taxonomicNotes:
The taxonomy is not in doubt. There are five traditionally recognised geographical populations. The species was once commonly known in the North Atlantic and adjacent Arctic as the Greenland right whale. However, the common name bowhead whale is now used almost exclusively for the species.

redListCategoryRationale:
This species is assessed as Not Applicable as it is of marginal occurrence in the European Mammal Assessment region.

range:
Bowhead whales are found only in Arctic and subarctic regions. They spend much of their lives in and near the pack ice, migrating to the high arctic in summer, and retreating southward in winter with the advancing ice edge (Moore and Reeves 1993). The IWC recognises five stocks: Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea; Hudson Bay-Fox Basin; Davis Strait-Baffin Bay; Spitsbergen; and the Okhotsk Sea (Rugh et al. 2003). The Spitsbergen stock extends from the east coast of Greenland across the Greenland Sea, the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea as far as Severnaya Zemlya, and going as far south as the ice front, exceptionally reaching Iceland and the coast of Finnmark (Norway).

population:
Current population sizeThe range-wide abundance is not known with precision but numbers over 10,000 individuals, with 10,500 (8,200-13,500) (in 2001) in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas (Zeh and Punt 2005), and a provisional estimate of 7,300 (3,100-16,900) for a part of the range of the Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stocks (Cosens et al. 2006). There are no reliable abundance estimates for the small Okhotsk Sea and Spitsbergen stocks.Population trendsThe Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) population has been monitored for more than 30 years and has been increasing over this period at an estimated rate of 3.4% (1.7%-5%) per year in the presence of subsistence hunting (Zeh and Punt 2005). No quantitative estimates of trends in the other bowhead populations are available, but Inuit hunters and elders report that they are observing more bowheads in the eastern Canadian Arctic than they did in the 1960s-1970s, and that the geographic distribution of the whales has expanded in recent years. No estimates of population trend are available for the Svalbard-Barents Sea and Okhotsk Sea stocks.Pre-whaling population sizesAll bowhead populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling, which was established in the north-eastern Atlantic by 1611 (Ross 1993). Basque whalers took bowheads in the north-west Atlantic (Labrador) in the 16th century, but ambiguities over the species identity of whales taken in early commercial whaling make pre-1600 catch records difficult to interpret. Minimum pre-whaling stock sizes are estimated to have been 24,000 for the Svalbard-Barents Sea stock, 12,000 for the Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stocks, and 3,000 for the Okhotsk Sea stock (Woodby and Botkin 1993). The Spitsbergen and Okhotsk Sea stocks are at a small fraction of their pre-whaling levels.Demographic parametersA high longevity (>100 years) is suggested by biochemical methods and the finding of old-fashioned stone harpoon heads in harvested animals (George et al. 1999). If this high longevity is confirmed, it would be among the longest known for a mammal.

habitat:
The seasonal distribution is strongly influenced by pack ice (Moore and Reeves 1993). During the winter they occur in areas near the ice edge, in polynyas, and in areas of unconsolidated pack ice. During the spring these whales use leads and cracks in the ice to penetrate areas that were inaccessible during the winter due to heavy ice coverage. During the summer and autumn they concentrate in areas where zooplankton production is high or where large-scale biophysical processes create local concentrations of calanoid copepods (Finley 1990, Finley et al. 1998). Small to medium-sized crustaceans, especially krill and copepods, form the bulk of the bowhead's diet (Lowry et al. 2004). They also feed on mysids and gammarid amphipods, and the diet includes at least 60 species. Bowheads skim feed at the surface and feed in the water column. It has recently been suggested that they also feed near the bottom, but probably do not directly ingest sediments as gray whales routinely do. During surface skim feeding, coordinated group patterns have been observed, including whales feeding in echelon (V-shaped) formation.

threats:
Heavy commercial hunting, beginning in the 1500s, depleted all populations of bowheads. The Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea stock has recovered substantially since the end of commercial hunting in the early 20th century to around 10,000 animals, while recent provisional estimates of the Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stocks suggest that a significant recovery has probably occurred. There is no reliable evidence of recovery of the Svalbard-Barents Sea and Okhotsk Sea stocks.  Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling on the BCB stock (by native peoples of Alaska and Chukotka) is permitted by the IWC on the basis of advice from its Scientific Committee (most recently under its new aboriginal subsistence whaling management procedure). These takes have not impeded the recovery of the stock. Very small takes by indigenous hunters are allowed in Canadian waters, so far too few to seriously impede recovery of the stocks, but there will be pressure to increase these takes given the recent, higher population estimates for the eastern Canadian Arctic. There has been concern since the 1970s that disturbance from oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in the Arctic region might affect bowhead whales. There is also evidence of incidental mortality and serious injury caused by entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes (Philo et al. 1992, 1993; Finley 2000). Environmental threats, such as pollution (Bratton et al. 1993), and disturbance from tourist traffic (Finley 2000) may affect bowhead whales but the impacts have not yet been well characterized or quantified. During this century, a profound reduction in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic is expected, and possibly a complete disappearance in summer, as mean Arctic temperatures rise faster than the global average (Anonymous 2005).   The implications of this for bowhead whales are unclear but warrant monitoring.

conservationAction:
The International Whaling Commission has protected bowhead whales from commercial whaling since its inception in 1946. All range states except Canada are members of the IWC. Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling is allowed by the IWC on bowhead whales from the BCB stock on the basis of scientific advice. Indigenous hunting in Canada is co-managed by the national government and regional bodies created under land-claim agreements.

redListAssessors:
Species account by IUCN SSC Cetacean Specialist Group; regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team


taxonomicNotes:
The taxonomy follows the view of the IWC Scientific Committee which now recognises right whales in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere as three distinct species in the genus Eubalaena, namely E. glacialis (North Atlantic right whale), E. japonica (North Pacific right whale) and E. australis (southern right whale) (IWC 2004), based mainly on the findings of Rosenbaum et al. (2000).

The North Atlantic right whale was included in previous Red Lists together with North Pacific right whales under the common species name E. glacialis (Baillie and Groombridge 1996).

Rice (1998) classifies right whales in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere as the single species Balaena glacialis, in the genus Balaena along with B. mysticetus, the bowhead whale. While not all cetologists accept that the three right whale taxa qualify as full species, their clear geographical separation ensures that no practical problem arises from treating them as distinct species.

The species was formerly known as the black right whale to distinguish it from the Greenland right whale, Balaena mysticetus, which is now called the bowhead whale.  The term “right whale” is acceptable for specimens of any of three Eubalaena species, when the species in question is implicit from the geographical context.

redListCategoryRationale:
The eastern North Atlantic population is clearly extremely small (fewer than 50 mature individuals) (IWC 2001a); it is classified as Critically Endangered (CR).

range:
The right whale in the past was common on both sides of the North Atlantic. It appears to be effectively extinct in the eastern North Atlantic, but in the past probably ranged from a calving ground in the Golfo de Cintra (23°N) off the western Sahara, through the Azores, Bay of Biscay, western British Isles, and the Norwegian Sea to the North Cape (hence the Dutch name Noordkaper). In the western North Atlantic the species migrates from a calving ground off Florida and Georgia along the eastern seaboard of North America, to summering grounds in the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, and Scotian Shelf, with some individuals reaching the Gulf of St Lawrence, the Davis and Denmark Straits and occasionally Iceland and Norway. It is unclear whether in the past the animals in the northern part of the range (off Iceland and Norway) belonged mainly to the western or eastern breeding stocks.

population:
Northwest AtlanticHistoricIt is not clear when Basque whaling began in the northwestern North Atlantic, but it had been established by no later than 1530. An estimated 25,000-40,000 right whales were taken off Labrador and Newfoundland between 1530 and 1610 (Aguilar 1986) although recent genetic data have suggested that many of these were bowheads (Reeves 2001, Rastogi et al. 2004). Shore-based whaling along the US east coast began in the mid 17th century, with an estimated 2,000-3,800 taken during 1696-1734. Whaling continued sporadically over the next two centuries, with a few hundred taken in total until the last catch in 1935 (Reeves et al. 1999).CurrentThe current population is of about 300–350 individuals off the east coast of North America. IWC (2001a) obtained a minimum estimate of 263 in 1996 from identified animals known to be alive at that time, and indicated that the true population is probably not much higher.  Kraus et al. (2001) provided a minimum estimate of 299 in 1998 based on animals presumed to be alive at that time (and not missing for more than 5 years).  Preliminary analysis of more recent data have yielded estimates similar to those above. The whales are regularly surveyed in the winter calving ground off Florida and Georgia, and in spring/summer feeding grounds in Cape Cod Bay, the Great South Channel off Massachusetts, the Gulf of Maine, the Scotian Shelf, and the Bay of Fundy, but not all the whales using the wintering ground are seen in these major summering areas (IWC 2001a).  There have been a few sightings in recent years in the Gulf of St Lawrence, two off Iceland in 2003, and one in the former whaling ground off Cape Farewell in 2004 (IWC 2005).   A sighting off Norway in 1999 was identified as a well-known animal from the western North Atlantic population (IWC 2001a). Northeast Atlantic HistoricThe first records of Basque whaling in the Bay of Biscay are from the 11th century. At least dozens of whales were taken each year in the Bay of Biscay until a marked decline was evident by 1650; whaling continued there until the 18th century. Basque whalers arrived in Iceland as early as 1412, and participated in the right whale fishery around the British Isles and Norway from the 14th to the 18th century, but probably many more whales were taken by Dutch, Danish, British and Norwegian whalers. Quantitative estimates of catches are not available. Historic right whale catches as far north as Iceland and Norway appear to have been mainly E. glacialis, with Balaena mysticetus (bowhead) being the main species only in the far north (Greenland and Svalbard) (Aguilar 1986). Smith et al. (2006) document extensive whaling for E. glacialis in the North Cape area (northern Norway) in the 17th century. Right whaling seems to have declined from the mid-17th century and disappeared by the mid-18th century, but there was a brief period of right whale catches by modern whalers operating from shore stations in the British Isles and off Iceland, where at least 120 right whales were taken during 1881-1924 (Collett 1909, Brown 1986). The last recorded catch was a cow-calf pair off Madeira in 1967, accompanied by a third individual which escaped.CurrentIt is not clear whether there is a remnant Northeast Atlantic population or whether the animals seen here in modern times are strays from the west.  There have been only eight confirmed sightings from 1960 to 1999, including the animal sighted in Norway in 1999 which was matched with the western north Atlantic population (IWC 2001a). A possible right whale was sighted in the Bay of Biscay in 1977 (Aguilar 1981) and a cow-calf pair was sighted off Cape Vincent, Portugal in 1995 (Martin and Walker 1997). A recent survey of the former Cintra Bay calving ground off the Western Sahara failed to locate any right whales (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 1998), although survey conditions were often poor.

habitat:
Right whales are often encountered as singles or pairs, with larger groups or aggregations observed socializing, mating or feeding. They can be aerially active and generally raise their flukes before a deep dive. Right whales can be individually identified by the patterns of callosities on the head, as well as by scars (Kraus et al. 1986). The mating system appears to involve sperm competition (males competing to inseminate females, not so much by physical aggression, as by delivering large loads of sperm, thereby displacing that of other males). Young are born in winter and spring in calving areas in low temperate or subtropical latitudes.Right whales feed on calanoid copepods and other small invertebrates (smaller copepods, krill, pteropods, and larval barnacles), generally by slowly skimming through patches of concentrated prey at or below the surface. The most common prey species is the copepod Calanus finmarchicus.

threats:
Right whales in the North Atlantic are no longer hunted, and the most serious current threats are deaths and injuries from entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with ships off the eastern coast of North America (Knowlton and Kraus 2001). During 1999-2003, the recorded human-caused mortality and serious injury averaged 2.6 animals per year, of which 1.6 per year were fishery entanglements and 1.0 vessel collisions. A further 11 deaths (8 ship strikes, 1 entanglement and two of unknown cause) were reported between 2004 and the end of 2006. Based on scarring from fishing gear it is estimated that at least 72% of the right whale population had been involved in an entanglement event at some point in their lives, and that 10-30% of the population are entangled each year (Clapham 2005).  Because some anthropogenic mortalities probably pass undetected, reported rates are likely minima.Hypotheses that have been advanced to explain the low reproductive rates observed for several years include: genetic factors, poor nutrition, chemical contaminants, biotoxins, disease (IWC 2001b, Reeves et al. 2001). However, reproduction in recent years has increased; whether this rate will continue is unknown.

conservationAction:
The right whale has been protected from hunting by the IWC and its predecessor since 1935, and is also protected in Canada, a non-member of the IWC. Efforts are underway in both the US and Canada aimed at limiting deaths and injuries due to ship strikes and entanglements. In both countries, recovery plans have been developed involving collaboration between the various stakeholders. Regulations are in place in the US requiring modifications to fishing gear and restrictions on certain types of such gear in areas and times where right whales are common (Clapham 2005).  A Mandatory Ship Reporting Scheme has been in place since 1999 in two areas in the right whale calving and summering grounds to enable vessels to be warned of right whales in the area. Regulations specify minimum approach distances for whale-watching and other vessels. Shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy have been moved, with the approval of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), to take them away from the major summer concentrations of right whales. A regulatory proposal to enforce maximum transit speeds on vessels passing through right whale habitats off the US east coast was still under review in 2007.There is as yet no indication of a decrease in the rate of anthropogenic mortalities, hence it is unclear whether the measures taken to date are sufficient.


taxonomicNotes:
Until the 1990s, only one species of minke whale was recognised, the Antarctic minke whale B. bonaerensis being regarded as conspecific with B. acutorostrata. Most of the scientific literature prior to the late 1990s uses the name B. acutorostrata for all minke whales including Antarctic minke whales.  Since 2000, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee (SC) recognizes Antarctic minke whales as the separate species B. bonaerensis, and provisionally groups all Northern Hemisphere minke whales and all Southern Hemisphere “dwarf” minke whales under the single species B. acutorostrata (IWC 2001).  This has been followed by management agencies, such as CITES.  

B. acutorostrata is known as the dwarf minke whale in the Southern Hemisphere. It was described there by Best (1985) and Arnold et al. (1987) in terms of its differences from the Antarctic minke whale, which was regarded as the “ordinary” minke whale.  Subsequent genetic analyses (Wada 1991, Pastene et al. 1994) revealed that the dwarf minke whale is closely related to the “ordinary” minke whale of the Northern Hemisphere, while the Antarctic minke whale is a separate species.

redListCategoryRationale:
The Northeast Atlantic stock is estimated to number c.80,000 individuals, well above the thresholds for a threatened category. There is no indication that the population has declined to an extent that would qualify for a threatened category. Consequently this species is assessed as Least Concern at the European regional level.

range:
The common minke whale is a cosmopolitan species found in all oceans and in virtually all latitudes, from 65°S to 80°N. In parts of its range it is very abundant, in other parts much less so.  Its migration patterns are poorly known.  It occurs in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and the Southern Hemisphere, but is not known in the northern Indian Ocean.North AtlanticIn summer, minke whales are common throughout the northern North Atlantic as far north as Baffin Bay, Greenland Sea, Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya, and as far south as 40°N (New Jersey) on the US east coast (Anon. 2005),  and as far south as the Hebrides (northwest British Isles) and the central North Sea in the east.  In mid-Atlantic the southern limit of summer abundance is at least as far south as 50°N (Sigurjónsson et al. 1991).  It is likely that at least a part of the minke whale population overwinters in the summer range, but there has been very little observation effort in winter to confirm this.Minke whales also occur south of this range in the southeastern North Atlantic, but with no obvious seasonality, and are not common, with the exception of the Canary Islands, where they appear to be frequent year-round (van Waerebeek et al. 1999).  There have been occasional sightings (Aguilar et al. 1983) and strandings (van Waerebeek et al. 1999) off Spain and Portugal, Western Sahara, Mauritania and Senegal. Minke whales are rare in the Azores and not recorded from Madeira. The minke whale is considered a “visitor species” in the Mediterranean (average <1 record per year) with one vagrant recorded in the Black Sea (Reeves and Notabartolo di Sciara 2006).  There are very few winter records, but a summary by Mitchell (1991) indicates that they do occur in winter near Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Antilles, and the US coast south of 40°N. Ten strandings have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico (Jefferson and Schiro 1997) but hardly any live sightings. A Norwegian winter expedition sent to the tropical Atlantic in 1989/90 to “find the breeding grounds of the minke whale” encountered just two minke whales, at 20°N and 10°N off West Africa in December (Folklow and Blix 1991).

population:
North AtlanticThe IWC recognizes four stocks of minke whales in the North Atlantic: Northeast Atlantic, Central North Atlantic, West Greenland, and Canadian East Coast. The latter includes the US east coast. Population estimates were last reviewed by the IWC SC in 2003 (IWC 2004), but a new estimate for West Greenland was accepted in 2006 (IWC 2007).  The best/most recent available estimates for the whole North Atlantic total about 182,000, and the Northeast Atlantic stock was estimated at c.80,000 individuals.Minke whales have been exploited in the North Atlantic, mainly since the 1940s, and recorded catches total about 140,000 (IWC 2006).  The largest catches have been by Norwegian “small-type” whalers who have taken about 120,000 since 1948, mainly in the Northeast Atlantic.  Annual catches peaked at over 4,000 in the late 1950s, declining to about 2,000 annually in the early 1980s. Catches were phased out from 1984 to 1987. Commercial minke whaling resumed in 1993 at a lower level and continues to the present.  About 4,000 minke whales were taken off Iceland during 1941-85, but recent abundance estimates imply that this would have had no discernible effect on the population.  About 8,000 common minke whales have been caught by small-type whaling off West Greenland, mainly since 1960. The present catch limits (up to 175 annually for the years 2003-7) were set by the IWC in the absence of advice from its Scientific Committee. Some concerns have been expressed by the IWC Scientific Committee over the sustainability of the catch levels given the uncertainty over the size of the population available to the hunters off West Greenland (IWC 2007) although sex ratio information suggests that the population may not have been significantly impacted by the catches (Witting 2006).Generation timeNo satisfactory method of age determination has been developed for this species to date. Therefore the value of Taylor et al. (2007) was used. Unlike Antarctic minke whales, common minke whales tend not to develop ear plugs with readable layering (Lockyer 1984).  A method based on layer counts in tympanic bullae (Christensen 1981) could not be reproduced by later workers.  Other aging methods are being researched, but none is yet at the stage where it can be reliably applied to this species (Olsen and Øien 2002).

habitat:
The common minke whale occurs in both coastal and offshore waters and exploits a variety of prey species in different areas according to availability. In the Northern Hemisphere some populations migrate to higher latitudes in summer, but it is also found year-round in some areas.  With the exception of the Sea of Japan – Yellow Sea- East China Sea population, conception and birth occur in winter.  Most animals occur singly, and few in groups of more than two.  In the North Atlantic, studies in the Barents and Norwegian Seas show that minke whale diet varies greatly between areas and years, being dominated by krill in the northern areas, but by herring or capelin in other areas according to what is most abundant that year, with gadoids being taken when herring and capelin were scarce (Lindstrøm and Haug 2002).  In the North Sea the diet consisted almost exclusively of sandeel (data from one year only).  Minke whales taken off Iceland in 2003-04 contained mainly sandeel, with some capelin and gadoids (Víkingsson et al. 2006). Minke whales caught off Newfoundland during 1966-72 contained mainly capelin (Mallotus villotus) (Mitchell 1974).The overlap of the diet of this species with the targets of commercial fisheries poses difficult questions in ecosystem management. The question of whether minke whales should be culled to reduce their fish consumption is a particularly controversial issue.

threats:
Whaling on this species has been intensive in the Northeast Atlantic, and reduced the population over the period 1952-83. Catches were phased out by 1987, but whaling resumed, at a lower level, in 1993. Norway sets national catch limits based on the IWC’s Revised Management Procedure, a formula for setting safe catch limits (Hammond and Donovan in press). In presenting the RMP to the IWC for approval, the IWC SC offered three variants that it believed were acceptable and the IWC chose the most conservative option. Up until 2000, Norway used this option to set its national catch limits. It is now using the least conservative option presented by the SC. The national catch limit for 2006 was 1,052 whales, but only 521 were taken.Coastal catches averaging about 200 per year were taken off Iceland until 1985 when the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling came into effect. Small (a total of 100 expected for the period 2003-2006) experimental catches resumed in 2003.  Catches off West Greenland continue, under an IWC catch limit of 175 whales annually, valid through 2007.  As discussed above the IWC Scientific Committee has expressed concern at its inability to provide scientific advice on an appropriate catch limit (IWC 2007).Minke whales are subject to some level of incidental catch in fishing gear throughout much of their range, but in most areas the numbers involved are probably not significant.

conservationAction:
Catch limits for all commercial whaling have been set at zero by the IWC since 1986. However, this moratorium does not apply to Iceland, Norway or the Russian Federation which have objected to this provision. IWC members are allowed to issue permits for whaling for scientific research. Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted by the IWC for common minke whales off Greenland. Takes of dwarf minke whales have been excluded from the Japanese scientific whaling programme in the Antarctic (JARPA) since summer 1992/93 (Nishiwaki et al. 2005). Minke whales, including B. acutorostrata, are listed on Appendix I of CITES, with the exception of the population from Greenland which is included in Appendix II. This implies prohibition of commercial international trade in its products, but that does not apply to Iceland, Norway or Japan, who hold reservations on the species. Common minke whales benefit from national protection measures implemented in several range countries.


taxonomicNotes:
The sei whale is a recognized species, but phylogenetically it falls within the Bryde's whale clade (Wada et al. 2003). Older catch and sightings records of sei whales, particularly prior to 1972, tended to include Bryde's whales in areas where the latter occur. Tomilin (1957) proposed two subspecies, B. b. borealis in the northern hemisphere and B. b. schlegeli (Flower 1884) in the southern hemisphere, but these are not widely recognized.

redListCategoryRationale:
Sei whales are virtually absent in the eastern North Atlantic: Norwegian surveys of northeast Atlantic waters in 1987, 1989, and annually from 1995-2005 yielded only one sei whale sighting in the Eastern stock area. Small numbers of sei whales were caught during 1957-80 off northwestern Spain, mainly in late summer/autumn (Aguilar and Sanpera 1982). It seems reasonable to assume that the total number of mature individuals in the European Mammal Assessment region is less than 250. Consequently the regional assessment is Endangered.

range:
The sei whale is a cosmopolitan species, with a mainly offshore distribution, occurring in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere, but probably not in the Northern Indian Ocean (Rice 1998). It is an occasional visitor to the Mediterranean (Reeves and Notabartolo di Sciara 2006). Sei whales undertake migrations between tropical and subtropical latitudes in winter to temperate and subpolar latitudes in summer, mainly in water temperatures of 8°-18°C, and tend not to penetrate to such high latitudes as other rorquals. Their winter distribution seems to be widely dispersed and is not fully mapped (Horwood 1987, 2002).In the North Atlantic the summer distribution seems to be quite variable from year to year; however, sei whales typically occur north of an arc running from south of Nova Scotia in the west, to the northwest British Isles and on to Trondheim in Norway, as far as the Davis Strait and the northern end of the Denmark Strait in the north. Occasional incursions into other areas have been noted (e.g. the Gulf of Maine, Schilling et al. 1993). Peaks of catch rates in early and late summer suggested a northward and southward migration through the former Nova Scotia whaling ground (Mitchell 1975).  Sei whales have been scarce in Norwegian waters in recent years despite significant catches there in the past.  Sei whales were caught in limited numbers, mainly in late summer, off northwestern Spain (Aguilar and Sanpera 1982), and have been recorded in winter as far south as the Caribbean and Cap Blanc, Mauritania (Rice 1998).

population:
North AtlanticThe IWC recognizes three stock divisions for sei whales in the North Atlantic: Nova Scotia; Iceland-Denmark Strait; and Eastern (including the waters of Spain, Portugal, British Isles, Faeroes and Norway), but the divisions were chosen on largely arbitrary grounds (Donovan 1991). About 14,000 sei whales are recorded caught by modern whaling in the North Atlantic. In addition, an unknown proportion of the approximately 30,000 unspecified large whales caught in the North Atlantic in the late 19th and early 20th century were sei whales.  Sei whales appear to have been depleted in the eastern North Atlantic, with over 7,500 recorded taken in Norwegian and British waters prior to WWII (not counting the unspecified whales), but fewer than 200 since then.  The species seems to be virtually absent there now: Norwegian surveys of northeast Atlantic waters in 1987, 1989, and annually from 1995-2005 have yielded only one sei whale sighting in the Eastern stock area.  Small numbers of sei whales were caught during 1957-80 off northwestern Spain, mainly in late summer/autumn (Aguilar and Sanpera 1982); the stock identity of these animals is unclear.By contrast, sei whales are still abundant in the central North Atlantic (Iceland-Denmark Strait IWC stock area), especially southwest of Iceland south to 50°N in summer.  The only survey with reasonably complete coverage, designed specifically for the purpose of estimating sei whale abundance, was in 1989, and yielded a population estimate of 10,300 whales (CV 0.27) (Cattanach et al. 1993).  Areas of sei whale abundance seems to shift markedly between years relative to the northern extent of the distribution, more so than for other baleen whale species (Gunnlaugsson et al. 2004).No recent abundance estimates are available for the western North Atlantic. The population size during 1966-69 was estimated at 2,078 (Mitchell and Chapman 1977) from sightings surveys, using strip transect methodology. About 1,200 sei whales were taken off Nova Scotia during 1962-72.Generation timeThe default value of 23.3 years for generation time given in Taylor et al. (2007) was considered appropriate, given an absence of any indications to the contrary from available biological information for the species.

habitat:
Sei whales exhibit a greater variety in diet than, say, blue whales, but tend to feed on only one type of prey at a time. Of 21,713 stomachs examined in the North Pacific, 82.7% contained copepods only, and 12.6% contained euphausiids only; of 31,494 stomachs examined in the Southern Hemisphere, 54.3% contained euphausiids only, 30.5% contained copepods only, and 14.4% contained amphipods only (Nemoto and Kawamura 1977). Sei whale stomachs examined in the Northeast Atlantic contained copepods and euphausiids (Jonsgård and Darling 1977).  Sei whale stomachs analysed in the North Pacific off California contained euphausiids and anchovies (Rice 1977).  Sei whales are noted for their erratic appearance in specific feeding grounds, being plentiful in some years and absent (sometimes for years or even decades) in others (Horwood 1987).

threats:
Sei whale exploitation by modern whalers was particularly intensive in the Southern Hemisphere and the North Pacific from the late 1950s to the mid 1970s, following the depletion of the larger blue, fin and humpback whales. Sei whale stocks were seriously depleted during this period. Exploitation in the North Atlantic occurred over a longer period and was less intensive, except in the eastern North Atlantic, where the population appears not to have recovered from early modern whaling. Commercial exploitation ceased in the North Pacific in 1975, in the Southern Hemisphere in 1979 and in the North Atlantic in 1989. Catches by Japan under scientific permit resumed in the North Pacific in 2002: since 2004, the annual take has been 100 animals.Reports of other human-caused mortalities of sei whales are rare. Two fatal ship strikes (sei whales found dead on the bows of ships) have been reported on the US East Coast during 2000-2004 (Cole et al. 2006). It is hard to extrapolate from known cases to an estimated total, but sei whales appear to be at relatively low risk of human impacts, probably because of their largely offshore distribution.Rice (1961, 1974) reported a pathological condition in several North Pacific sei whales which resulted in deterioration or loss of baleen; however, the current frequency of this condition, and its impact (if any) on the population, are unknown.

conservationAction:
Sei whales have been specifically protected from commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission since 1975 in the North Pacific and 1979 in the Southern Hemisphere. They have also been protected by the general moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986, although this does not cover catches taken under scientific permit.  No other specific conservation measures for sei whales are reported, but the species benefits from general whale protection laws in several countries.


redListCategoryRationale:
It is not possible to derive a quantitative population size or trend estimate for this species in the European Mammal Assessment region because there have been so few sightings in recent decades. However, based on the very small number of records it seems reasonable to assume that the population is smaller than 250 mature individuals. Consequently the regional assessment is Endangered. Before commercial whaling the species was much more abundant in the region.

range:
The blue whale is a cosmopolitan species, found in all oceans except the Arctic, but absent from some regional seas such as the Mediterranean, Okhotsk and Bering seas. In the North Atlantic the summer distribution of blue whales extends in the west from the Scotian Shelf to the Davis Strait (NMFS 1998). Blue whales occur in the Denmark Strait, around Iceland and north to the ice edge, and in the northeast to Svalbard.  Historically, blue whales were commonly caught along the coasts of North and West Norway, the Faeroes and the NW British Isles. They also occur in low numbers off NW Spain (Bérubé and Aguilar 1998) and in the past near the Strait of Gibraltar, but not in the Mediterranean (Reeves and Notabartolo di Sciara 2006).  The winter distribution is poorly known but it appears that in the past blue whales were widely distributed in the southern half of the North Atlantic in winter (Reeves et al. 2004).

population:
North AtlanticIn the North Atlantic, about 400 whales have been photo-identified in the Gulf of St Lawrence (Ramp et al. 2006) and Pike et al. (2004) estimate 1,000-2,000 in the central North Atlantic (Iceland, Denmark Strait, East Greenland, Jan Mayen, Faeroes and the British Isles). Sightings of blue whales are still very rare off Norway, Svalbard and the British Isles despite substantial past catches, especially in northern Norway (Christensen et al. 1992, Norwegian sighting surveys 1995-2006). Approximately 8,000 blue whales are specifically recorded caught in whaling statistics since the start of modern whaling in northern Norway in 1868, but an additional 30,000 unspecified large whales were recorded caught in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, of which perhaps as much as  25% could have been blue whales (IWC 2006). However, only about 1,600 blue whales were caught after 1917, hence the main decline occurred primarily before this time. The population is estimated to have been recovering at 5.2% p.a. (SE 1.1%) in the Iceland/Denmark Strait area during 1969-88, after catching had ceased (Sigurjónsson and Gunnlaugsson 1990). Taken together this all suggests that the North Atlantic population was very low when whaling ceased in the mid 1960s (apart from a very few pirate whaling catches up to 1978), and may now be at or above the 1911 level, but still well below the pre-whaling level.Generation time. The default value of 32 years for generation time given in Taylor et al. (2007) was considered appropriate, given an absence of any indications to the contrary from available biological information for the species.

habitat:
Blue whales feed almost exclusively on euphausiids (krill), with a variety of species being taken by different blue whale populations, such as Euphausia superba in the Antarctic, Nyctiphanes australis off southern Australia (Gill 2002), Euphausia recurva off Western Australia (Bannister pers comm.) and Nyctiphanes simplex off the Galapagos (Palacios 1999). They feed both at the surface and also at depth, following the diurnal vertical migrations of their prey to at least 100m (Sears 1999). The migration patterns of blue whales are not well understood, but appear to be highly diverse.  Some populations appear to be resident year-round in habitats of year-round high productivity, while others undertake long migrations to high-latitude feeding grounds (see above), but the extent of migrations and the components of the populations that undertake them are poorly known.

threats:
The main threat in the past was direct exploitation, which only became possible in the modern era using deck-mounted harpoon cannons. Blue whale hunting started in the North Atlantic in 1868 and spread to other regions around 1900 after the northeastern Atlantic populations had been severely reduced. The Antarctic and North Atlantic populations were probably depleted to the low hundreds by the time whaling ceased, but are increasing. Blue whales have been protected worldwide since 1966, although they continued to be caught illegally by USSR fleets until 1972. The last recorded deliberate catches were off Spain in 1978 (IWC, 2006). Blue whales are subject to some ship strikes and entanglements (NMFS 1998) but reported cases are few. The remote distribution of some blue whale populations probably makes them less vulnerable to human impacts than some other cetacean species, but local populations that inhabit waters with significant levels of human activity may be subject to some threat, such as disturbance from vessel traffic, including ship noise (e.g. Gulf of St Lawrence population, NMFS 1998).  Globally, there appear to be no major threats to blue whales at present.

conservationAction:
The International Whaling Commission had granted protection to blue whales by 1966. Catch limits for all commercial whaling have been set at zero by the IWC since 1986. However, this moratorium does not apply to Iceland, Norway or the Russian Federation which have objected to this provision. No blue whales have been recorded deliberately caught since 1978. They are protected by national regulations in many range states. Local measures may be required to protect the habitat of specific local populations in order to ensure their long-term viability in the face of increasing human impacts, e.g. see Hucke-Gaete et al. (2005).


taxonomicNotes:
The subspecific phylogeny of fin whales has not yet been fully elucidated, but some authors recognize a Northern Hemisphere subspecies B. p. physalus, and a Southern Hemisphere subspecies B. p. quoyi which has a larger body size. Clarke (2004) proposed a pygmy subspecies B. p. patachonica Burmeister 1865, but this is not widely accepted and no genetic analysis has been performed.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (approaching A1d). The population and range are large enough that Criteria B and D do not apply. Does not meet Criterion C (even at Near Threatened) because although the number of mature individuals is fairly low, there is no evidence of continuing decline. Generally in the North Atlantic populations are either stable or increasing, or there is no quantitative data. There are no estimates of historical or pre-exploitation abundance for the marine area covered by the European Mammal Assessment, but populations were undoubtedly depleted by commercial whaling. It is suspected that, by comparison with population levels 81 years (3 generations) ago, the population is currently 30-49% lower. This is a precautionary assessment that is not based on quantitative data, and it is strongly recommended that further surveys and modelling studies are carried out to better determine current and historic population size and trends.The Mediterranean population of the fin whale was assessed in 2006 as Data Deficient (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

range:
Fin whales occur worldwide, mainly but not exclusively further offshore. They are rare in the tropics, except in certain cooler-water areas such as off Peru. North AtlanticIn the North Atlantic, the fin whale's range extends as far as Svalbard in the northeast (but rarely far into the Barents Sea), to the Davis Strait and Baffin Bay in the northwest (but rarely into the inner Canadian Arctic), to the Canary Islands in the southeast, and to the Antilles in the southwest (Rice 1998, Perry et al. 1999), but it is rare in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Ward et al. 2001). Their main summer range in the northwest Atlantic extends from Cape Hatteras (39°N) northward (Anon. 2005). In former times, fin whales were caught year-round near the Straits of Gibraltar. While there may be some north-south migration between summer and winter, it does not necessarily involve the entire population, and North Atlantic fin whales may occur to some extent throughout the year in all of their range, as suggested by acoustic data (Clark 1995).MediterraneanThere is a resident population in the central and western Mediterranean which is genetically distinct from that of the North Atlantic (Bérubé et al. 1998).  The species also occurs, but rarely, in the eastern Mediterranean (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

population:
North AtlanticNorth Atlantic fin whales were comprehensively assessed by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1991 (IWC 1992), and an update for the northern part of the region was undertaken in 2006 in a joint workshop with NAMMCO (IWC 2007). North Atlantic fin whale stocks had previously been assessed by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1976 (IWC 1977). Based mainly on past whaling operations, the IWC recognizes seven management areas in the North Atlantic: Nova Scotia; Newfoundland-Labrador; West Greenland; East Greenland-Iceland; North Norway; West Norway-Faeroe Islands; British Isles-Spain-Portugal.  Based on genetic evidence, it is now considered more likely that there are from two to four breeding stocks, which utilize these seven management areas in different proportions (IWC 2007).The best available estimates of recent abundance accepted by the IWC Scientific Committee (IWC 2007) are: 25,800 (CV 0.125) in 2001 for the central North Atlantic (East Greenland-Iceland, Jan Mayen and the Faeroes);  4,100 (CV 0.21) in 1996-2001 for the northeastern North Atlantic (North and West Norway); and 17,355 (CV 0.27) in 1989 for the Spain-Portugal-British Isles area (Buckland et al. 1992). The only accepted estimate for West Greenland is 1,046 (CV 0.35) in 1988 (IWC 1992); a newer estimate from a 2005 survey could not be accepted due to methodological problems. There are no complete estimates for the western North Atlantic Northwest Atlantic, but partial estimates are 1,013 (95% CI 459-2,654) for Newfoundland in 2003-3 (IWC 2007), and 2,814 (CV 0.21) for the east coast of North America from the Gulf of St Lawrence southward (Anon. 2005).    No significant trends were found in the total abundance for any of the above areas, but when the area west and southwest of Iceland was singled out, a significant increasing trend was found (IWC 2007).Fin whales were heavily exploited in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, starting in 1876, particularly off Norway, Iceland, the Faeroes and British Isles.  Whaling then spread to Spain, Greenland and eastern Canada, and exploitation continued at a lower level until the 1980s. Catch statistics for the early years are probably incomplete, and a large number of whales were killed but lost, due to lines breaking, etc., perhaps up to one-half in the first 20-25 years and one-third in the next 15-20 years (Tønnessen 1967).  The IWC Scientific Committee added 50% to recorded catches up to 1915 to allow for this (IWC 2007): recorded catches up to 1915 total 15,315 fin whales plus 29,024 unspecified whales of which about half may have been fin whales, thus the total kill may have been about 45,000 up to 1915.  The total recorded catch post-1915 has been about 55,000 fin whales.  The approximate figures by area are:  Canada 12,000; Norway 10,000; Iceland 10,000; Faeroes 5,000; Greenland 1,000; British Isles 3,000; Spain and Portugal 11,000; and pelagic operations 3,000. The behaviour evident for the various North Atlantic fin whale populations following earlier reductions through whaling differs. It ranges from clear evidence of recovery to no firm indications of any increase. An estimated 14,000 fin whales were killed off North Norway during 1876-1904, and a further 1,500 during 1948-71, but fin whales are rare there now (although quite abundant off western Spitsbergen, where about 1,500 whales had been killed during 1904-11) (Øien 2003, 2004). An estimated 12,000 fin whales were killed off Iceland during 1890-1915, until whaling was suspended partly due to concerns about the reductions in the stocks, but the modern abundance data suggest that the there has been a recovery in the population that may still be continuing, particularly west of Iceland, despite catches during 1948-89 averaging about 220 per year (Branch and Butterworth 2006).  An estimated 10,000 fin whales were taken from the Faeroes, but about 25% of these were actually caught off eastern Iceland (IWC 2007).  Whaling from the Faeroes and West Norway petered out during the 1960s as whales became scarce (IWC 1977), but catches had apparently been mainly of migrating whales rather than local populations.  MediterraneanCatches of about 7,000 fin whales taken near the Straits of Gibraltar in the 1920s apparently depleted the local abundance, and fin whales are still rare there today, but this did not seem to affect the abundance of fin whales off northern Spain, where catches continued until 1985. The impact of catches on the fin whale stocks in the Northwest Atlantic is unclear (Mitchell 1972). The population was estimated in 1991 from surveys covering much of the western Mediterranean at 3,583 (CV 0.27) (Forcada et al. 1996).  It is likely, but not certain, that the historical catches near the Strait of Gibraltar were from the North Atlantic rather than from this population (Sanpera and Aguilar 1992).  Palsbøll et al. (2004) found that Mediterranean fin whales probably have a small but non-zero genetic exchange with fin whales elsewhere in the North Atlantic.Generation time The default value of 27 years for generation time given in Taylor et al. (2007) was considered appropriate, given an absence of any indications to the contrary from available biological information for the species.

habitat:
Fin whales are often portrayed in the secondary literature as eating fish including juvenile herring (e.g. NAMMCO undated). However, the available quantitative evidence suggests that the fin whale's reputation as a fish-eater is largely overstated. In Icelandic catches, 96% contained krill only, 2.5% a mixture of krill and fish, and 1.6% fish only (Sigurjónsson and Víkingsson 1997), while only one of 267 fin whales caught in the northeast Pacific off British Columbia, Canada,  contained fish (Flinn et al. 2002), and over 99% of stomachs with food in the Antarctic contained krill (Kawamura 1994). On the other hand, Overholtz and Nicolas (1979) report apparent feeding of fin whales on American sand lance (sand eel) Ammodytes americanus in the northwest Atlantic, and Mitchell (1975) found that capelin comprised 80-90% of prey in fin whales caught off Newfoundland.  Capelin abundance is extremely variable over time, and fin whales may feed opportunistically on capelin in high-capelin years. In summary, although the fin whale is more flexible in its diet than the blue whale (B. musculus), its consumption of fish is not necessarily a significant problem.

threats:
Prior to the advent of modern whaling in the late 19th century, fin whales were largely immune from human predation because they were too hard to catch. Fin whales were depleted worldwide by commercial whaling in the 20th century. Fin whales have been protected in the Southern Hemisphere and North Pacific since 1975, and catches ceased in the North Atlantic by 1990, except for small aboriginal subsistence catches off West Greenland. Commercial catches resumed off Iceland in 2006, with nine fin whales being taken that year.  A Japanese fleet resumed experimental catches of fin whales in the Antarctic in 2005, taking 10 whales each during 2005/06 and 2006/07, with plans to take 50 per year from the 2007/08 season (IWC 2006).  It seems unlikely that catching of fin whales will return to the high levels of previous years, not least due to the limited market demand for whale products.Fin whales are one of the more commonly recorded species of large whale in vessel collisions (Laist et al. 2001). Five fatal collisions are recorded off the US east coast during 2000-04 (Cole et al. 2006).  Collisions with vessels appear to be a significant, but not necessarily unsustainable, source of mortality for the Mediterranean population (Weinrich et al. 2005, Reeves and Notabartolo di Sciara 2006).  Fin whales are occasionally caught in fishing gear as bycatch: four deaths and serious injuries from this source are reported from the eastern US coast during 2000-04 (Cole et al. 2006); recent Japanese Progress Reports to the IWC (www.iwcoffice.org/sci_com/scprogress.htm) report about one fin whale by-caught per year on average.

conservationAction:
The IWC set catch limits to zero for fin whales in the North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere in 1976. Catch limits for all commercial whaling have been set at zero by the IWC since 1986. However, this moratorium does not apply to Iceland, Norway or the Russian Federation which have objected to this provision. Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted by the IWC for fin whales taken off West Greenland. Fin whales are listed on Appendix I of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but this does not apply to Iceland, Norway and Japan, who hold reservations. Fin whales are also listed on Appendices I and II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).  Under the Agreement for Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black and Mediterranean Seas (ACCOBAMS), fin whales in the Mediterranean, along with other cetaceans, are protected from deliberate killing by signatories to the agreement.


redListCategoryRationale:
Reasonably good survey data are available for the two main feeding grounds that lie relatively close to the European Mammal Assessment region (Iceland and N Norway/Spitzbergen). Recent partial estimates include 13,900 individuals for Iceland (CI=3,900 – 29,000) and 889 for N Norway/Spitzbergen (CV 0.32) (IWC 2002, 2003). Not all of these are mature individuals. The global population is estimated to be increasing rapidly (3% per year), and the Iceland population may be increasing more rapidly still (surveys showed an increase of 11.4% per annum from 1986 to 2001, although immigration as well as population growth may be responsible for this) (IWC 2003). The species is rare in the European Mammal Assessment region (Reid et al. 2003). Although no quantitative estimates are available, it seems reasonable to suspect that the number of humpback whales present in the EMA area may be fewer than 1,000 mature individuals, the threshold for consideration as Vulnerable under Criterion D. However the humpback whale is highly mobile and travels large distances, and the animals in the EMA region are undoubtedly part of larger populations that extend outside the region and that are expanding rapidly in size. Consequently the category is downgraded by two steps to Least Concern.

range:
The humpback whale is a cosmopolitan species found in all the major ocean basins (Clapham and Mead 1999), and all but one subpopulation (that of the Arabian Sea) migrate between mating and calving grounds in tropical waters, usually near continental coastlines or island groups, and productive colder waters in temperate and high latitudes. Humpbacks are abundant throughout the Antarctic in summer south to the ice edge, but not within the pack ice zone. In the winter, Southern Hemisphere populations are aggregated into specific nearshore breeding areas in the Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Pacific, two of which extend north of the equator, e.g. off Colombia in the eastern Pacific and in the Bight of Benin in the Atlantic. Some wintering grounds are fairly localised, for example around island groups, and some are more diffuse, for example along the western coast of Southern Africa and the southern coast of west Africa. In the North Atlantic, they range in summer from Gulf of Maine in the west and Ireland in the east, and up to but not into the pack ice in the north; the northern extent of the humpback’s range includes the Barents Sea, Greenland Sea and Davis Strait, but not the Canadian Arctic. They occur mainly in specific feeding areas.  In the winter the great majority of whales migrate to wintering grounds in the West Indies, while an apparently small number of animals still utilize a historical breeding area around the Cape Verde Islands.Humpbacks rarely enter the Mediterranean and are considered vagrant there.

population:
The humpback whale is better studied than other balaenopterid species, and migratory destinations are well known for some subpopulations. North AtlanticA comprehensive assessment of North Atlantic humpback whales was completed by the IWC Scientific Committee in 2002, from which most of the information below is drawn.Six distinct feeding aggegrations have been identified: Gulf of Maine; Gulf of St Lawrence; Newfoundland/Labrador; West Greenland; Iceland; North Norway (including Bear Island and Jan Mayen). Genetic and photo-ID data indicate that the six feeding aggregations represent relatively discrete subpopulations, fidelity to which is determined matrilineally.  However, because whales from different feeding grounds all mix in a common breeding area in the West Indies, there is male-mediated nuclear gene flow between the subpopulations.Humpbacks were heavily exploited in the past by pre-modern whaling in their breeding grounds in both the West Indies and the Cape Verde islands, and by modern whaling in their feeding grounds, especially off Iceland and off Norway in  the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Catches of pre-modern whaling are estimated primarily from trade records.  Catches of early modern whaling also need to be estimated, because most of the catch records were not divided by species. An estimated 3,200 were taken from Iceland and 2,000 from northern Norway during 1880-1916.  About 1,500 humpback whales are reported killed in the North Atlantic since 1916, from a variety of areas including the British Isles, Faeroes, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and eastern Canada, as well as Norwegian pelagic catches.Population modelling exercises show that the recent abundance and increase rate of humpback whales in the North Atlantic are too large to represent a recovery from depletion by the estimated past kills.  This suggests that either:(i) past kills have been substantially underestimated; or(ii) there has been some increase in the environmental carrying capacity for humpback whales; or(iii) whaling had a negative impact on the population, over and above the effects of the actual removals, in ways that are not understood; or(iv) some combination of the above factors.Whichever of the above hypotheses pertains, the increase rate of 3% per annum implies that humpbacks are considerably more abundant in the North Atlantic today than they were in 1940.  This is consistent with anecdotal evidence of the relatively low numbers observed prior to 1960.Generation timeTaylor et al. (2007) estimate mean generation time at 22 years.

habitat:
With a few exceptions, such as the Arabian Sea population, humpback whales undertake long migrations between breeding grounds in tropical coastal waters in winter to feeding grounds in middle and high latitudes, mainly in continental shelf waters. In the Southern Hemisphere, humpbacks appear to feed mainly in the Antarctic, where the diet consists almost exclusively of krill (Euphausia superba), although some feeding in the Benguela Current ecosystem on the migration route west of South Africa has been observed (suspected prey species are E. lucens and Themisto jaudichaudi). Limited data on diet in other areas is available.  Humpback whales caught off Newfoundland and Labrador in the 1950s and 1960s were found to be consuming mainly capelin (Mallotus villotus). Those caught off California in the early 20th century were eating mainly euphausiids and sardines.  In areas of Alaska and the North Atlantic, humpback whales have also been observed feeding co-operatively on schools of herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes spp.) and (more rarely) mackerel (Scomber scombrus), by herding the school together with bubble nets, clouds or curtains.

threats:
Although commercial whaling seriously depleted all humpback populations, the species has demonstrated remarkable resilience, and most populations have increased since the end of whaling, although there are several populations which remain small and for which no increase has yet been detected, such as the populations breeding near South Pacific islands, and the western North Pacific population. Humpback whales have been protected from commercial whaling worldwide since c.1963, but illegal catches by Soviet fleets continued in the Antarctic and North Pacific until 1973. Today, small numbers only are taken by a “subsistence” whaling operation off St Vincent (1-2 animals per year); it is possible that other small unreported catches occur elsewhere. However, the government of Japan has announced plans to resume humpback whaling in the Antarctic from the 2007/08 season, starting with an experimental catch of 50 animals per year under scientific permit. The species is not currently hunted in European waters.Humpback whales are subject to entanglements, often fatal, in fishing gear. They are also vulnerable to injury by ship strikes, which an also be fatal.  The documentation of such incidents is best for US waters.  For the Atlantic coasts of the US during 1999-2003, there were 19 reports of mortality or serious injury caused by entanglements and 7 cases of mortality or serious injury due to ship strikes.  For US Pacific waters (mainly Alaska) during 1999-2001 there were 13 reports of mortalities and serious injuries due to entanglement and three reports of mortalities due to ship strikes.

conservationAction:
Humpbacks have been protected from commercial whaling worldwide since 1963, and there have been very few catches after 1967. Despite having been severely depleted to a world population in the low thousands at that time, humpbacks have since recovered strongly to a world population which was at least 60,000 in the mid-1990’s and has been increasing since. Humpback whales enjoy additional protective measures in some countries, such as sanctuaries.


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is currently increasing in numbers and range. It is not believed to approach the thresholds for any of the criteria for the IUCN Red List. Consequently it is assessed as Least Concern. Subspecies R. p. pyrenaica and R. p. parva are also Least Concern. However, R. p. ornata is assessed here as Vulnerable (D1+2) as it has a very small population and restricted area of occupancy. It was previously assessed in 1996 as Endangered, but as a result of strict protection and a programme of captive breeding and reintroductions, its population has increased such that it no longer meets criterion D at this level. Ongoing conservation measures are required to ensure its future survival.

range:
Rupicapra pyrenaica is endemic to south-west Europe, where it occurs as three subspecies: R. p. ornata, R. p. pyrenaïca and R. p. parva (Shackleton 1997, Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). The Apennine chamois R. p. ornata now survives only in three small populations in the Abruzzo, Majella, and Gran Sasso-Monti della Laga National Parks in Italy, although earlier in the Holocene it ranged from the Sibillini mountains (Marche Region, Italy) down to the Pollino massif (Calabria Region, Italy) (Masini 1985, Masini and Lovari 1988). The isard or Pyrenean chamois R. p. pyrenaica is found in the Pyrenean mountains, along France' s border with Spain (including Andorra: C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). The Cantabrian chamois R. p. parva occurs in the Cantabrian mountains (Spain). The altitudinal range of the species is 400-2,800 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
Overall, the status of this species has greatly improved since 1990. The population and range of the Pyrenean subspecies pyrenaica increased markedly from 1989 to 2003, although there have subsequently been some declines. The 1989 estimate for the total number of R. p. pyrenaica was around 15,500 animals (Shackleton 1997), but by 2003 there were estimated to be at least 53,000 (Herrero et al. 2004). This is now (2006) likely to be an overestimate of the population, as many chamois populations have locally declined since 2004 following severe mortality caused by viral disease, and French hunting bags have reduced although hunting effort has remained steady (C. Novoa pers. comm. 2006). Densities of R. p. pyrenaica tend to be lower outside protected areas. Not all subpopulations of subspecies parva have been censused, but the population was recently estimated at c.15,000 (Palomo and Gisbert 2002). However, the Italian subspecies ornata remains very rare. Numbers of ornata have probably been low for the last few centuries, only starting to increase in the 1920s as a result of increased protection. Numbers plummeted again to just several tens of individuals in a single population in the Abruzzo National Park during World War II (Lovari 1989). As a result of conservation action, including re-introductions and the establishment of two new populations, numbers have increased and the population is currently estimated at about 1,100 individuals in three subpopulations (Mari and Lovari 2006, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006), up from a total of c.400 individuals in the late 1980s (Lovari 1989). Not all of these are mature individuals.

habitat:
The species is found in alpine meadows, rocky areas, and the forested valleys and lower slopes in mountainous regions. This species generally stays above 1,800 meters in alpine meadows during the warmer months of the year (Nowak, 1983). These animals make altitudinal migrations from the forests in the valleys to the more open alpine meadows (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). In late fall and winter they have been known to enter lands below 1,100 meters, while usually staying on steep slopes, and rarely if ever occur in forested areas (Nowak, 1983). In recent years some populations have started to permanently inhabit forest (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999; Herrero pers. comm. 2006).

threats:
The threats to the species vary in different parts of its range. In Italy, subspecies ornata might be vulnerable to many factors because the total number is small, there are only three subpopulations, and genetic variability is very low (Shackleton 1997, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). Space and food competition with livestock, especially domestic caprins, seem to be the main limiting factors for ornata . Some poaching occurs, but does not seem to impair the viability of the chamois population in Abruzzo National Park. There are currently no problems with disease for the Italian subspecies (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). However, in France and Spain disease is currently the most important threat. Pestivirus appeared in the Pyrenean subspecies in c. 2004, and sarcoptic mange outbreaks periodically cause local declines in the Cantabrian subspecies (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). In Spain and the Pyrenees, chamois coexist with domestic livestock, but there do not appear to be problems with competition; indeed in the Pyrenees the presence of domestic livestock is considered to benefit the chamois, via maintenance of young and good quality forage, which increases the carrying capacity (J. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). Most Pyrenean and Cantabrian populations are hunted (with the exception of within National Parks). Chamois is a major game species in Spain and is important socially and economically as a source of rural livelihoods. Hunting is carefully managed and revenue from hunting is returned to the local community. In Spain, regional governments set quotas, and hunting is not at an unsustainable level (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). In France, hunting is essentially a recreational and non-profit leisure activity, and average annual quotas are under 10% of censused populations. This is sustainable, with only a few local exceptions (C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
The species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annex V of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (as part of R. rupicapra sensu lato). In Spain, the species occurs in three national parks, at least 10 natural parks, and a number of other reserves (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Spanish protected areas include Montana de Covadogna and Ordesa National Parks; Reres Natural Park; Alta Pallars-Aran, Benasque, Cadi, Cerdana, Fresser y Setcasas, Los Circos, Los Valles, Vinamala, Mampodre, Picos de Europa, Saja, Somiedo and Sueve Hunting Reserves. Spanish hunting reserves are large hunting management units with strictly controlled culling (C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). In France, it occurs in a number of protected areas (Pyrenees-Occidentales National Park, Roc-Blanc, Moudang and Mont-Vallier Mountain Reserves, Orlu Nature Reserve and other small reserves where hunting is banned: C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). A study of population dynamics is ongoing in France, as well as a detailed survey of the population size and distribution (C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). In France, there is a hunting plan that is designed to correct geographic imbalances in numbers and distribution, but might be difficult to achieve. A major restoration effort was carried out in the French Pyrenees between 1981 and 2000, involving the translocation of more than 600 individuals (Herrero et al. 2004, C. Novoa and C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). In Andorra there are a few small reserves with hunting quotas (C. Berducou pers. comm. 2006). In Italy, the autochthonous population of subspecies ornata inhabits Abruzzo National Park, and all recent and planned re-introductions and introductions are into protected areas. A group of 22 chamois was released in the Majella massif between 1991 and 1994, and more recently, 26 were re-introduced into the Gran Sasso massif in cooperation with local villagers. A captive breeding population (numbering 18 individuals in 2006: S. Lovari in litt. 2006) is kept in four large enclosures in as many national parks. No studbook has been kept, which is a major shortcoming in the captive breeding program (Shackleton 1997). The subspecies ornata is strictly protected under national and international legislation - it is listed on Appendix II of the Bern Convention, Annex II* and Annex IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, Appendix I of CITES, and as a “specially protected species” under Italian hunting law. A slowly increasing number of alpine meadows in the species’ range have been forbidden to livestock grazing to reduce competition. This action may generate cautious optimism about the species’ future. Proposed conservation measures include the following: 1) Consider benign introductions for a number of areas in the central and southern Apennines, once their suitability has been adequately assessed. Some national parks (e.g. Pollino, Gran Sasso-Laga, Majella and Sibillini) could in the future also host populations of the Apennine chamois. 2) When selecting individuals for transplants and captive breeding, consider Nascetti et al.'s (1985) finding of an alarming lack of genetic variability in the surviving nucleus of the Abruzzo National Park. This was most likely a result of living at low density for a long time and of population bottlenecks occurring at World Wars I and II. 3) Keep detailed breeding records, genetic profiles, and develop a studbook, for each of the captive breeding populations. 4) Avoid releasing Alpine chamois into areas of potential (re)introduction of Apennine chamois, as if such an action was carried out, it would prevent the subsequent release of the latter species (Shackleton 1997).Future priorities for the species as a whole include extending monitoring to all populations, and to increasing knowledge of demography and the impact of hunting. It is particularly important for monitoring and research to take place outside National Parks, where chamois are hunted.


taxonomicNotes:
The domestic sheep and its wild ancestor the urial are treated here as separate species (following inter alia Shackleton 1997), called Ovis aries and Ovis orientalis respectively. These taxa are sometimes considered to be conspecific, in which case the name Ovis orientalis has generally been used to refer to the wild species and its domesticated form, although some authors use the name Ovis aries for both the wild species and its domestic descendants (see Gentry et al. 1996, BZN 2003, Gentry et al. 2004 and Wilson and Reeder 2005).

"Wild sheep" and "wild goats" found on Mediterranean islands are generally recognised to have been introduced by humans (Shackleton 1997, Wilson and Reeder 2005), and genetic and archaeozoological studies suggest that they are feral populations of ancient domestic stocks (e.g. Groves 1989, Vigne 1994, Hiendleder et al. 1998, Manceau et al. 1999, Kahila bar-Gal et al. 2002). Consequently, such taxa should be included in the respective domestic species (Capra hircus, Ovis aries) and not as subspecies of the wild taxa (as proposed by Gentry et al. 1996, Gentry et al. 2004, and Gippoliti and Amori 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
This Red List rationale refers only to anciently introduced populations of Ovis aries on Mediterranean islands. As they are considered to be feral descendants of early domestic stock, they are classed as Not Applicable (NA). These ancient feral form are of interest as “living fossils”, reperesenting the very earliest domestic stock little changed from its primitive state, and deserve protection.

range:
This Red List assessment refers to populations of Ovis aries that were introduced to Mediterranean islands in prehistoric times, known as mouflon. These feral descendants of primitive domestic stock are clearly distinct from modern domestic and feral sheep, and are of conservation interest as "living fossils" and repositories of important genetic diversity (Shackleton 1997). More recent feral populations, and recently-introduced populations of ancient feral forms, are not considered as part of the population for the purposes of the assessment; neither are domestic Ovis aries.The mouflon was introduced in prehistoric times to Corsica, Sardinia and Cyprus. Since the middle of the 18th Century it has been introduced to many parts of Europe and populations have become established in many countries including Spain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, and the Canary Islands (Röhrs 1999). These introduced mainland populations are patchily rather than continuously distributed. In Corsica it is found from sea-level to above 2,000 m, whereas in Cyprus it is found from sea level to about 500 m.

population:
On Corsica it is known from two small isolated subpopulations (one in the north near Massif du Cinto and one in the south in the Bavella Reserve). There are only about 500 animals, and the population is probably stable (after a long decrease, during which the total population dropped below 100 individuals) (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006). On Sardinia there are at least 5,000 head (C. Murgia pers. comm. to S. Lovari). In the western part of Cyprus, the population is more than 2000 animals and increasing (EMA Workshop 2006).

habitat:
In Europe, the species inhabits Mediterranean maquis (shrubland), rocky areas, and open coniferous forest and green oak forest. It is absent from dense woodland (Röhrs 1999). Mouflon are hunted for trophies and meat.

threats:
Hunting is the most important threat, although competition and crossbreeding with domestic sheep are also threats (Shackleton 1997, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). However, these are not considered to endanger the species at present.

conservationAction:
The mouflon is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and on Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats & Species directive (populations on Corsica and Sardinia only). It is protected under national legislation in Sardinia, Corsica, and Cyprus. The Corsican population is being studied as part of an EU LIFE Project. As part of this project they are looking into increasing the population through captive breeding, and improving genetic vigour by mixing the two subpopulations (S. Aulagnier pers. comm. 2006).

redListAssessors:
Stéphane Aulagnier, Giorgos Giannatos, Sandro Lovari


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is now abundant and its range and population are currently expanding as a result of habitat changes resulting from rural abandonment. Consequently it is assessed as Least Concern. Hunting reservations and protected areas have played a crucial role in species recovery.

range:
This species historically occurred throughout the Iberian peninsula, including southwest France, Spain, Andorra, and Portugal (Grubb, 2005). It is, however, extinct in the northern part of its range (including in France and Andorra), and no longer occurs in the Pyrenees. Capra pyrenaica is now endemic to the Iberian peninsula. Of the four described subspecies, only two are extant: C. p. victoriae and C. p. hispanica. C. p. victoriae occurs in the central Spanish mountains (Sierra de Gredos), and has been re-introduced to a number of additional sites in Spain (Batuecas, La Pedriza, Riaño) and northern Portugal (Peneda-Gerês National Park) (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Cabral et al. 2005, Moço et al. 2006, J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). C. p. hispanica occupies the arc of mountains that run along the Mediterranean coast, from the Ebro river to the rock of Gibraltar (where it no longer occurs), as well as the Sierra Morena. C. p. lusitanica died out at the end of the 19th century, and C. p. pyrenaica went extinct in 2000 when the last known individual was found dead (Pérez et al. 2002, Cabral et al. 2005, J. M. Pérez pers. comm. 2006). It formerly occurred throughout much of the French, Spanish and Andorran Pyrenees, and persisted until recently in Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park in the Maladeta massif. The species is found from sea level to 3,400 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
The population in the whole of the Iberian peninsula was estimated at c.50,000 individuals in more than 50 subpopulations (Palomo and Gisbert 2002, Pérez et al. 2002). Subpopulations include those of the Sierra Nevada (16,000 individuals), Sierra de Gredos (8,000 individuals), Maestrazgo (7,000 individuals), Serranía de Ronda and Sierras de Grazalema (4,000  individuals), Puertos de Tortosa y Beceite Natural Park (4,000 individuals) Cazorla (2,500  individuals), Sierra Tejeda y Almijara (2,500  individuals), Sierras de Antequera (2,000  individuals), Sierra Morena (2,000 individuals) and Muela de Córtes (1,500  individuals) (Pérez et al. 2002, J. Herrero and J. M. Pérez pers. comm. 2006). Numbers have expanded dramatically since the early 1990s, when the total population was estimated at c.7,900 individuals (Shackleton 1997), and continue to increase. Its range is expanding in Spain and into Portugal (Cabral et al. 2005). In 2003 the Portuguese population consisted of a minimum of 75 individuals. (Moço et al. 2006).

habitat:
It occurs in rocky habitats. Even small rocky patches in arable farmland and on the coast may be used, although cliffs and screes interspersed with scrub or pine trees are the most typical habitats. It often lives in very close proximity to humans, and is a familiar and popular species. It disperses readily and can rapidly colonise new areas if appropriate habitat is available. It is an important trophy-hunting species, with some trophy prices exceeding EUR 2,000 (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Hunting can be an important source of revenue to local communities in rural areas. The species can sometimes be an agricultural pest, causing damage to almond trees (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006).

threats:
No threats are causing population or range declines at present - indeed the species is expanding. However, alteration and fragmentation of habitats (through agriculture, forestry, fires, and infrastructure development) may impact upon certain Capra pyrenaica populations, and competition with the introduced the aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) might become a conservation problem in the near future (Cabral et al. 2005, J. M. Pérez pers. comm. 2006). The aoudad was introduced during the 1970s in southeastern Spain, and recently an important range expansion of this exotic ungulate has been reported (Cassinello et al. 2004); competition between these two ungulate species can be expected. The impact of hunting (predominantly for trophies) has not been scientifically assessed (J. M. Pérez pers. comm. 2006), but the poaching of large dominant males might alter gene flow (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). However, hunting levels are broadly under control. Outbreaks of mange (Sarcoptes scabiei) occur sporadically and have caused at least one major population crash (Shackleton 1997, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Wild goats are occasionally killed by accident during wild boar hunting-drives with dogs (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Previously, the population was kept low by competition with domestic livestock, which restricted wild goats to marginal habitats. The causes of C. p. pyrenaica' s demise are unknown, but there are a number of hypotheses including competition for food with chamois, inbreeding depression, parasite infections from domestic livestock, climatic conditions, poaching, and low fertility due to plant secondary compounds (Shackleton 1997). The last remaining individual, a 13-year-old female, was killed by a falling tree.

conservationAction:
The species is protected under Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annex V of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. It is listed as Critically Endangered in Portugal, owing to its very small population in that country (Cabral et al. 2005). C. p. victoriae occurs in Sierra de Gredos, las Batuecas and Riaño Hunting Reserves and Manzanares Natural Park. C. p. hispanica occurs in a number of protected areas, including Sierra de las Nieves, Sierra de Grazalema, Sierra Nevada, and Sierra de Tajada y Almijara, Puertos de Tortosa y Beceite, and Muela de Cortes. However, most of the range occupied by wild goats is outside protected areas. Conservation measures proposed include establishing additional populations of C. p. victoriae in other areas to strengthen its conservation status by reducing the possibility of an epizootic or some other catastrophe wiping out, or severely depleting, the present small population. When establishing new populations, founder effects should be considered, and sufficient numbers of animals should be introduced to maintain genetic diversity (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Measures should be taken to reduce poaching (Cabral et al. 2005), and the impact of hunting should be scientifically assessed.


redListCategoryRationale:
This species is listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, and because it is not declining at nearly the rate required to qualify for listing in a threatened category. The species needs conservation action to prevent future decline.

range:
The Alpine ibex is endemic to Europe, where its native range is the Alps of France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and northern Italy (Shackleton 1997; Grubb, 2005). It has been introduced to Slovenia and Bulgaria (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). The ibex was driven very close to extinction in the early 19th century, and with the exception of the population in the Gran Paradiso National Park (Italy), all current populations originate from re-introductions or introductions. Although the range of the ibex has increased over the last century as a result of translocations and natural colonisation, its distribution is still rather patchy in the Alps. It occurs from 500 to 3,000 m (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999).In Austria, all current populations originate from re-introductions, although not always into former or even suitable habitat. The first colony was re-established in 1924 in the Bluhnbach valley (Hagen mountains), and the second in 1936, farther east in Wildalpen, so that by 1988, ca. 740 ibex had been released (Bauer, 1991). By the 1990s, the species is now found in the Bhihnbach valley (Hagen mountains), in the Northern Limestone alps in Wildalpen, and in the Pitz and Kauner valleys of Tyrol, and in the Styria (Hochlantsch massif). In France, it is found mainly in the eastern part of the Alps. Four ibex populations had been re-established in Germany by the 1990s. The first introduction was made at Koenigsee (Berchtesgaden) in 1936 with 24 animals. The founding animals came from the Aosta valley (Italy), from Peter and Paul, and from the Berlin and Munich Zoological Gardens. The animals dispersed after a few years to the Austrian Bluebachtal. In 1951, the population was reduced considerably after an outbreak of sarcoptic mange, but since then numbers have increased slowly. The population straddles the German-Austrian border, wintering in Austria and summering in the Bavarian Alps in Germany. A second population was established at Jachenau, partly the result of immigration of one male from the Austrian colony at Baechental, supplemented by four animals from Swiss founder populations in 1967. After the addition of several more ibex, this population increased to about 100 animals by the 1990s; however, its range is very restricted and there is little potential for expansion. A small colony in Oberaudorf was the result of a re-introduction in 1963 which failed to disperse. It is now restricted to an area of about 100 ha, and foresters consider it a problem because of range over-use. Another small, restricted population became established through natural dispersal from Austria, but its size is unknown. Ibex were introduced into the Rila mountains of Bulgaria (Atlas of the Mammals of Bulgaria) in the mid-1980s. In Italy, re-introductions, combined with some spontaneous migration from adjoining countries (Peracino and Bassano, 1986; Tosi et al., 1986a), have increased areas with ibex, but its distribution is still rather discontinuous in the Alps.

population:
After centuries of decline caused primarily by intensive hunting, at the beginning of the 19th century at most a few hundred Alpine ibex survived in the Gran Paradiso massif (Valle d’Aosta region, Italy). Current ibex populations in the Alps are generally restricted to mountain areas above the tree line and are the result of both translocations from the original core of c.100 individuals and natural colonisation (Dupré et al. 2001). These efforts, together with spontaneous migration from adjoining countries, have increased the population and the number of areas inhabited by ibex, although the distribution is still discontinuous (Stüwe and Nievergelt 1991, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). In the 1990s it was estimated that c.30,000 ibex lived in the Alps (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). Populations grew steadily from the 1960s to the 1990s, showing a mean annual growth rate between 3% and 6% (Dupré et al. 2001). About 15,000 ibex were estimated in Switzerland, 9,700 in Italy, 3,200 in Austria, 3,300 in France, 250 in Slovenia and, and 220 in Germany (Shackleton 1997).

habitat:
Alpine ibex typically inhabit open, rocky habitats at high altitude, above the tree line. Steep, south-facing slops with rugged topography and grassy vegetation are preferred. Below the tree line, at subalpine levels, ibex are only found in open, sunny woodland interspersed with rocky outcrops (Nievergelt and Zingg 1986, Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). Ibex feed on alpine grasses, herbaceous plants and shrubs (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). This species is diurnal, but most active during the early morning and late afternoon. Living in montane pastures, they eat grasses and some woody plants. They migrate seasonally to different altitudes, spending the harsher winter months at medium elevations. The animals occur in maternal herds of 10-20 members, while males roam solitarily or in bachelor groups.  Females gestate for about 170 days, and usually carry one kid per pregnancy.  Females are sexually mature by 18 months, and males are mature at 2 years. The species lifespan is typically 10-14 years.

threats:
Although the species is not considered threatened at present, there is concern regarding genetic diversity, the founder effect and minimum viable populations (Shackleton 1997, Maudet et al. 2002). Genetic variability in ibex populations is among the lowest reported from microsatellites in mammal species, and the Alpi Marittime–Mercantour population in particular has suffered from a severe genetic bottleneck associated with its reintroduction (Maudet et al. 2002). The ibex's distribution remains fragmented and many colonies are small and thus vulnerable to epizootics and stochastic events as well as inbreeding depression. Colonies with >60 individuals are believed to be viable as long as diseases (most importantly mange) do not affect them (Shackleton 1997, EMA Workshop 2006). Hybridization can be a threat where populations are small and sympatric with high densities of domestic goats, as is the case in Italy (Randi et al. 1990, Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). High densities of domestic goats and sheep may also have a negative impact on the ibex through parasite and disease transmission and resource competition (Shackleton 1997, J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). Appropriate habitat for the species may be decreasing, as the abandonment of traditional agriculture means that high-altitude alpine meadows are reverting to forest through natural succession (EMA Workshop 2006). Human disturbance as a result of increased tourism and recreation is suspected to be a general threat to mountain ungulates (Shackleton 1997). Alpine ibex are legally hunted in some areas (e.g. Bulgaria, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia), although hunting is completely prohibited in several range states (Shackleton 1997). Legal hunting is not considered a threat if it is properly planned and regulated, but poaching is a potential threat (Dupré et al. 2001).

conservationAction:
The Alpine ibex is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annex V of the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and is protected under national legislation in most range states. It occurs in a number of protected areas (e.g. Hohe Tauern and Kalkhochalpen National Parks, Austria; Vanoise, Ecrins, and Mercantour National Parks, France; Gran Paradiso and Stelvio National Parks and Maritime Alps Natural Park, Italy), and it has been the subject of intensive conservation management in the form of reintroductions and introductions (Shackleton 1997). Reintroductions began at the end of the 19th century in the Swiss Alps, while in Italy they have been significant only since the 1970s (Dupré et al. 2001).According to Shackleton (1997) and Dupré et al. (2001), the main proposal for ibex conservation is to continue restocking populations in appropriate habitats. Reintroductions should also be carefully planned, e.g. by (1) Using environmental evaluation models for selecting areas for reintroducing ibex, in conjunction with (2) a conservation strategy that aims to make the separate colonies part of a single metapopulation; (3) Giving priority to protected areas, or to other areas capable of guaranteeing efficient surveillance against poaching and disturbance (although this does not mean that controlled hunting areas should be a priori excluded); (4) Selecting founder individuals for new colonies according to specific criteria; (5) Limiting domestic sheep and goat grazing in reintroduction areas to decrease the possibility of parasite and disease transmission, resource competition, and hybridization; and (6) Screeing reintroduction sites for suitability in relation to health and disease transmission.Other conservation recommendations include ensuring that any harvest is sustainable (through research, legislation, and international cooperation), reducing poaching (through legislation, enforcement, education and communication), reducing the impacts of human disturbance (e.g. by providing refugia in areas with intense tourism), and monitoring all populations.

redListAssessors:
Aulagnier, S., Kranz, A., Lovari, S., Jdeidi, T., Masseti, M., Nader, I., de Smet, K. & Cuzin, F.


taxonomicNotes:
The domestic goat and the wild goat are treated here as separate species (following inter alia Shackleton 1997), named Capra hircus and Capra aegagrus respectively. These taxa are sometimes considered to be conspecific, in which case the name Capra aegagrus has generally been used to refer to the wild species and its domesticated form, although some authors use the name Capra hircus for both the wild species and its domestic descendants (see Gentry et al. 1996, BZN 2003, Gentry et al. 2004 and Wilson and Reeder 2005).

"Wild goats" and "wild sheep" found on Mediterranean islands are generally recognised to have been introduced by humans (Shackleton 1997, Wilson and Reeder 2005), and genetic and archaeozoological studies suggest that they are feral populations of ancient domestic stocks (e.g. Groves 1989, Vigne 1994, Hiendleder et al. 1998, Manceau et al. 1999, Kahila bar-Gal et al. 2002). Consequently, such taxa should be included in the respective domestic species (Capra hircus, Ovis aries) and not as subspecies of the wild taxa (as proposed by Gentry et al. 1996, Gentry et al. 2004, and Gippoliti and Amori 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
This Red List rationale refers only to anciently introduced populations of "wild" goats on Majorca and certain Greek islands. As they are considered to be feral descendants of early domestic stock, they are classed as Not Applicable (NA). The total population of these animals is >20,000, and although the range is small (Area of Occupancy may be less than 2,000 km2) and there are problems in parts of the range with hybridization with domestic goats and poaching, the population trend overall is believed to be stable or increasing. However, the Cretan subpopulation (subspecies cretica) has a very restricted range (the National Park is about 50 km2 and can be considered as a single location) and is threatened by hybridization. These ancient feral form are of interest as "living fossils", representing the very earliest domestic stock little changed from its primitive state, and deserve protection.

range:
This Red List assessment refers to populations of Capra hircus that were introduced to Mediterranean islands in prehistoric times, known as Cretan or Majorcan "wild" goats, or as agrimi (Cretan populations only). These feral descendants of primitive domestic stock are clearly distinct from modern domestic and feral goats, and are of conservation interest as "living fossils" and repositories of important genetic diversity (Shackleton 1997). More recent feral populations are not considered here; neither are domestic Capra hircus."Wild" goats can be found in mountainous areas in northern and western Majorca (Spain), and on Crete (Greece) where they were formerly widespread but are now restricted to an area of approximately 72 km2 in the Lefka Mountains at the western end of the island. There is a small, semi-captive population on the small (68 ha) satellite island of Theodorou (Shackleton 1997, Palomo and Gisbert 2002). Populations on the Greek islands of Dia, Agii Pantes (Agii Apostoli), Erimomilos (Antimilos), Samothrake, Gioura and others, are all considered hybrids of "wild" and modern domestic or feral goats (Shackleton 1997), as are populations in the Czech Republic (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). There are genetic and morphological differences between the Cretan and Majorcan populations (Seguí 2005). The species occurs from sea level to 1,450 m (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

population:
The 1985 Cretan population was estimated to be around 500 agrimi, and together with those on Theodorou island, make a total population of at least 570 to 600 agrimi in Europe at that point (Shackleton 1997). More recent population estimates vary widely, but some are as large as 2,000 individuals (G. Giannatos pers. comm. 2006). It occurs at high densities in at least parts of its range on Crete, although its total range is very small. In 1998 a census of Majorca found 20,000 individuals (Palomo and Gisbert 2002), although this included hybrids and feral domestic goats (B. Seguí pers. comm. 2007). The current (2007) estimate of the Majorcan wild goat population is 1,500-2,000 individuals, out of a total of 10,000 including hybrids and feral descendants of modern domestic goats (B. Seguí pers. comm. 2007).

habitat:
Agrimi inhabit mountainous areas, where there is a mixture of rocky outcrops or scree slopes and vegetation (shrubby maquis thickets or conifer forests). They tend to be found in relatively arid habitats, and are herbivorous, feeding on grasses, herbaceous plants and shrubs (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999).

threats:
For the Cretan population, the greatest threat is hybridization with recently feral domestic goats that are common even within Samaria National Park. Other problems arise from increased road accessibility, which in turn increases tourism and poaching problems. In Majorca, hybridization with feral domestic goats is again the main threat (Palomo and Gisbert 2002).

conservationAction:
It is listed (as Capra aegagrus) on Appendix II of the Bern Convention and Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive (natural populations only). On Crete it is fully protected under national law, which is well enforced. Part of the agrimi's distribution on Crete falls within Samaria (Lefka Ori or White Mountains) National Park. There are no current management plans in operation other then an attempt to control poaching. Agrimi inhabiting Theodorou island also receive protection. Shackleton (1997) proposes the following measures for agrimi on Crete: 1) Establish a strict control program to eliminate feral goats inside Samaria National Park to remove the threat of hybridization with the agrimi. Only reducing or eliminating the herds of domestic goats from the surrounding areas will prevent their immigration into the Park. 2) Continue improving the control of poaching by regularly patrolling the Park during winter, and by allowing no further increases in access. 3) Impose greater controls on tourism developments in the Park. These should include banning the development of major tourist facilities (chair/ski lifts, hotels, restaurants, roads, etc.) in the mountain regions of the Park and its surroundings, and strictly controlling visitor use (e.g. specific hours of use enforced, no overnight use of the Park). 4) The population should be censused and the area surveyed regularly throughout the Lefka mountains, paying special attention to the degree of hybridisation and human encroachment. 5) Overall, it may be desirable to eradicate domestic x wild goat hybrids, unfortunately F1 hybrids are difficult to distinguish from agrimi in either external appearance or behaviour. (However, compared to agrimi, the hybrid' s coat appears to be slightly longer and interspersed with black hairs, the horns are curved outwards a little more and are more robust, and the resting tail is held more horizontal than downwards.) 6) Determine the degree of hybridization of the goats found on the various islands to help direct conservation management decisions. On Majorca, the wild goat has been studied since 2001 and several groups have been protected in fenced areas and captive-bred (B. Seguí pers. comm. 2007). Palomo and Gisbert (2002) recommended that selective hunting should be used to remove the hybrids from the population. Since 2006, hunting of pure-bred animals has been banned (Decret 91/2006, Balearic Government) but hunting of hybrids amd recent feral domestics goats is allowed and encouraged. Trophy hunting of Mallorcan wild goats will be allowed again once populations have reached target levels stated in Decret 91/2006. To prevent poaching, capturing alive animals for trade, and illegal hunting of hybrids for commercial purposes, the Balearic Government is collaborating with SCI and Junta Nacional de Homologación de Trofeos de Caza, MMAM, Spanish Government (B. Seguí pers. comm. 2007).

redListAssessors:
Giorgos Giannatos, Juan Herrero, Sandro Lovari


taxonomicNotes:
See Gentry et al. (2004) and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for the debate about the correct name for this species.

redListCategoryRationale:
The species Bos primigenius is considered Extinct. It went extinct across most of Europe before 1500 A.D., but persisted in Poland until the 1600s.

range:
Bos primigenius was Extinct in the Wild, except in Jaktorowka Forest, Masovia, Poland, by the start of the 15th century. The last wild individual is reputed to have died in 1627 (Wilson and Reeder 2005). It is distributed worldwide under domestication (as Bos taurus), and feral populations have become established in Australia, New Guinea, USA, Colombia, Argentina and many islands, including Hawaiian, Galapagos, Dominican Republic/Haiti, Tristan da Cunha, New Amsterdam and Juan Fernandez Islands, and the United Kingdom (Chillingham cattle). Its native range encompassed parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East (Wilson and Reeder 2005).


taxonomicNotes:
Two genetic lines are distinguished in recent populations: the Lowland line (B. b. bonasus) and the Lowland-Caucasian line (B. b. bonasus x B. b. caucasicus). There are no surviving pure-bred populations of B. b. caucasicus (Pucek et al. 2004).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)EU 25 regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)The global population of free-living animals was c.1,800 in 2006. However, because some of these have not reached breeding age, and because polygyny reduces the effective population size, the total number of 'mature individuals' may be less than 1,000. Almost all of these animals live in the European region (as defined by the European Mammal Assessment), and approximately 550 of them live in EU 25 countries (Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia) (EBPB 2004). Although the population declined between the early 1990s and 2000, the current population trend is increasing. Consequently the species qualifies as Vulnerable under Criterion D1 at the European regional and EU 25 levels. Bison bonasus (Lowland line): Vulnerable D1In 2000, the total population was 931, not all of these are mature individuals. Although the population declined between the early 1990s and 2000, it is currently increasing.Bison bonasus (Lowland-Caucasian line): Endangered C1+2a(i)In 2000, the total population was 714, not all of these are mature individuals. The population decreased by >20% between 1990 and 2000, and has continued to decline since 2000. All subpopulations are smaller than 250 individuals."The fate of the European bison provides an example of the way in which a species may be brought to the brink of extinction in a very short time, and then saved only through great efforts. The saving of the bison has been an undoubted success, but further action to protect what remains a creature of relict distribution will continue to be essential" (Krasiński 2005).

range:
European bison Bison bonasus is the largest herbivore in Europe. Historically it was distributed throughout western, central, and south-eastern Europe and the Caucasus. By the end of the 19th century, there were only two populations of European bison left in the wild: in Białowieża Forest B. b. bonasus and in the western Caucasus mountains B. b. caucasicus. B. b. bonasus was finally driven extinct in the wild in 1919, and B. b. caucasicus had been extirpated by 1927. Subsequently, the species survived only in a few European zoological gardens (Sztolcman 1924). As a result of reintroductions and introductions, it now occurs in free-ranging and semi-free herds in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Slovakia. The introduced Kyrgyzstan subpopulation has recently gone extinct (EBPB 1996, Pucek et al. 2004). Captive populations are well distributed in 30 different countries worldwide (see Pucek et al. 2004 for details). It occurred from sea level to 2,100 m in the Caucasus (Pucek 1986), and in the Carpathians it is presently found at alitutudes of up to 800 m (K. Perzanowski pers. comm. 2006).

population:
In historical times, the European bison was widespread and presumably abundant in its native range. However, by the end of the 19th century it was close to extinction, with only two wild populations remaining (Pucek et al. 2004). Shortly after World War I the species was extinct in the wild, and the captive population consisted of just 54 (29 males; 25 females) European bison with proved pedigrees (Raczyński 1978, Pucek 1991), originating from 12 founder animals (Slatis 1960). The captive population subsequently increased slowly until World War II, when the species again suffered a steep decline, with the population dropping from 160 animals in 1943 to 93 in 1946 (Pucek et al. 2004).As a result of captive breeding, reintroductions, benign introductions, and intensive conservation management, the total population of free-ranging bison now stands at c.1,800. A further c.1,400 individuals live in captivity (EBPB 2004). Some captive animals are not recorded in the European Bison Pedigree Book, so this is likely to be an underestimate (Pucek et al. 2004). Population structure is such that approximately 60% of individuals are sexually mature (Krasiński 1978, Krasińska and Krasiński 2004). The effective population size is smaller than the total population size, because European bison are a polygynous species, so not all males have the opportunity to breed (Krasiński and Raczyński 1967, Krasinska and Krasiński 1995, Krasińska and Krasiński 2004). The free-living population increased more or less steadily from the mid-1960s to a peak of c.2000 in the early 1990s (Pucek et al. 2004). Following a period of decline in the mid to late 1990s, the population is once again expanding (W. Olech pers. comm. 2006), although the potential for ongoing growth is limited by a number of factors (Pucek et al. 2004). Two genetic lines are distinguished in recent populations: the Lowland line (B. b. bonasus) and the Lowland-Caucasian line (B. b. bonasus x B. b. caucasicus). There are no surviving pure-bred populations of B. b. caucasicus (Pucek et al. 2004).

habitat:
Optimal habitats for the European bison are deciduous and mixed forests, but the range should include about 20% of grassland habitats (meadows) (Pucek et al. 2004, K. Perzanowski pers. comm. 2006). In Białowieża Forest (Poland) they primarily forage in moist deciduous forests, and then in mixed coniferous forests (Krasińska et al. 1987, Krasiński and Krasińska 1994). Forest complexes with a mosaic-like forest type arrangement (such as Białowieża and Borecka Forests, Poland) are most favourable. In fresh deciduous forest, European bison find food throughout the vegetative season. In the Caucasus region, European bison prefer foothill forests; in summer, they feed on alpine meadows (Kazmin and Smirnov 1992, Kazmin et al. 1992). However, considerable plasticity of European bison with regard to food means they also forage in habitats where coniferous forests predominate (Krasiński et al. 1999). All European bison populations inhabit ranges that include open areas, such as mown meadows, deforested feeding glades covered with grass, clear cuts and young plantations up to 10 years old (Dzięciołowski 1991, Krasińska and Krasiński 1994, Krasiński et al. 1999). The attraction of open areas results from the fact that meadows and glades provide ungulates with much more food than the same area of the forest herb layer and food is more easily available there (Korochkina and Bunevich 1980, Kazmin et al. 1992). The species had an important role in the formation of the prehistoric European broad-leaf forest and forested steppe ecosystems (Pucek et al. 2004).

threats:
Habitat degradation and fragmentation due to agricultural activity, forest logging, and unlimited hunting and poaching were the primary reasons for the decrease and extinction of European bison populations. Pucek (1991) has summarised the history of their extinction. Among the primary reasons for the rapid decrease of the European bison population in Białowieża Primeval Forest at the beginning of 19th century was the over-population of deer species, and the drastic reduction of natural food resources for herbivores which resulted (Wróblewski 1927). During the period of World War I and the Russian Revolution of 1917, conflict and heavy poaching exacted a severe toll on remaining populations (Pucek et al. 2004). Conflict and political instability continues to be a threat to the species in the Caucasus, where reintroduced free-living herds have suffered very severe losses (leading to extinctions) in recent years (Pucek et al. 2004). Other current threats include lack of appropriate habitat, fragmentation of populations (and concomitant loss of genetic diversity), inbreeding depression, disease, hybridization, and poaching. There is little space for a large herbivore such as the European bison in Europe's contemporary ecosystems, especially in the west. The most significant limit for the enlargement of European bison populations is human population density; forestry and agricultural activity is not a limiting factor. Fragmentation and isolation of free-ranging (and captive) herds result in little or no exchange of genetic material. Small isolated populations quickly lose their genetic heterogeneity and are more vulnerable to extinction (Franklin 1980). As yet, the opportunity to reconstruct a more compact geographic range to facilitate migration of bison between herds does not exist. As a consequence of passing a dramatic bottleneck (the current population descends from just 12 founder animals), the gene pool is limited and animals are highly inbred. The average inbreeding coefficient is very high compared to other large mammals, and is equal to 44% in the Lowland line and 26% in the Lowland-Caucasian line for individuals with a full pedigree (Olech 1998). The negative effects of inbreeding, manifested in the decline in reproduction rate, are more strongly pronounced in the Lowland-Caucasian line than in the Lowland line (Olech 1987, 1989, 1998). Inbreeding exerts a harmful effect on skeleton growth, particularly in females (Kobryńczuk 1985), and possibly lowers the resistance of bison to disease and pathologies.Diseases appearing in European bison populations can bring serious threats to the whole species. It is not certain whether the species has always shown a weak resistance to disease or if immunity has declined, due to limited genetic heterogeneity. The most important disease affects the male reproductive organs and is manifested in the inflammation of the penis and prepuce, leading to diphtheroid-necrotic lesions, diagnosed as balanoposthitis. This disease was discovered at the beginning of the 1980s in Białowieża Forest (Kita et al. 1995, Piusiński et al. 1997, Jakob et al. 2000); although similar symptoms had been reported earlier (Korochkina and Kochko 1982) in Russia and Ukraine (Krasochko et al. 1997). Despite many years of study, its pathogenesis has not yet been elucidated. Other diseases that are potentially major threats to herds include foot-and-mouth disease Aphte epizooticae (to which the species is known to be sensitive) (Podgurniak 1967), and tuberculosis (Żórawski and Lipiec 1997, Welz et al. 2005) .A particular problem concerning the management of extant populations of European bison is the existence of hybrid herds, especially European × American bison hybrids living in the Caucasus. Two free-living hybrid herds have been established in the Caucasus Mountains, in close proximity to reintroduced free-living herds of the pure blood Lowland-Caucasian line. There are fears that all these animals will crossbreed, creating a mixture of various genotypes. According to Russian authors, the distances between herds are not so great, but the configuration of mountain ridges and valleys make it impossible for contact between them. There are also two small semi-free herds of European × American bison hybrids in Toksove Forest Park (St Petersburg) and the Mordovia Wildlife Reserve (Pucek et al. 2004). Finally, poaching as a result of administrative disorders and a failure to enforce nature conservancy law threatens free-living herds of European bison in many countries.

conservationAction:
The species is listed in Appendix III (protected fauna species) of the Bern Convention, and on Annexes II* and IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive. The European Bison Pedigree Book has been developed, which registers and publishes lists of European bison, enabling the genetic purity of the species to be maintained. A Conservation Action Plan for the species has been published (Pucek et al. 2004), and most countries in which the species occurs have national management plans. The European Endangered Species Programme (EEP) for zoos was established by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) in 1996, and now a third of the captive population is participating in this programme. Conservation measures recommended in the 2004 Action Plan (Pucek et al. 2004) include the following:1. Continue captive breeding, following a coordinated programme that focuses on maintaining genetic variability. Hybridization between existing breeding lines (Lowland and Lowland-Caucasian) should be avoided, as should hybridization between European bison and American bison Bison bison.2. Establish a Gene Resource Bank (semen collection in the first phase) to serve as a safeguard against loss of important genetic diversity.3. Continue reintroductions and benign introductions, into forests and other ecosystems (including large tracts of land where human activities are abandoned, such as former farmland or military training grounds). A target of 3,000 free ranging animals of each genetic line is recommended as a management goal. It will be necessary to link isolated subpopulations (e.g. by creating habitat corridors) and restore metapopulation function to enable the population to be self-sustaining in the long term.4. Regulate bison populations by culling, when necessary, to prevent populations exceeding the carrying capacity of remaining habitat.5. Manage habitat appropriately, for example by creating watering places, and cultivated meadows or feeding glades for use by other ungulates. 6. Implement and enforce stricter regulations to control poaching.7. Continue producing the European Bison Pedigree Book, and expand its scope.8. Establish an International Bison Breeding Centre, to coordinate reintroductions, monitoring of captive and free-ranging herds, and genetic management of particular herds.9. To promote protection of the species, upgrade it to Appendix II (strictly protected fauna species) of the Bern Convention.Further details, as well as recommended research activities, can be found in Pucek et al. 2004.


taxonomicNotes:
Saiga tatarica is the only species in the genus Saiga. Although there is little geographical variation two subspecies are recognised: Saiga tatarica tatarica (the nominate subspecies, to which belongs the majority of the population) and Saiga tatarica mongolica (endemic to western Mongolia).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)EU 25 regional assessment: Not Evaluated (NE)Both the global and European regional populations have shown an observed decline of over 80% during the last 10 years. The decline is continuing, and severely skewed sex ratios are leading to reproductive collapse. Consequently the saiga is assessed as Critically Endangered.

range:
Saiga tatarica inhabits the steppes and semi-desert regions of southeastern Europe and Central Asia. Currently found at one location in Russia and three areas in Kazakhstan. A distinctive subspecies occurs in Mongolia.

population:
Historically, it was a common species in Eurasian steppes and semideserts. From information provided in recent references it appears that between 1991 and 1994, the global population of S. tatarica was relatively stable at just under one million animals, the majority of which were in Kazakhstan (approximately 810,00-825,000) (Bekenov et al. 1998, Lushchekina et al. 1999, Sokolov and Zhirnov 1998). Recent information from A.B. Bekenov and Iu. A. Grachev (in litt. to IUCN Species Survival Commission 1999) suggests that the population in Kazakhstan had fallen by spring 1998 to around 570,000 animals (a decline of ~30%). The global population is now c.50,000, down from 1,250,000 in the mid-1970s. Most are found in Kazakhstan.In European Russia (Kalmykia), the saiga population steeply declined after land reclamation of the Volga basin started, but the species remained numerous within the distribution area. In the 1970s the population recovered to c.700-800,000 as a result of hunting regulation. However, since then the population has drastically declined. In 1980 there were an estimated 380,000 individuals, in 1996 196,000, and by 2000 just 26,000 (see Milner-Gulland et al. 2001 for annual survey results for 1980-2000). At present there are no more than 18,000 animals. Sex ratio is severely skewed; the proportion of males varies from 1 to 10 % in different years.

habitat:
Inhabits arid steppes and semi-deserts. Prefers clay soil open spaces covered with grass and avoids rugged terrain as well as sandy areas. A migratory species with widely separated summer (northern) and winter (southern) ranges. Lives in large herds, usually up to thousand individuals. Heat is at the beginning of winter when males defend harems of females. Gives birth in April-May to two, more seldom to one calf.

threats:
Uncontrolled illegal hunting for horns (male horns are exported for the traditional Chinese medicine trade) and meat since the break-up of the former USSR has led to the catastrophic fall in numbers. Selective hunting of young males and subsequent distortion of the sex ratio has affected reproduction: recent research shows that heavily skewed sex ratios are resulting in reproductive collapse (Milner-Gulland et al. 2003). A second significant threat is the destruction of key habitats and traditional migration routes. Agricultural abandonment is a problem in some areas; cattle grazing formerly maintained the grassy species but land abandonment allows another species (Stippa sp.) to encroach, which the saiga cannot eat. The recent increase in steppe fires is a further cause for concern. Severe winters can cause mass mortality.

conservationAction:
Legislation protecting saiga exists at national level but increased enforcement, and especially external funding for anti-poaching measures and linked rural development are urgently needed. Some protected areas exist within saiga range but distance between summer/winter ranges of the various populations hinders full protected area coverage. Extension of already existing and new protected areas is under discussion by the Russian Federation government. Some research is being carried out on numbers, range and behaviour. Total prohibition of saiga meat and horn trade as well as temporary removal of saiga from the hunting animals list have been proposed as key conservation measures.

redListAssessors:
Global assessment by D.P. Mallon (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group), regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU 25 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)The Alpine chamois is widespread and has a large population of over 440,000 individuals. Although it is declining in some parts of its European and global range, the bulk of the population is found in the Alps and is relatively secure. Consequently it is classed as Least Concern. However, several chamois subspecies qualify as globally threatened, and require urgent conservation action.

range:
The Alpine chamois is native to mountainous parts of central and southern Europe and Asia Minor, where it occurs as seven subspecies: balcanica, carpatica, cartusiana, rupicapra, tatrica, asiatica and caucasica(Shackleton 1997, Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). It has been introduced to Argentina and New Zealand. Subspecies balcanica inhabits most of the mountain regions of Albania, as well as Bulgaria's four main massifs. In Greece, it is currently restricted to 11 mountains, and comprising at least six distinct and widely scattered population groups from Mount Rodopi in the northeast and the Epirus mountains in the northwest, to Mount Giona in central Greece (Shackleton 1997). Subspecies carpatica occurs in many populations throughout the Transylvania alps and the Carpathian mountains. There have been a number of successful reintroductions (Shackleton 1997). Subspecies cartusiana is endemic to France, where it is restricted to a 350 km2 area of the Chartreuse limestone massif, centred around Grenoble, at the western edge of the French Alps. Subspecies rupicapra is found in the Alps of Austria, Germany, and eastern France, and subspecies tatrica occurs in the Tatra mountains of Poland and Slovakia. In Slovakia, it has also been introduced to the Low Tatras (Shackleton 1997). R. r. asiatica occurs in Asia Minor and R. r. caucasica has a restricted range in the Caucasus. It occurs from 500 m to 3,100 m in the Alps (Spitzenberger 2002).

population:
The Alpine chamois is widespread and generally increasing. Excluding the Caucasus population, there are an estimated 440,000 individuals in Europe, and in some protected areas densities may exceed 20 individuals per hectare (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). However, with the exception of the Alpine subspecies R. r. rupicapra, many subspecies are rare and/or declining: R. r. asiatica: There is very little data on the status of this subspecies, but it is believed to have undergone substantial declines (EMA Workshop 2006).R. r. balcanica: The total population numbers some thousands of individuals. Numbers are believed to be declining in all subpopulations (Shackleton 1997). R. r. carpatica: In 1990, the total population was estimated to be around 9,000 animals (Shackleton 1997).R. r. cartusiana: The population was estimated at 300 to 400 individuals in the 1970s, and 150 individuals in 1986-1987, but has since increased to c.2,000 individuals (S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006).R. r. caucasica: There is very little data on the status of this subspecies, but it is declining and has virtually disappeared outside protected areas (EMA Workshop 2006).R. r. rupicapra: This subspecies is widespread and abundant in the Alps. The number of individuals culled per year in the Swiss Alps and Jura mountains has increased steadily from c.4,000 individuals in 1950 to c.17,000 individuals in 2000 (Loison et al. 2003). R. r. tatrica: The population was estimated at 220 in 1999 (Jurdíková 2000), and had dropped below 200 by 2002 (S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006). Numbers have been declining steadily since the 1960s (Jurdíková 2000).

habitat:
Alpine chamois inhabit steep, rocky areas in the mountains, utilising a variety of habitats including alpine meadows, open rocky areas, mixed broadleaf woodland, and coniferous woodland (Pedrotti and Lovari 1999). They feed on grasses and herbs, and on the leaves of trees (Sägesser and Krapp 1986).

threats:
Poaching and over-hunting may be a problem for the species in parts of its range, especially where it occurs outside protected areas and private hunting reserves (Shackleton 1997, Jurdíková 2000). Many of the less numerous subspecies (e.g. R. r. balcanica, R. r. cartusiana, and R. r. tatrica) are threatened by the deliberate introduction of subspecies from other geographic areas (especially R. r. rupicapra), leading to hybridisation and genetic swamping (Shackleton 1997). Human disturbance, particularly as a result of increased tourism and leisure activities in mountain areas, may also be a problem (Shackleton 1997, Jurdíková 2000). Competition with domestic livestock and introduced species such as the mouflon Ovis aries is a threat to the more vulnerable subspecies, although it is not considered to be a major problem for R. r. rupicapra. R. r. rupicapra does, however, suffer periodic outbreaks of sarcoptic mange, causing local population declines (Shackleton 1997). In 2006 a new disease, pestivirus, was first recorded in this subspecies (J. Herrero pers. comm. 2006). In general, habitat loss is not a major threat to the species, as much of its range falls within protected areas. However, habitat loss may be a problem in some areas (e.g. for subspecies balcanica in Albania) (Shackleton 1997). Because its population is very small indeed, subspecies cartusiana is susceptible to extinction as a result of stochastic demographic or environmental events (Shackleton 1997, S. Lovari pers. comm. 2006).

conservationAction:
The species is listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention. Subspecies balcanica is listed on Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats & Species Directive, and subspecies tatrica is listed on Annexes II* and IV. Chamois occur in a number of protected areas. Subspecies cartusiana has been subject to intensive conservation management, including reintroductions. Detailed conservation recommendations are given in Shackleton (1997). In general, conservation recommendations that apply to all subspecies include ensuring that any harvest is sustainable (through research, legislation, and international cooperation), reducing poaching (through legislation, enforcement, education and awareness-raising, and provision of alternative livelihoods where necessary), reducing the impacts of human disturbance (by providing refugia in areas with intense tourism), and protecting the genetic integrity of populations (by avoiding translocations of 'foreign' subspecies that could hybridise with the local population) (Shackleton 1997). Monitoring of all subspecies is required, especially those that are rare and/or declining. To protect the High Tatras subspecies, Jurdíková (2000) recommends reducing illegal hunting (by closing and guarding parts of the western Tatra mountains). R. r. rupicapra introduced into Slovakia (e.g. the Lower Tatras National Park) should be removed as they pose a threat to the wild population of R. r. tatrica (Shackleton 1997).

redListAssessors:
Stéphane Aulagnier, Giorgos Giannatos, Juan Herrero


