**3. Methods**

**Figure 3.** The number of yearly and monthly sighting reports from 2004 to 2009. The number of bear-sighting information

the dominant species being *Ulmus davidiana var. japonica*, *Betula ermanii*, *Larix kaempferi*, *Salix bakko*, *Aesculus turbinata*, and *Pterocarya rhoifolia* [5, 6, 8]. The surrounding mountains are high enough to have a timberline and support alpine communities such as *Pinus pumila* scrub. The mountain slopes in the subalpine zone consist of *Abies mariesii* at high elevations and beech

is from unpublished data provided by the Oze Preservation Foundation.

78 National Parks - Management and Conservation

(*Fagus crenata*) forests in the foothills (1400–1600 m in elevation) [6, 8].

We used data of 574 sighting reports gathered from 2004 to 2009 in Oze NP (**Figure 3**, **Table 1**). Using a questionnaire form, we gathered information about (1) the behavior of bears, (2) the place where bears are frequently sighted, and (3) the month when they are sighted. We interpreted frequent sighting as higher possibility of occurrence of conflicts between bears and visitors. Analyzing reaction of sighted bears, the nature of the bears in Oze NP was decided. Fixed kernel method is used to detecting where the bears are frequently sighted.

Data was collected by interviews and questionnaires. We made the inquiry form and asked witness, including hikers, volunteers, and staffs of visitor centers and hiking lodges to fill the form, and when witnesses come to visitor centers, staffs interviewed them according to the questionnaire. The questionnaire asked about the place where bear was, time, distance to bear, characteristics of bears (size, number, and body feature such as the presence of white patch on the chest), countermeasure of hikers, and bear reaction against witness for each sighting.

To distinguish whether bears are habituated or not, bear reactions were reviewed. We excluded reports when distances between bears and witnesses were longer than 30 m, because even if a bear noticed hikers at a large distance, the bear may not show any behavior. Cases were excluded if reactions of bears were not documented and if possibility that bear did not notice witness was high. If the bear did not show any avoiding behaviors, sneak to hiker, or threaten hiker, we determined it as a problematic response.

If bears occurred and would not move away from the place where distance from wooden board was less than 30 m, and even if they noticed hikers, bear management staffs close the trail and try to make the bears learn to avoid humans by chasing away or using firecrackers. The cases with such management actions were included in the problematic response.


**Table 1.** The numbers of sighting reports of problematic response gathered from 2004 to 2009 in Oze National Park.

The core area, where bears frequently occur, was determined by 50% kernel of bear-sighting points of relevant period.

All statistics and calculating core areas were performed using R-3.4.1 [9]. Core areas were drawn using QGIS 2.14.

*4.2.2. Core area of occurrence*

by 50% kernel of bear-sighting points.

mined by 50% kernel of bear-sighting points.

September and October enlarged and had two core areas.

The core area, where the sightings were concentrated, of each month was shown in **Figure 4**. The core area was largest in May, became smaller with the month until August. Those in

**Figure 5.** Core area of early, middle, and late June in Oze NP. The core area, where bears frequently occur, was deter-

**Figure 4.** Monthly core areas of bear sighting in Oze NP. The core area, where bears frequently occur, was determined

Establishment of Management Plan by Sighting Reports of Asiatic Black Bears…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73313

81
