**4. Results**

#### **4.1. Bear habituation**

The numbers of bear-sighting information for analyzing bear habituation were 30 in 2004, 19 in 2005, 87 in 2006, 29 in 2007, 23 in 2008, and 48 in 2009 (**Table 1**). And, the numbers of problematic responses were 7 in 2004, 0 in 2005, 13 in 2006, 7 in 2007, 2 in 2008, and 7 in 2009 (**Table 1**). Among problematic responses, two cases were associated with mother bear accompanied with a cub each in 2004 and in 2009.

#### **4.2. Bear occurrence pattern**

#### *4.2.1. Yearly and monthly variation*

The number of occurrence of the bears was 95.7 ± 14.0 (from 59 in 2005 to 159 in 2006, **Figure 3**). The number of sighted bears was significantly larger in August than those in May, September, and October (two-way ANOVA, year *F* = 1.247, *p* = 0.317; month *F* = 0.005, *p* < 0.05; Tukey HSD, *p* < 0.05) and marginally larger than those in July (p = 0.073). The number of sighted bears was slightly larger in June, when injury incidents occurred, than other months except for August (**Figure 3**), but it was not significant (*p* = 0.14~0.55). The number of sighted bears in August varied yearly; for example, the number was 72 in 2006 but was only 9 in 2007 (Tukey HSD, p < 0.05, **Figure 3**).

**Figure 4.** Monthly core areas of bear sighting in Oze NP. The core area, where bears frequently occur, was determined by 50% kernel of bear-sighting points.

#### *4.2.2. Core area of occurrence*

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

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

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

The numbers of bear-sighting information for analyzing bear habituation were 30 in 2004, 19 in 2005, 87 in 2006, 29 in 2007, 23 in 2008, and 48 in 2009 (**Table 1**). And, the numbers of problematic responses were 7 in 2004, 0 in 2005, 13 in 2006, 7 in 2007, 2 in 2008, and 7 in 2009 (**Table 1**). Among problematic responses, two cases were associated with mother bear accom-

The number of occurrence of the bears was 95.7 ± 14.0 (from 59 in 2005 to 159 in 2006, **Figure 3**). The number of sighted bears was significantly larger in August than those in May, September, and October (two-way ANOVA, year *F* = 1.247, *p* = 0.317; month *F* = 0.005, *p* < 0.05; Tukey HSD, *p* < 0.05) and marginally larger than those in July (p = 0.073). The number of sighted bears was slightly larger in June, when injury incidents occurred, than other months except for August (**Figure 3**), but it was not significant (*p* = 0.14~0.55). The number of sighted bears in August varied yearly; for example, the number was 72 in 2006 but was only 9 in 2007 (Tukey HSD,

points of relevant period.

80 National Parks - Management and Conservation

drawn using QGIS 2.14.

**4.1. Bear habituation**

**4.2. Bear occurrence pattern**

p < 0.05, **Figure 3**).

*4.2.1. Yearly and monthly variation*

panied with a cub each in 2004 and in 2009.

**4. Results**

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 September and October enlarged and had two core areas.

**Figure 5.** Core area of early, middle, and late June in Oze NP. The core area, where bears frequently occur, was determined by 50% kernel of bear-sighting points.

Human injury incidents occurred in early June. In order to examine the background of the incidents, we separated data of June into early (1st to 10th), middle (11th to 20th), and late (21st to 30th). The number of sighting reports was large in early June and decreased in middle and late June (**Figure 4**). The core area was largest in early June and become smaller in middle and late June (**Figure 5**).

Since injury incidents occurred in June and the number of sighting reports was larger although not significant, staff assignment should be discussed. The incidents occurred in early June; the number of siting reports was larger (**Figure 3**), and core area was larger than those of middle and late (**Figure 4**). Thus, increase of staffs in early June should be discussed separately to middle and late June. Since core area was large in early June, the larger area has to be covered. Thus, staffs should stand by each other at separate sites in the core area. From these points, one staff should stand by at Todengoya and another at Yamanohana area in early June. Since the numbers of sighting reports are smaller in middle and late June, additional staffs are not essential, but if needed, added staffs should stand

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

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

83

We found that the Asiatic black bears in Oze NP did not habituate to humans or artificial foods. This suggests that all efforts could be put into preventing from making "nuisance bears" in Oze NP. Relatively small number of staffs may cover the whole area of the national park. But if bears habituate, not only more possibility of injury accidents which may occur will be higher, but also the cost for bear management will be much higher resulting in employment of a larger number of trained bear management staffs. Daily action of visitor education with bear management staffs is the most important management action. If human injured incidence did not occur in a long period, attentions tend to be neglected. Headquarters of national parks

Of cause, these points are similar to other natural parks. Both staffs and visitors of national parks should understand that feeding wildlife, especially carnivorous large animals, results

This study was conducted as part of the Sustainable Use Project of Oze National Park, funded by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. We thank the staff of the hiking lodges and visitor

2 Faculty of Environmental and Information Sciences, Yokkaichi University, Maebashi-Shi

in considerable increase in not only the risks but also financial burdens.

centers and many volunteers for their help in collecting bear-sighting reports.

by at Todengoya.

**6. Conclusion**

should keep these in mind at any time.

Yukihiko Hashimoto1,2\* and Tomohito Anrui1,3

\*Address all correspondence to: yukih41@nifty.com

1 Oze Preservation Foundation, Maebashi-Shi Gunma, Japan

3 Katashina Moutain and Forest Academy, Maebashi-Shi Gunma, Japan

**Acknowledgements**

**Author details**

Gunma, Japan
