Status of the Populations of Wild Animals Subject to Economic Use in Bulgaria

Velichko Velichkov and Lubomir Profirov

I. Wild Animals Subject to Hunting

Introduction

The wild animals subject to hunting are called, for short, game. The first Law on Hunting in Bulgaria dates from 1880 and was thereafter amended in 1904, 1907, 1910, 1926, 1948 and 1982. The Law on Hunting and Game Husbandry that is currently operative dates from 1982 (published in State Journal No. 91 from 20/11/ 1982). It is based on the state ownership not only of game, but of forests and agricultural lands, in Bulgaria.

The areas suitable for game breeding and sport hunting are divided into hunting regions. The smallest of the hunting regions is about 2,000 ha and the largest about 20,000 ha. Hunting of all kinds of wild animals in nature reserves and other protected areas is prohibited. At present there are nearly 2600 hunting areas in Bulgaria. The area suitable for development and practicing of hunting totals 10,293,962 ha.

The right of hunting belongs to adult Bulgarian citizens and members of the Union of Hunters and Fishermen in Bulgaria who have passed an examination and hold a hunting license and a permit for hunting arms.

The Committee of Forests carries out state policy in the field of game husbandry (Art.13, al.1 of the Law on Game Husbandry). The Committee of Forests and its subdivisions (the State Forestry Boards) manage and make use of nearly 16% of the hunting areas in the country, mostly in the state forests. More than 90% of these hunting regions are reserved for foreign hunters. The remaining 84% of the hunting areas are managed and used for hunting by the Union of Hunters and Fishermen in Bulgaria (formerly the Bulgarian Hunting and Fishing Union). These areas are also subject to international hunting tourism, but it is a small-scale activity.

Eight game-breeding farms, with a total area of 41,000 ha, are under the direct supervision of the Committee of Forests. The animals bred there are subject to selection for the international hunting enterprises. From these farms the wild animals are taken to different places with suitable habitats, but deficient in game.

The Committee of Forests, the Regional Forest Directorates, and the State Forestry Boards are all state bodies (Figure 1). Their functions are described in other papers in these proceedings. The Hunting Council at the Committee of Forests works without salary and assists the President of the Committee in decision-making. In cases where the President of the Committee does not agree with the proposals of the Hunting Council, the problems are submitted to the Council of Ministers for resolution.

The Union of Hunters and Fishermen in Bulgaria is a public organization. The hunters in the country number 88,000, organized into 2,500 local groups or chapters. In most cases, each group manages one hunting region. On average, 20-30 hunting and fishing groups constitute one association. There are 132 hunting and fishing associations in Bulgaria, all of which are members of the Union of Hunters and Fishermen, which has its main office in Sofia.

Management of Game Populations

As a result of the conversion to a market economy and of changes in the ownership of land and forest property, the operative Law on Hunting and Game Husbandry is no longer operable. A new draft Law on Hunting and Game Protection is being been prepared, based on principles used in the European Hunting Legislation, including: leasing relations and agreements between land and forests owners and game users; voluntary membership of hunters in their organizations, with a right to hunt after passing an appropriate examination before a state examining committee; linking of the practice of hunting to the true cost of the game; and consideration of the status and use of game resources, and the carrying capacity of their habitats, in order to ensure sustainable development of the populations and protection of different species.

The first hunting husbandry development plan was drawn up in 1931 by the Ivan Sokachev, who was Secretary of the Hunters Union at the time.

In Bulgaria, a special method is used to define the productivity of habitats for the wild species subject to hunting (Dragoev and Petrov). The game animals in Bulgaria are both indigenous and migratory. Indigenous species are these that live within the territory of the country throughout the year. The migratory species are birds that visit Bulgaria during their migration period between summer and winter habitats, or that come to Bulgaria during their breeding season.

Every spring, a census of the populations of indigenous game species is taken (except for the predatory animals). On the basis of the census results, the year's population growth and habitat capacity is ascertained and a management plan is drawn up, divided according to the hunting regions and the activities needed to maintain the density of the wild animals. The plan is summarized before the Committee of Forests and ratified by the President of the Committee.

The terms for hunting of the different species are defined in the license application form. On the suggestion of the Hunting Council, the President of the Committee of Forests can modify the hunting terms and prohibit the hunting of certain species, depending on the biological status of the game and the state interests.

Status of Game Populations

The main factors influencing the number of wild animals are: a) changes in habitats due to anthropogenic activities (drainage of marshlands, clearing of forests, cultivation of large monocultures, etc.); b) intensified hunting and overuse, leading to the exhaustion of populations and other problems; and c) environmental pollution, including the misuse of pesticides in agriculture and forestry, and losses during mechanized harvesting operations.

Attempts have been made to introduce other species as well, but they were unsuccessful.

One species that before 1968 did not exist in the Bulgarian fauna is the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides). It can now be found throughout the country, although its population is limited. Every year about 10 individuals are shot. It is a highly adaptable species. It is native to the Far East, but through artificial introduction has spread all over Europe. It has come into Bulgaria from Romania.

Over the last 30 years the number of jackals (Canis aurens) has increased significantly. In the past, this species was found only in southern Bulgaria in the region of Strandzha Mountain.

Analysis of data (Table 2) on the spring populations of game animals over the last 40 years shows that the large hoofed mammals (e.g., red deer, roe deer, wild boar, and mouflon) have increased greatly. The main reason for this increase has been the creation of large areas of monocultural cultivation in northern Bulgaria (for corn, sunflower, wheat, and other crops). These provide highly suitable habitat and abundant nutritional resources for these species for the greater part of the year.

In the past, increased hunting pressures, and in particular the increased use of hunting dogs, has sharply reduced the number of roe deer and red deer. In response, the state created nearly 30 special hunting areas, where hunting by the public was absolutely prohibited. These hunting areas have played an important role in allowing game to resettle adjacent areas and thus in increasing the reserves of game animals.

Every year the state spends about 10-15 millions leva for game protection, supplemental feeding, and for artificial breeding and improvement activities.

Hunting Impacts and Administration

Table 2 presents spring census data and the level of exploitation for game species, are based on official accounts. However, the level of exploitation reflected in this data differs substantially from the actual level of use. The first author has taken part in the country-wide game census for 17 years and can confirm that the data about the established number of game are true, with an admissible error of +/- 15%. He can affirm, however, that the number of game formally accounted as shot declined by 300% for the roe deer and wild boar, and by more than 1000% for the red deer. The reasons are mainly poaching and the conscious concealing of game shot by hunters. The Law on Hunting and Game Husbandry from 1982 obligates hunters to deliver to the state 50% of the big game that is shot, for which they are paid.

Hunting in Bulgaria at this time is nearly free of charge. The average monthly salary in Bulgaria is about 1200 leva; the annual fee for membership in the hunters' organization is 70 leva, the state tax is 30 leva, and the tax on hunting arms is 20 leva, for a total of 120 leva. The number of hunters is thus limited not by economics but by administrative requirements. According to Article 4, al. 3 of the Application Regulation of the Law on Hunting and Game Husbandries, each hunter requires an average hunting area of 110 ha. Until 20-25 years ago, hunters were interested only in game meat. Little attention was given to trophy hunting. In the past the owners of land and forests did not receive any revenues from those using the local game resources. In 1991, Ordinance No. 137 of the Council of Ministers from 12/07/1991 was issued, establishing rents per ha of hunting area. The higher rent is 3 leva per ha hunting area inhabited by red deer; the lower is 0.50 leva per ha for areas inhabited by rabbit, partridge, and rock partridge (this pertains only to the forest area). In agricultural lands, hunting is still free of charge.

Scientific Name Migrant Status "Bern" App. "Washington" App. Status in Bulgaria Pop. Size X1000 Pop. Trend Hunting Season 1992
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a) Mammals
1. Cervus elaphus
Red Deer 		R III     28.3 + 1.09-31.01
2. Cervus dama
Fallow Deer 		R III     7.0 + 1.09-31.01
3. Capreolus capreolus
Roe Deer 		R III     121.2 - 1.05-31.10
4. Rupicapra rupicapra
Wild Goat 		R II   CD 1.9 = m1.09-31.04
f1.10-31.01
5. Ovis amon musimon
Mouflon 		R III   V 3.9 = m1.09-30.04
f1.10-31.01
6. Sus scrofa
Wild Boar 		R III     48.9 + 1.06-31.01
7. Lepus europaeus
European Hare 		R       628.1 - 1.10-31.12
8. Sciurus vulgaris
Red Squirrel 		R III       - 1.11-28.02
9. Martes foina
Marten 		R III     30-40 + 1.11-28.2
10. Putorius putorius
Polecat 		R III     15-28 = 1.10-30.09
11. Meles meles
Badger 		R III     40-60 = 1.10-30.09
12. Nyctereutes procyonoides
Raccoon Dog 		R         +  
13. Canis lupus
Wolf 		R II II   0.4-0.5 + 1.10-30.09
14. Canis aurens
Jackal 		R       7.5-10.0 + 1.10-30.09
15. Vulpes vulpes
Red Fox 		R         = 1.10-30.09
16. Felis silvestris
Wild Cat 		R II II   8-20 = 1.10-30.09
b) Birds
17. Columba palumbus
Wood Pigeon 		P       200-500 + 15.08-31.12
18. Streptopelia turtur
Turtle Dove 		M III     200-500 + 15.08-31.12
19. Streptopelia decaocto
Collared Turtle Dove 		R       100-300 + 15.08-31.12
20. Coturnix coturnix
Quail 		M III     500-750 - 15.08-30.09
21. Scolopax rusticola
Wood Cock 		P III     0.02-0.03 = 15.08-20.02
22. Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard 		P III     15-20 + 1.09-13.01
23. Anas penelope
Pigeon 		M III     0.12-0.2 + 1.09-31.01
24. Anas clypeata
Shoveler 		M III       = 1.09-31.01
25. Anas querquedula
Garganey 		M III     0.1-0.2 = 1.09-31.01
26. Anas crecca
Teal 		M III     0.04-0.08 = 1.09-31.01
27. Anas acuta
Pintail 		M III     0.02-0.04 = 1.09-31.01
28. Aythia fuligula
Tufted Duck 		M III       = 1.09-31.01
29. Fulica atra
Coot 		P III     1-2 + 1.09-31.01
30. Anser albifrons
White Fronted Goose 		M III       + 1.09-31.01
31. Perdix perdix
Partridge 		R III   CD 454 - 1.10-31.11
32. Alectoris graeca graeca
Rock Partridge 		R III   V 10 - 1.10-31.11
33. Alectoris chucar
Rock Partridge Chucar 		R III   CD 55 - 1.10-31.11
34. Phasianus colchicus
Pheasant 		R III   V 91.5 - 1.10-31.01
35. Phasianus mongolicus
Pheasant 		R III   CD 133 - 1.10-31.01
36. Tetrao urogallus
Capercaillie 		R III   V 1.98 = 25.04-15.05
37. Pica pica
Magpie 		R       1000 + 1.10-30.09
38. Corvus corone
Hooded Crow 		R       150 + 1.10-30.09
39. Garrulus glandarius
Jay 		R       500-700 = 1.10-30.09
40. Corvus monedula
Jackdaw 		R       500-1000 = 1.10-30.09

Legend for Table 1:

Migrant Status: R = Main population resident
M = Main population has regular seasonal migrations
P = Park of the population has regular seasonal migrations
"Bern Appendix" = Appendix of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
"Washington Appendix" = CITES
Status in Bulgaria: V = Vulnerable
CD = Care-demanding
Population size x 1000: For mammals, the figures refer to winter population size after hunting and before breeding. For birds, the figures refer to breeding population size.
Population trend: The overall trend in Bulgarian population size from 1952 is given for resident species For migrant bird species trends from 1981 are given
+ = increasing
- = decreasing
= = stable
Hunting season: The column gives information on the range of the open and licensed hunting season.

Table 2. Indigenous game species subject to spring censusing

Game species Spring reserves Use
1952 1982 1992 1934 1952 1982 1992
1. Red deer 1430 15890 28370 no no 299 2138
2. Fallow deer n.q. 4020 6990 no no 30 202
3. Roe deer 9500 134060 121160 596 2121 5378 8506
4. Mouflon - 2630 3870 no no 5 83
5. Wild boar 1147 39670 48880 269 71 7292 11394
6. Wild goat 880 1580 1870 no no no 39
7. Brown bear n.a. 858 796 no 16 no 30
8. European hare 885750 890000 683070 203170 116960 102700 48050
9. Partridge   580400 453880 202800 19247 45284 60420
10. Rock Partridge 1320100 70800 54460 37330 1346 7690 -
11. Rock partridge   17300 10040       7260
12. Capercaillie 1390 1830 1980 49 20 no 17
13. Pheasant 3000 140000 91500 54 no 52500 58950
14. Pheasant (mong) - 312250 133280     122600  
Notes:
Plans for hunting of these species are developed based on census results. The census is conducted by the Committee of Forests and by hunters. The first census was undertaken in 1952.

Artificial Propagation

In the last fifty years, the populations of small game animals (e.g., rabbits, partridge, and rock partridge) have progressively declined. The main reasons are changes in their habitats, the introduction of chemicals and mechanization in agriculture, and (last but not least) poaching.

During the period 1961-1989 the Union of Hunters and Fishermen and the Committee of Forests actively bred game under artificial conditions and released it in hunting areas. The main species subject to artificial breeding and release were pheasant, rock partridge (chukar), and sheldrake. The average production per year of these species was: for pheasants, about 700,000; for rock partridge (chukar), about 25,000; and for sheldrake, about 150,000. This mode of game husbandry and management eases the hunting pressures on big game and other species.

The economic crisis that began in 1989 has led to a sharp drop in the artificial breeding and release of game birds. The enforcement of hunting regulations has diminished, creating conditions for increased poaching and hunting pressures in general.

Threatened and Vulnerable Game Species

The threatened and vulnerable indigenous species are: the wild goat, capercaillie, rock partridge, and pheasant.

The number of capercaillie and wild goat is under 2000. Their habitats are, to a great extent, the same, and are located in the higher elevations - over 1200 m above sea-level in the Rhodopes, Rila, Pirin, and Stara Planina Mountains. The capercaillie has already abandoned its habitats in the Stara Planina. Populations of wild goat and brown bear in the Stara Planina are separated from those in the Rhodope, Rila, and Pirin Mountains. The capercaillie and wild goat are located in hunting areas under the direct control of the Committee of Forests. Shooting of these species is restricted, but the limited area of their habitats and, to a certain extent, other factors (including poaching) restrict their ability to disperse to other habitats.

In areas granted to the Union of Hunters and Fishermen, roe deer and wild boar are shot actively, in groups with dogs, from September 1 to December 31. This greatly affects the wild goat and capercaillie, which cannot tolerate such disturbance, leading them to abandon permanently these habitats. These species have little tolerance in general for humans, and this fact makes them particularly vulnerable.

The rock partridge is widespread in the valley of Strouma River and in the Stara Planina Mountains. In the past, this species was very numerous, but due to unexpected changes in its nutritional base its number has decreased. Its typical habitats of small cornfields are no longer planted under wheat, and this impedes its subsistence.

The pheasant is an indigenous species. Its habitats are associated with the humid dense forests. The Dolna Topchia Reserve in Tundzha River valley has been designated specifically to protect the pheasant. The generally dry climatic conditions in recent years has affected its habitats significantly. In addition, the extensive introduction and reproduction of alien pheasant species and subspecies in nature has led to cross-breeding. This has impeded conservation of the genetically distinct indigenous pheasant species. Some farms are established exclusively for the breeding of pheasants under artificial conditions. Southern Bulgaria in particular has been designated for the introduction of the pheasant Phasianus colchicus.

Migratory Species

Migratory species are an important resource for Bulgaria. Every January, a winter census of water-loving birds is conducted at the main winter grounds in Bulgaria. The average numbers in the different areas are shown in Table 3. In 1990, the first research was conducted on species nesting in Bulgaria but migrating south in the winter (e.g., the turtle dove and quail), and on wandering, migrating, and indigenous species (such as the wood pigeon and collared turtle dove). Not all kinds of migratory and water-loving birds are threatened. In the last ten years the number of white-fronted geese wintering in Bulgaria has increased from 100,000 to 187,900. The exploitation of migratory species is regulated, and appropriate hunting restrictions established, including the number of hunting days allowed and the average bag allowed per day. In addition, hunting is prohibited in Atanassovo Lake and Srebarna Lake reserves, and in Shabla Lake protected area. There is, however, no general management plan. The Union of Hunters and Fishermen does not prepare statistical accounts of the birds shot. The data provided by the bodies of the Committee of Forests are tentative.

Animal Damage

There are several indigenous bird species that are to a certain extent damaging and subject to control. The meat of these species is not edible. Most important are the magpie (approximate total number - 1,000,000; approximate number shot - 700,000) and the hooded crow (approximate total number - 100,000-150,000; approximate number shot - 30,000-50,000). Although the jackdaw and the jay are present in great numbers, they are not subject to hunting since the damage they cause is insignificant.

Table 3. Total Number of Waterfowl at Main Wintering Grounds in Bulgaria (January 1992)

  Site Number   Site Number
+* Atanassovo Lake 5,030 + Ovcharitsa Lake 33,950
+* Durankulak Lake 27,020   Piasachnik Reservoir 6,140
+ Bourgas (Vaia) Lake 35,390 + Shabla Lake 101,470
+ Malko Sharkovo Resevoir 1,720 +* Srebarna Lake 45,150
+ Mandra Lake 23,920   Trakietz Reservoir 620
Legend:
+ Sites included in BirdLife International's list of the Important Bird Areas in Europe
* Sites included in the list of the Ramsar Convention

Predatory Mammals

With the adoption of Order No. 1023 from 31/12/ 1992, the Ministry of Environment declared the brown bear a vulnerable and protected species. Only aggressive bears are allowed to be shot. The number of predators depends directly on the population dynamics of the prey species. After 1960, for example, the populations of the red fox, marten, jackal, and wild cat boomed, allowing these species to expand their ranges. The effects can be seen in the hunting statistics. In 1934, for example, two martens were shot; in 1980 more than 6,000. The number of red foxes shot in 1934 was 11,000; in 1980, 71,000. In the 1970s the jackal was a protected species and could be seen only in southeastern Bulgaria; it has since spread out all over the country has a significant impact on ungulate populations. The number of jackals shot has increased more than 10 times since 1984-1985, and has now reached 4,500.

The increase in the populations of these species is related to the number of game animals that are bred under artificial conditions and release into nature. More than 850,000 birds (45 days old) have been released into the hunting regions. In the first 1-2 months, a great many of them fell prey to predatory animals because they do have the natural instincts of wild animals and cannot take care of themselves. There has been a boom, for example, in the reproduction and propagation of the marten in the developed parts of the country. In certain years, as many as 10,000 are shot.

Although bounties have been offered for every specimen shot and their furs have attracted high prices, hunting pressures have not significantly influenced the density of predatory animals. Data on the number of red foxes and martens shot in 1991 are not reliable since there was no bounty at the time, and many that were shot were not counted. There are no threatened predatory species, with the exception of the brown bear, which has been protected since 1 January 1993. The wolf, badger, and wild cat are protected under the Bern Convention, but are not in any real danger. The number of wolves is the smallest. The total Bulgarian population is about 450-500 in the spring, and remains connected to populations in Turkey, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania. It has a large range and not currently in danger of being genetically isolated. The populations of the badger and wild cat are in stable equilibrium, suggesting the need for continued restrictions on hunting.

Table 4. Hunting of Predatory Species

Species of mammals of prey Use by year Species of mammals of prey Use by year
1934-35 1980 1991 134-35 1980 1991
1. Wolf 263 107 205 6. Badger 1,935 11,624 1,119
2. Jackal 211 2,676 2,513 7. Wild cat 1,122 4,621 1,528
3. Red fox 11,080 71,564 6,392 8. Raccoon dog n.a. n.a. n.a.
4. Marten 2 6,324 2,335 9. Brown bear 12 n.a. 30
5. Polecat 3,107 12,083 2,070 10. Hooded crow and magpie   956,449 n.a.

Economic Evaluation of the Wild Animal Resource

The total amount of biomass (spring 1992) of wild animals is estimated as follows:

Indigenous species (spring) 10,058,700 kg
Spring species (winter period) 675,600 kg
Predatory animals (spring) 338,700 kg
Total 11,073,000 kg

The wild boar shows the greatest increase per year (about 1,280,000 kg), followed by the red deer (500,000 kg), and the European hare (700,000 kg). It is estimated that about 66% of the annual growth in game meat is taken by hunters; the remaining 34% represents losses after hunting and during the winter. Winter losses among the large hoofed mammals are 5-10%, mainly due to predation. Among the partridges, rock partridges, and pheasants, winter losses amount to more than 30% in the autumn reserves after hunting. In drawing up hunting plans, the losses after hunting and during the winter have to be taken into account. The level of use must allow for the conservation of optimal game stocks for each separate region and species.

According to official statistics, hunters obtain about 1,024,000 kg of game meat; concealed and unreported game accounts for another 720,000 kg, for a total of 1,740,000 kg (Table 5). This total is obtained from about 84% of the country's territory. In areas managed by the Committee of Forests, another 300,000-350,000 kg of meat are obtained and exported. The total value of game meat is estimated at 91,800,000 leva ($7,344,000) (Table 5). Fur revenues are estimated at 2,181,800 leva ($258,600) (Table 6). Because enforcement capabilities are insufficient, it is impossible to estimate the true value of trophies obtained by members of the Union of Hunters and Fishermen and other hunters in Bulgaria. The economic value of trophies obtained by Bulgarian hunters is probably small since current prices are insignificant when compared with international prices. However, about 75,000,000 leva ($3,000,000) are obtained as revenue from hunting trophies through international hunting tourism. The total economic value of game thus amounts to approximately 168,981,800 leva ($10,592,600).

Table 5. Amount of obtained game's meat price and cost

  With skin, without
plucking (kg)		 Price
(levs) 		Cost
(levs) 		Price
($) 		Cost
($)
Union of hunters 1,740,000 45 78,300,000 3.60 6,264,000
Committee of forests 300,000 45 13,500,000 3.60 1,080,000
Total 2,040,000 45 91,800,000 3.60 7,344,000

Table 6. Obtained furs

Animals of Prey Number Price
(levs) 		Cost
(levs) 		Price
($) 		Cost
($)
Red foxes 10000 130 1300000 12 120000
Martens 2000 130 260000 18 36000
Wild cats 1200 60 72000 8 9600
Wolfs 100 13 1300 10 1000
Polecats 2000 23 46000 8 16000
Jackals 2500 105 262500 8 20000
Badgers 1000 23 23000 7 7000
Subtotal 18888        
Rabbits 70000 3 210000 0.70 49000
Total 88800   2181800   258600

Table 7. Areas Suitable for the Main Species of Game, with Potential Stock and Take

Game species Suitable area
(ha) 		Potential stock
(number) 		Potential take
(number)
Red deer 1,925,400 19,000-23,000 5,500-6,000
Fallow deer 422,000 6,500-7,300 1,900-2,200
Roe deer 5,712,000 150,000-216,000 52,000-65,000
Wild boar 3,800,000 19,000-26,000 18,000-25,000
Rabbit 8,178,000 920,000-1,100,000 150,000-220,000
Partridge 5,337,000 580,000-900,000 70,000-90,000
Pheasants 1,472,000 220,000-280,000 80,000-130,000

Table 7 provides data on the amount of territory suitable for the breeding of important game species as well as the potential stock and take of these species.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In the last 25 years the number of red deer, wild goat, and other wild hoofed mammals has increased to the point where they have begun to cause serious damage to forests, tree plantations, and crops. Up until now, the damage inflicted on forests by red deer and roe deer have not been taken into account. In addition, the State Insurance Institute has paid out between 10 and 15 million leva in damage claims resulting from the effects on farm cultures of wild boars. The Union of Hunters and Fishermen did not assume responsibility for damages, and had no interest in supporting the game reserves in accordance with the available natural habitat resources.

With the reality of the shift toward a market economy and different patterns of land ownership, the structure of the agriculture will change. The existing territories of large-scale monocultures, reaching 1500- 2000 ha in size, will be parceled out. Areas under different crops will be smaller, and the diversity of crops greater. These changes in the structure of agriculture will bring about changes in wildlife habitat. Areas inhabited by red deer, roe deer, and wild boar will be reduced; however, the same habitats will improve for partridge, rabbit, pheasant, rock partridge, quail, and other small game species.

As can be seen from this report, the existing structures for the control and management of game resources can not guarantee the protection and sustainable exploitation of the populations of wild animals and their habitats. In practice, only one sector - comprised of the Union of Hunters and Fishermen in Bulgaria and the Committee of Forests - is making use of the game resources. State control of the resources belongs to the Committee of Forests, which is at the same time an important user of these resources. The municipalities and owners of lands and forests do not participate in the management and use of the game. As a result, land owners lack economic incentives for, and often interest in, protecting and taking advantage of game.

Imperfections in legislation, reflecting the peculiarities of the economic system of the last 45 years, have resulted in the spending of significant state funds to increase the amount of game, but at the same time have allowed this natural resource to be used for free by a limited group of men. More than 2/3 of the increase in game was used without any account. The system did not allow for well grounded decision-making in the management of game populations. Instead of a system of wildlife management that allowed for a balanced allocation of resources and opportunities, the result has been immense enclosed areas of between 100-6,000 ha with high densities of stocked game.

The National Assembly should develop and adopt a new Law on Hunting and Game Protection. It should introduce strong controls on, and strict accounting for, the use of all game species, including migratory birds and waterfowl.

II. Management of Other Animal Resources

Vipers

According to Art. 2, Para. 11 of the Nature Protection Law (1967), natural resources are to be preserved and wisely used. Special ordinances issued by the Minister of Environment set the conditions with respect to the wise use of given animal species or groups of species of commercial interest. These ordinances aim to guarantee the survival of the species by ensuring the rational use of part of its population.

As an example, Ordinance No. 107 of 21 February 1991 (published in Gazette No. 24 of 1991) sets forth the conditions under which vipers (Vipera ammodytes) shall be used. The ordinance specifies the period of the year during which vipers may be collected, purchased, or sold (1 May - 30 September), the minimum length at which vipers may be collected for commercial use (50 cm), and other restrictions. It also specifies the manner and order in which snake farms may be established, the geographic distribution of snake hunting, export quotas, and other conservation provisions.

The viper (Vipera ammodytes) occurs throughout the Balkan peninsula. Our country's population is approximately 100,000 individuals. The species is distributed in the plains and semi-mountainous areas up to 800 m a.s.l., although they may be found occasionally at 1100 to 1200 m a.s.l. The population is most dense in parts of the country encompassed by the former administrative districts of Kardzhali, Haskovo, Yambol, and Bourgas. Populations of secondary importance may be found in the former districts of Stara Zagora, Vratsa, Blagoevgrad, Montana, and Vidin. The approximate frequency of the species in optimal habitats in some of the above mentioned areas is 1 snake per 0.2 ha, this being the highest figure recorded for the country so far. There are no detailed studies on the numbers, distribution, and population dynamics of the species.

The viper is listed in Appendix II of the Bern Convention as a species requiring strict protection throughout Europe. However, when ratifying this convention, Bulgaria claimed certain reservations with respect to the species in view of its high numbers in the country.

After the publication of the previously mentioned ordinance in 1991, the Regional Inspectorates of the Ministry of Environment granted permission to 10 snake farms to operate within the country, allocating them a quota of 1121 snakes to be collected for commercial purposes. In 1991, 1071 snakes were actually collected.

Regarding the commercial interest in snakes, two entirely different trends have emerged with respect to the establishment and operation of snake farms. On the one hand a total of 46 new farms have been set up and registered by the court at the beginning of the snake hunting season. These farms were permitted to collect a total of 4035 vipers (about 4% of the country's estimated population). By the end of the 1992 season, 10 companies declared that they were closing down due to the many difficulties encountered in trying to dispose of the venom. The total number of legally kept snakes at regular farms was 3381; the allocated target quota was 1534 individuals short. Table 8 shows the number of vipers used by snake farms in different parts of the country.

At two of the farms the number of vipers kept at the time of inspection exceeded the allocated quotas for 1991 and 1992. In the Sliven region, where the largest snake farm in the country operates, the quota for 1991 was exceeded by 630 vipers. For this reason, the farm was penalized and no quota was allocated to it for 1992. About 40 snakes were confiscated from illegal farms in Varna and Shumen and given to legally registered snake farms in the same region, since the season was unfavorable for releasing the vipers back to the wild. According to regulations, newborn vipers should be released back to the same area from which their parents were taken in order to prevent the subspecies within the country from mixing. The large number of newborn vipers declared by the owners of some farms is due to the fact that during the period when collecting the vipers is permitted, collectors have caught a large number of pregnant females. If the conditions in captivity are good, these females may give birth to up to 6 young snakes. Release of newborn vipers back to the wild is strictly required, as the young cannot survive if they are kept together with the adults in shared cages.

Table 8 includes no data on snakes confiscated from illegal snake farms and then released into appropriate habitats. For example, in the city of Plovdiv alone, 220 vipers were confiscated from a private snake collector who kept them under very poor conditions. After the snakes were seized, they were released.

One "milking" of a snake produces about 100 mg of liquid venom, which in turn produces about 10 mg of dry venom. Snakes can be "milked" on average about 20 times each season; thus a single viper will produce 2000 mg liquid or 0.2 g dry venom. Theoretically, a snake farm with a total of 3281 vipers will produce about 650 g of dry venom each season. For the legally registered farms, the overall quantity produced per season varies between 20 g and 50 g, a fact that poses certain difficulties in terms of finding business partners from abroad who will purchase such small quantities. The price, according to pharmaceutical catalogs, is 230 USD per g. The overall production of viper's venom in 1992 has been evaluated at 149,500 USD.

Until now, viper's venom has been used primarily by the National Center for Parasitic and Contagious Diseases, based in the city of Sofia, to produce anti-venom. Domestic needs for venom and antivenom are considered satisfied for the next 2 or 3 years, and the National Center will not be purchasing new quantities. The National Center for Parasitic and Contagious diseases is also the body authorized to issue certificates for venom quality. However, this power was also vested lately in the Higher Institute of Veterinary Medicine in Stara Zagora and the Medical Academy in Plovdiv.

The purchase price for snakes has changed in recent years. In 1989, it was 3 to 5 leva for a good sized viper; in 1990, it was 20 leva; and it has recently jumped to 200 leva.

Table 8. Vipers (Vipera ammodytes) kept at snake farms in different regions of the country

Region No. of farms Quota No. of snakes at the end of 1992 Difference from 1992 quota No. of newborn snakes No. of snakes that died
1991 1992
Bourgas 2 50 250 - -250 - -
Varna 5 50 405 272 -133 95 5
Veliko Tarnovo 5 150 550 383 -167 203 11
Vratza 1 - 250 30 -220 * *
Vidin 1 - 80 - -80 - -
Pernik 1 - 150 148 -2 436 1
Pleven 1 - 60 57 -3 * 2
Plovdiv 6 - 330 277 -53 248 11
Sofia 2 200 170 103 -67 * 5
Sliven 6 406 220 1011 (+385) * *
Stara Zagora 5 100 580 221 -359 * *
Yambol 4 - 360 260 -100 * *
Haskovo 4 60 430 430 - 508 *
Shumen 1 50 100 189 (+40) 50 *
Ruse 2 75 100 - -100 * *
Total 46 1121 4035 3381 -1534 1540 41
Legend:
* no information submitted by the particular farm

 

Conservation problems with respect to this species might be summarized as follows:

1. In the past (until about 3 years ago) vipers were frequently been killed as a result of innate resentment and fear of snakes among local people. This was especially true for the venomous species.

2. The habitats of this species, which cover a large portion of the semi-mountainous landscape, have been considerably changed by the introduction of intensive agriculture. At present the species is most abundant in places that are largely unchanged by modern agricultural technology.

3. European wild animal dealers, and particularly owners of terraria, show a growing interest in our snakes and have been an instrumental factor behind their illegal export. Until quite recently many Czech, Polish, Hungarian, and German herpetologists (both amateurs and professionals) were checked and searched at the border. Many were found trying to smuggle large numbers of vipers and other non-venomous snakes, most of which do not occur in Central and Western Europe.

4. During the next 2 to 3 years, the commercial interest in vipers will remain at about the same level as in 1992.

We may assume that the following developments will take place insofar as the use of snakes as a resource is concerned:

No other member of our reptile fauna besides vipers are of commercial interest. Twenty-one species are protected by law, and keeping these species in captivity is prohibited. The consumption of tortoises still occurs in some of the southern parts of the country, but this practice is illegal and wherever such consumption is discovered the culprits are severely punished according to existing legislation. Keeping reptiles in terraria is not a popular hobby. There is, however, a society of pet-lovers called "Exotika," and a section of this society called "Terraristika," that unites the lovers of snakes and other reptiles.

Snails

Two species of snails of commercial interest occur in Bulgaria: the edible snail (Helix pomatia) and the garden snail (Helix lucorum). The edible snail has a lighter body color and rougher body surface.

Our country's geography, climate, soils, and terrain have enabled snails to become distributed almost throughout the country. In general, the edible snail occurs less frequently than the garden snail, mostly outside of developed areas and on mountain slopes. The highest numbers and population densities of snails can be found in valleys and semi-mountainous areas of 600 to 1000 m a.s.l. More rarely, the edible snail can be found and on south-facing slopes up to 1200 m a.s.l. Snails form pairs immediately after hibernation, depending on when the earliest, relatively warm rains begin in the spring. Breeding partners exchange sperm and then proceed to lay eggs in the moist soil. This natural hermaphroditism ensures high biological productivity of the species.

The use of snails as a resource was first regulated by Ordinance No. 222 of 24 March 1982 of the Chairman of the former Committee for the Preservation of the Natural Environment. This ordinance was published in Gazette No. 31 of 1982. According to this ordinance, the breeding period of snails (from 1 April to 10 May) was closed for snail hunting. The edible snail is included in Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and as such commercial collection is banned during its breeding season. In addition to the ordinance noted above, there are other restrictions on snail collection introduced by the body issuing permits to purchase commercial quantities of snails. One of these restrictions concerns the minimum size of the snail shell: the diameter must exceed 28 mm; smaller snails must be releases back into the wild.

Collection of statistical data on the commercial use of snails began in 1982 after the previously mentioned ordinance was published and enforced. Table 9 provides a summary of these data. No special research has yet been conducted on the population size and numbers of snails in this country. The only exception is the study of Totomanov (1973), in which the quantity of purchased snails for the period of 1963-1970 is shown for 4 main regions of the country.

From Table 9 one can clearly see that during the first 5 years the sole purchaser of snails in Bulgaria was the Central Cooperative Union and its 28 district subdivisions. Since 1987 the Forest Committee through its district directorates and forestries throughout the country has exploited this resource, mainly for export abroad through the foreign trade company "Murgash." In 1989, another foreign trade company, "Bulgarplodexport," joined the business of commercial snail collection and export by purchasing snails from forestries.

The state enterprises which operated until 1990 as the sole collectors and exporters of snails have started to privatize in two ways: by setting up many small private firms or companies of limited liability, and by acquiring economic independence from the Central Cooperative Union and the Forest Committee (thus becoming free to export snails for their own profit). This trend was especially pronounced in 1992 when the number of companies estab-lished in these ways reached 38. A total of 800 tons of snails were allowed to be collected and exported in 1992, this amount being parcelled out in shares of 5-10 tons each to some of the newly established companies. The small size of these quotas, however, forced these companies to integrate in order to better organize the export trade. In violation of the legal requirements, and with no quota allocated to it, the company "Kurtovo Konare" purchased and processed 242 tons above the 800 tons allocated to all companies in Bulgaria for 1992. The company in question was prosecuted.

Table 10 shows the territorial distribution of snail use for 1989 and 1990. In view of the incredible increase of the number of companies collecting and exporting snails during the last two years, such information was impossible to compile for 1991 and 1992. Districts where snails are consistently purchased in great quantities are the Sofia district and city (31.4% and 30.7% respectively of the total for the country for the last two years), followed by Lovech (14.2% and 20.9%), Plovdiv (15.9% in 1989), and Pazardzhik (11.3% in 1989). On the whole, the purchasing of snails is not evenly distributed over the country, but is greater in regions where snails are traditionally gathered or consumed as food. In some districts, namely Bourgas, Sliven, Yambol, and Targovishte, there was no commercial use of snails despite their presence in these territories.

The purchase price of snails has varied in the following manner over the last several years: in 1987, it was 0.50-1.00 leva per kg; in 1990, it jumped to 2.80 leva; in 1991, it increased to 7-8 leva per kg. If we assume that the export price of cooled snails (i.e., without further processing) is about 1 USD, then in 1992 the companies have made from the export of 1042 tons of snails an income of 1,042,000 USD. For the period 1982-1992 the country has been exporting an average of 745 tons per year, which works out to an annual income of 745,000 USD.

The main importers of snails are Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and, more recently, Germany and Sweden (which, however, require processed snails). The country suffers a loss in the exporting of unprocessed snails (which are cooled only). At present snails are processed in a factory owned by the "Kurtovo Konare" company in Plovdiv and in the town of Berkovitsa. Some of the companies, such as "Lordjina" in Sofia, have attracted new investments and have imported Swedish technology for the production of canned snails for export under much favorable terms.

With respect to this resource, we can expect that its use will remain at the level of 750-900 tons per year.

Table 9. Resource Use of the Two Species of Snails in Bulgaria (Tons per Years)

Year Central Cooper. Union Forest Committee (Murgash) Bulgarplod export "Agros" "Interpred" Other companies Total Number of companies Total quantity of snails
1982 725 - - - - 1 1725
1983 1050 - - - - 1 11050
1984 740 - - - - 1 1740
1985 675 - - - - 1 1675
1986 650 - - - - 1 1650
1987 465 37 - - - 2 2502
1988 408 120 - - - 2 2528
1989 300 (+140) 260 152 80 (+31) 8 (+13) 6 6800 (+184)
1990 383 (+32) 93 201 22 (+31) 20 (+4) 6 6719 (+67)
1991 229 - 155 39 (+7) 279 13 13702 (+7)
1992 198 87 100 - 415 38 381042 (+80)
Note: Quantities in parentheses are for snails produced from specially prepared areas (i.e., snail "farms").

Table 10. Quantities of Snails Purchased by Commercial Companies for the Period 1989-1990 (tons per year per district)

District 1989 1990 District 1989 1990
Blagoevgrad 16 4 Pernik 12 5
Veliko Tarnovo 7 16 Pleven 3 13
Varna 21 - Plovdiv 121 38
Vidin - 3 Ruse 70 26
Vratza 8 22 Silistra - 10
Gabrovo 15 44 Smolian 5 2
Kardzhali 16 6 Sofia city 93 133
Kiustendil 21 8 Sofia district 172 50
Lovech 120 125 Stara Zagora 10 2
Montana 39 32 Dobrich - 6
Pazardzhik 99 21 Shumen - 31

The Ministry of Environment has proposed that the quotas be distributed centrally and on a tender basis in order to reduce the number of companies participating in the tender and provide better export conditions for the winners. Control over the quantities purchased and exported will be much more efficient as well.

Our recommendations may be summarized as follows:

1. Extend the ban on purchasing snails until 20 May in order to provide the best conditions for laying eggs.

2. Stimulate the purchase of snails in districts where there has been no commercial use of the resource until now.

3. When auctioning tenders, priority should go to processed and canned products, thus ensuring fuller employment and higher income from the exported product.

Government Decree No. 137 of 12 July 1991 imposes a government tax of 1 lev per kg of snails (and 10 leva per individual snake), levied by the Regional Forests Directorates or by the Committee of Forests itself. The same decree provides an indemnity to be paid for each kilo of snails and 20 leva for each individual snake damaged or destroyed by hunting or collecting. We strongly recommend that these taxes and damages be increased and paid into a new fund with the Ministry of Environment. Since both kinds of resources are mainly distributed either within human settlements (snails) or in agricultural lands, there is no reason why the Committee of Forests should collect these taxes and indemnities. Neither is there any reason why the Committee of Forests should consider the use of these particular resources as a byproduct of forest activities only. The funds thus raised can and should be directed to financing special studies on the numbers and population dynamics of the snakes and snails, so that their use may be better and more wisely organized in the future.

Frogs

The marsh frog (Rana ridibunda) is subject to commercial use. This species is distributed ubiquitously in the country, with the exception of the higher mountainous regions. It prefers standing water bodies, riversides, marshes, etc. The breeding season is April-May. The female lays between 5,000 and 10,000 eggs, thus providing for a very good reproduction rate given suitable habitats and living conditions.

Until 10 or 15 years ago, frogs were used at the rate of 80 to 100 tons per year for the whole of the country. Main areas of for the commercial collection of frogs were the rice paddies in the districts of Plovdiv and Pazardzhik. As most of these rice-pads have been abandoned in recent years due to wsater deficits (and later to the rising price of irrigation water), frog production has dropped drastically to a mere 20 to 40 tons per year. The export price varies between 3 and 4 USD per kg.

There is no special ordinance to regulate the use of this resource. Companies that collect and export frogs are instructed only to begin the hunting season after May 30. The marsh frog is included in Appendix III of the Bern Convention, with the requirement that no disturbance should take place at breeding sites and during the breeding season.

In view of the high reproductive potential of frogs, and the availability still of quality refuges for frogs, there is no direct threat for the time being to marsh frog populations. It is important, however, that suitable water bodies be designated as breeding sites for frogs and adequately protected.

Sea Snails

The only species of sea snail of commercial value in Bulgaria is the Rapana sea snail (Rapana tomasiana). It was unintentionally brought to the Black Sea by high-sea merchant vessels from the Sea of Japan in the 1950s. Eggs of the Rapana sea snail probably stuck to the underwater parts of ships, and thus brought into the Black Sea. In its native range - the eastern Pacific coast and the Sea of Japan - the numbers of the Rapana sea snail have been drastically depleted by over exploitation. In the Black Sea, the snail has no natural enemies (such as sea stars), and so in the beginning the species' population boomed. Rapana sea snails feeds mainly on Black Sea mussels, and the mussel banks along the Black Sea coast have suffered considerable damage from the snail.

There is no special ordinance regulating the use of sea snails. The only restriction requires that snails be collected manually by skin- or scuba-divers. In this manner, given favorable weather conditions, some divers have managed to collect up to 5 tons per day.

The purchase price for sea snails is 180 USD per ton for Grade I snails (snails of individual weight over 200 g) and 120 USD for Grade II snails (individual weight less than 200 g). Two companies have exported a total of 37 tons, the export price varying between 150 and 300 USD per ton for Grade I and II snails respectively. Commercial revenues thus amounted to 8,325 USD for 1991.

In 1992 the interest in exploiting Rapana sea snail resources increased and the Ministry of Environment issued export permits to five more companies. Exports were contracted with Turkey at a stipulated price of 450 to 500 USD per ton of raw product. Under these conditions, exports totalled about 750 tons, bringing an income of 356,000 USD. No taxes were levied for the use of this resource. State earnings were limited only to the export taxes.

Our estimation concerning this resource is that there will be a considerable decrease in Rapana sea snail numbers in the coming years, and the species is going to gradually lose its commercial value, especially if hunters keep on collecting the snails manually. Something similar has already been observed in Turkey, which purchases Rapana sea snails from Bulgaria, processes them, and exports the processed product to Japan. Some of the Bulgarian companies are looking for possibilities of processing the snails domestically and exporting the product directly to Japan. We recommend that a tax be levied for the commercial use of this resource.

Species Included in the Washington Convention (CITES)

Bulgaria ratified the Washington Convention (also known as Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES) on 16 april 1991. The text of the Convention was published in Gazette No. 6 of 1992. A total of about 70 species in the Bulgarian fauna are included in the Convention Appendices. Until now only hunters' trophies of bear, wolf, and wild cat have had any commercial value as a resource and an object of trade in the sense of the Convention. The state of these species' populations and the extent of their commercial use are provided in Section I of this report. In 1991 the number of hunting trophies from bears that were exported and accompanied by the required CITES documents were: 7 to France, 1 to Canada, and 1 to Germany. In 1992 Bulgaria exported, in the sense of this Convention, the following hunting trophies: 1 bear to Austria, 3 bears to Spain, and 1 wolf to France.

Imports according to the stipulations of the Convention also included 20 species of plants produced from seeds in the Botanical Garden in London, U.K.

With respect to exotic species, re-export of the following species of parrots from Singapore through Bulgaria to Hungary has taken place: Psittacula longicauda - 20 individual; Lorius garrulus - 10 individuals. Four pairs each of two additional species of parrots - Cacatua sulphurea and Cacatua alba - were also imported into Bulgaria.

Bibliography

Boev, N. 1951. Wild ducks and geese breeding in Bulgaria. Lov i ribolov (Hunting and Angling), 2-3, 7-8. (In Bulgarian).

Dragoev, P. 1978. Enriching Bulgaria's game fauna. Zemizdat, 101. (In Bulgarian).

Dzhuninski, E. 1968. The capercaillie on Chuprene Mountain. Lov i ribolov, (4)18. (in Bulgarian).

Genov, P. 1987. Territorial distribution, numbers, density, resource use, and trophies of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa attila Thos) in Bulgaria. Contemporary achievements of Bulgarian Zoology, BAS (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), 231-234. (In Bulgarian).

Grimmet, R.F. and T.A. Jones. 1990. Important Bird Areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No. 9.

Gunchev, R. 1979. The brown bear in the Stara Zagora forestry area. Gorsko stopanstvo (Forestry) magazine 4, 44-46. (In Bulgarian).

Gunchev, R. 1980. Distribution and numbers of the chamois in the Stara Planina Mountains. Gorsko stopanstvo 4, 43-46. (In Bulgarian).

Hunters and Anglers Union in Bulgaria. Statistical Data: Main Book for Game Taxation and Use. Committee of Forests Annual Reports on Game Taxation and Use. (In Bulgarian).

Ivanov, B. 1979. A study of the numbers of some waterfowl species during the winter months of 1975/76, 1976/1977 and 1977/1978 in 3 marshes along the Danube. Ecology, 5, 30-43. (In Bulgarian).

Michev, T., P. Iankov, and L. Profirov. 1990. Atlas of Breeding Distribution of Birds in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, 270. (In Bulgarian).

Michev, T. et al. 1983. Midwinter numbers of Wild Geese in Bulgaria. Aquila, 90, 45-54.

Michev, T. et al. 1991. A short note on wild geese in Bulgaria in the period 1977-1989. Ardea, 79, 167-168.

Patev, P. 1950. Birds of Bulgaria. BAS, 364. (In Bulgarian).

Petrov, P., P. Dragoev, and Iv. Kolev. 1968. The Roe Deer in Bulgaria. (In Bulgarian).

The Red Data Book of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. 2. Animals. 1985. BAS, 183. (In Bulgarian).

Rose, Paul M. 1992. Western Paleoarctic Waterfowl Census, 1992. International Waterfowl and Wetland Research Bureau. Slimbridge, U.K., 108.

Spiridonov, G. 1977. Oases of Wild Nature. Zemizdat, 192. (In Bulgarian).

Spiridonov, G. and N. Spasov. 1990. Status of the brown bear in Bulgaria. Aquilo Ser. Zool. 27: 71-75.

Totomanov, Ir. 1978. Garden and edible Snails in Bulgaria and their economic importance. Zemizdat, 123. (In Bulgarian).

Tufekchiev, A. 1978. Study of the chamois in the region of the Pirin Mountains. Ph.D. dissertation. BAS. (In Bulgarian).

Tucker, G.M. and M.F. Hearth. 1992. The Conservation Status of European Birds. ICBP. Cambridge, U.K., 148.

Vankov, St. and G. Krastev. 1982. Classification of game habitats in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Report of Agrolesproekt, 173. (In Bulgarian).

Back | Table of Contents | Next