10.2305_IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en (1)

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

IUCN 2020: T12519A177350310
Scope(s): Europe
Language: English
Lynx lynx, Eurasian Lynx

Amendment version
Assessment by: von Arx, M.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: von Arx, M. 2020. Lynx lynx (amended version of 2018 assessment). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2020: e.T12519A177350310. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-
3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en
Copyright: © 2020 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae
Scientific Name: Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758)
Regional Assessments:
• Global
• Mediterranean
Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:

• Lynx lynx ssp. balcanicus
Common Name(s):
• English: Eurasian Lynx
• French: Lynx, Lynx Boréal
• Spanish; Castilian: Lince, Lince Boreal
• Mongolian: Evroasiin Shiluus, Shiluus Mii
Taxonomic Notes:
Currently, the following six subspecies of the Eurasian Lynx are proposed (von Arx et al. 2004,
Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, Kitchener et al. 2017):
- Northern Lynx L. l. lynx: northern Europe and western Siberia (Scandinavia, Finland, Belarus, Baltic
states, European part of Russia, Ural, Siberia east to the Yenisei River).
- Carpathian Lynx L. l. carpathicus: Carpathian Mountains.
- Balkan Lynx L. l. balcanicus: Balkans (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo).
- Caucasus Lynx L. l. dinniki: Caucasus Mountains south to Turkey, Iraq and Iran, formerly also in the
Kopet-Dag, Turkmenistan.
- Turkestan Lynx L. l. isabellinus: Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan).
- Siberian Lynx L. l. wrangeli: Siberia east of the Yenisei River (Russia).
Three further subspecies have been described that need further investigation and clarification:
- Altai Lynx L. l. wardi: Altai Mountains (Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia).
- Baikal Lynx L. l. kozlovi: Central Siberia, from the Yenisei River to Lake Baikal.
- Amur Lynx L. l. stroganovi: Russian Far East, Ussuri and Amur territories, North Korea, northeastern
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Lynx lynx – published in 2020. 1
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en
China (Manchuria).
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published: 2020
Date Assessed: May 25, 2018
Justification:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU 28 regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT) The Eurasian Lynx is abundant in the northern and
eastern part of its range. There are 8,000-9,000 lynx (number of individuals) present in Europe excluding
Russia and Belarus (LCIE in prep., Chapron et al. 2014) and this number has been stable since the last
regional assessment in 2007. The European subpopulation doubles to 17,000-18,000 individuals when
taking European Russia into account where in 2013 roughly 9,200 lynx were estimated (Monitoring and
supervision centre for game animals and their habitats (CentrOkhotControl) and with help of V.V.
Rozhnov 2014). Consequently, the species is classed as Least Concern at the European level. The lynx
population within the EU Member States remains small. With an estimated 7,000-8,000 total individuals
it is below the population size threshold for Vulnerable under Criterion C (10,000 mature individuals). It
does currently not meet the subcriteria, though. However, some of the larger subpopulations
(Scandinavian and Baltic) have shown declining trends in the past decade and if this trend persists, the
lynx population within the EU could meet Criterion C1 in the near future. Consequently, it is assessed as
Near Threatened at the EU level. Continued conservation measures are required to ensure the recovery
of the species. This is particularly true for the Critically Endangered Balkan lynx subspecies, but also for
the reintroduced populations in Western and Central Europe (Alpine, Vosges-Palatinian, Jura, Bohemian-
Bavarian-Austrian, Dinaric) which are still small and are classified as Endangered or Critically
Endangered. Additionally, the recent negative trends in some of the larger autochthonous
subpopulations (Scandinavian and Baltic) have to be reversed. Note: The assessment of the
subpopulations is mainly based on total population size (number of lynx individuals) or number of
independent individuals (adults and subadults, based on capture-recapture estimates by means of
camera trap surveys extrapolated to the distribution area of the subpopulation) as these are the
estimates usually available from the range countries. The number of mature individuals is, however,
lower than these numbers, which was taken into account when assessing the Category. 1. Jura
Endangered (D). Lynx numbers in the Jura Mts. have increased to c.140 independent individuals and the
range has expanded. It however still qualifies as Endangered under Criterion D because the
subpopulation size is below 250 mature individuals. In recent years, a few male lynx from the Jura Mts.
have dispersed to neighbouring regions (e.g. the Black Forest in Germany). However, there is too limited
immigration of lynx from neighbouring subpopulations, e.g. the Alps, into the Jura subpopulation to
provide a sufficient demographic rescue effect. Therefore, the Red List Category is not adjusted for
connectivity. 2. Vosges-Palatinian
Critically Endangered (C1, D). The Vosges-Palatinian subpopulation is on the verge of extinction.
Numbers had dropped from 30-40 lynx in 2005 to 1-3 ten years later which is a reduction of 91% (CR
Criterion C1 (25% reduction in 4 years) in addition to Criterion D for the very small population size).
Since 2011, two individuals have been detected in camera-trap surveys and one collared individual from
the EU LIFE project "Reintroduction of lynx in the biosphere reserve Palatinian Forest" has been
observed in France. In the frame of this EU LIFE project, a few individuals are being released into the
Palatinian Forest in Germany. Nine individuals were released in 2016-2017, with a total of 20 lynx
planned to be released. However, as the reintroduction only started in 2016 and there was a continuing
decline throughout the years before, Critically Endangered under Criteria C and D is still considered
valid. There is so far too limited immigration from the Jura Mts. to provide a demographic rescue effect.
3. Alpine
Endangered (D). The subpopulation has slightly increased to c. 163 individuals, which is however still
small and the subpopulation remains Endangered. In addition, the increase was partly due to the
foundation of stepping stone subpopulations through translocations of lynx. So far the subpopulation is
not receiving any relevant immigration from neighbouring subpopulations which are all also small and
having conservation problems themselves (e.g. Dinaric subpopulation). The Alpine subpopulation itself
is fragmented into four smaller subpopulations in the Western and Eastern Alps. Consequently, the Red
List Category is not adjusted. 4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
Critically Endangered (D). The distribution of the Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian subpopulation has
stagnated since the late 1990s (Magg et al. 2016). The subpopulation has decreased from an estimated
75 individuals in 2005 to c.50 individuals in 2006-2011. In the past few years, it has slightly recovered to
60-80 independent individuals in 2015 and numbers seem to stabilize. 60-80 independent individuals
correspond to about 45-60 mature individuals, which is just around the threshold (50 mature
individuals) for Endangered under Criterion D. Considering the previous long-term negative trend and
that limiting factors have not yet been reversed (Magg et al. 2016) suggests however a precautionary
approach (thus taking into account the lower population estimate of less than 50 mature individuals)
and classification as Critically Endangered. Neighbouring lynx subpopulations 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 subpopulation size in total has been rather stable in the past decade at around 130
individuals, however, it has decreased in the northern part of its range. Besides a high level of human-
caused mortality (Sindicic et al. 2016), problems of inbreeding have been noticed due to the very few
founder individuals released in 1973 (Sindicic et al. 2013). The subpopulation is isolated and no rescue
effect can be expected. It is assessed as Endangered under Criterion D. Efforts are on the way to
reinforce the subpopulation with lynx from the Carpathians in the frame of the EU LIFE project
“Preventing the Extinction of the Dinaric-SE Alpine Lynx Population Through Reinforcement and Long-
term Conservation“). 6. Carpathian
Least Concern. The Carpathians host one of the largest continuous lynx subpopulations in Europe. The
overall number is about 2,100-2,400. Overall it appears to be rather stable, although in certain regions
numbers have decreased, either reflecting a real trend (e.g. Ukraine and Bulgaria) or due to better
monitoring systems in place which proved that previous numbers were overestimated (e.g. Slovakia,
Kubala et al. 2017). When considering the number of mature individuals, the threshold for Near
Threatened under Criterion D is almost met. A careful monitoring of the situation (which requires the
implementation of better monitoring systems in many of the range countries) and a re-assessment
within a few years are recommended. 7. Scandinavian
Vulnerable (C1). The Scandinavian subpopulation has a large range (AOO over 450,000 km²) but has
further declined in numbers in the past decade. It is now estimated at c.1,300-1,800 individuals
compared to c.1,800-2,300 in 2011 and c.2,000 in 2001. The drastic decline, which is at least in part due
to a management goal designed to reduce conflicts related to sheep and semi-domestic reindeer
depredation, would qualify for classifying the subpopulation as Endangered under Criterion C1 (less
than 2,500 mature individuals and a 20% decline over two generations). However, in 2015 and 2016, the
decline was halted. There is some connectivity with the Karelian subpopulation and single individuals
are likely to disperse. The Category is therefore altered to Vulnerable. The extent of this connectivity and
the phylogeny of these two subpopulations, however, need some further investigation. A careful
monitoring of the situation, an adaptive adjustment of hunting quotas and derogations, and a re-
assessment within a few years are highly recommended. 8. Karelian
Least Concern. The subpopulation in Finland has further increased and is now estimated c.2,500
individuals (compared to 1,100 animals in 2004). Although there is no up-to-date information from
Russian Karelia, the overall subpopulation is also thought to be stable there. It is furthermore connected
with the large neighbouring subpopulation in Russia from which a potential rescue effect is to be
expected. Therefore, the Karelian subpopulation is assessed as Least Concern. 9. Baltic
Least Concern. The subpopulation consists of around 1,200-1,500 individuals, without considering
Russia and Belarus for which no current information is available. Although there was a slight decrease –
particularly in Estonia (probably due to the effect of prey declines following snow-rich winters) – this
subpopulation is connected both to the Karelian and the larger Asian Russian subpopulation from which
a potential rescue effect can be expected. It is therefore assessed as Least Concern. Developments in
the Baltic States and Poland, however, need to be carefully surveyed as the distribution area in this part
of the range is still fragmented. A further reduction in Estonia has to be prevented. 10. Balkan
Critically Endangered (D). This subpopulation consists of only 20-39 mature individuals and has been
assessed as Critically Endangered in 2015 (Melovski et al. 2015). Number and distribution have not
changed since, and the population is isolated. Therefore, Critically Endangered under Criterion D is still
valid. 11. Harz
Critically Endangered (D). This population has been newly founded through re-introduction of lynx into
the Harz Mountains in Germany. Formerly treated as an “occurrence”, it is now considered a
subpopulation. Between 2000 and 2006, 24 lynx were reintroduced into the Harz National Park in Lower
Saxony. Since 2002, reproduction is regularly recorded (https://www.luchsprojekt-
harz.de/luchsprojekt/de/start/). It is currently estimated at 46 independent individuals, is isolated, and
qualifies for Critically Endangered under Criterion D (below 50 mature individuals).
Previously Published Red List Assessments

2018 – Least Concern (LC)
2007 – Least Concern (LC)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
See the Supplementary Information for a map of this species' distribution.
The Eurasian Lynx has a very broad distribution. It occurs along forested mountain ranges in
southeastern and Central Europe and from northern and eastern Europe through the boreal forests of
Russia, down into Central Asia and the Tibetan plateau (Nowell and Jackson 1996, Sunquist and Sunquist
2002). In Europe, it was probably absent from some 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 most of western
and Central Europe, except for the Carpathian Mountains. It also survived in a small area in the
southeastern Balkan (FYR Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro). Larger populations persisted in
Fennoscandia and the Baltic States (but populations were heavily reduced), and in European Russia.
Human activities reduced the lynx to its minimum numbers in the 1950s. In recent decades, many
populations have recovered (Chapron et al. 2014). 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. There are some local but insufficiently documented releases known to support
lynx populations in Poland and Lithuania. Lynx occurring in Europe are viewed as belonging to eleven
distinct populations (von Arx et al. 2004, Linnell et al. 2008, LCIE in prep.):
1. Jura
This population stretches across the Jura Mountains from central-eastern France north of the Rhone to
western Switzerland between Geneva and Basel. Based on reintroduction in Switzerland in 1974/75,
lynx have now colonised almost the entire mountain range.
2. Vosges-Palatinian
Founded through re-introductions in the French Vosges Mountains in the 1980s, the established
population expanded to the German Palatinian Forest. The population started declining in the 1990s
and is currently at the verge of extinction. A current EU LIFE project (Reintroduction of lynx in the
biosphere reserve Palatinian Forest”) aims at releasing 20 lynx from the Carpathian and Jura populations
into the Palatinian Forest in Germany (https://snu.rlp.de/de/projekte/luchs/).
3. Alpine
Originates from re-introduction projects in the 1970s in Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia. In the 1990s
the population was fragmented into two sub-populations, nowadays, four subpopulations are identified
(Molinari et al. 2018): (1) The area occupied by lynx in the north-western Alps (CH, FR) which has
increased, (2) a new subpopulation founded in north-eastern Switzerland with the translocation of 12
lynx between 2001 and 2008, (3) a new occurrence established through the release of five lynx, from
2011 to 2017, in the north-eastern Alps (Kalkalpen AT) and (4) the south-eastern Alpine subpopulation
(IT, SI) which has however decreased continuously since 2000.
4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
The population stretches in the triangle of the three range countries: in the south-western Czech
Republic (Šumava Mts., SE-part of the Český les Mts. = Oberpfälzerwald, the Šumava foothills, Blanský
les, Novohradské Mts.; Kutal et al. 2017), eastern Germany (Bayerischer and Oberpfälzer Forest,
Fichtelgebirge, Frankenwald), and northern Austria (Böhmerwald, Mühlviertel, Waldviertel).
5. Dinaric
The Dinaric population is distributed from central-southern Slovenia through central Croatia (Gorski
Kotar and Lika) up to western Bosnia.
6. Carpathian
The distribution area covers at present almost the entire mountain chain of the Carpathians. The
stronghold of the population is in Romania. Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine also hold relevant population
segments. The distribution in Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria is scattered. Distribution and numbers may
be overestimated as in many of the range countries no robust monitoring system exists.
7. Scandinavian
Lynx occur from southeastern to northern Norway and almost all over Sweden.
8. Karelian
The population stretches from the Republic of Karelia across to Finland where it is however only
permanently present in the south to the centre of the country. The occasional presence in northern
Finland is consistent with the situation in Murmanskaya Oblast, where indications are also much more
scarcely compared to Karelia (Bragina et al. 2015) and with animals shared with the Scandinavian
population.
9. Baltic
In the north (Estonia, eastern Latvia and northern Belarus) the distribution is continuous with Russia. In
the rest of the range (Lithuania, main parts of Belarus, Poland, the Ukraine, and Kaliningrad) the
distribution is highly fragmented.
10. Balkan
The Balkan Lynx is distributed in the south-west Balkans, mainly in the border area between Albania and
Macedonia. Mavrovo National Park in Macedonia is the stronghold of the population. The Munella Mts.
in Albania host the second but smaller subpopulation. Two different individuals were pictured in
Bjeshkët e Nemuna, western Kosovo, not far from the border with Montenegro. From time to time there
are single, unconfirmed observations in northern Greece. 11. Harz
Lynx were reintroduced into the Harz National Park in Lower Saxony from 2000–2006. They have settled
the entire Harz Mountains and surrounding areas.
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Country Occurrence:
Native, Extant (resident): Albania; Belarus; Czechia; Estonia; Finland; Greece (Greece (mainland));
Latvia; Lithuania; North Macedonia; Norway; Poland; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia;
Sweden; Ukraine
Native, Extant (passage): Greece
Extant & Reintroduced (resident): Austria; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia; France (France (mainland));
Germany; Italy (Italy (mainland)); Slovenia; Switzerland
Presence Uncertain & Vagrant: Bulgaria; Hungary; Montenegro
Population
The total number of lynx in Europe is estimated at 8,000-9,000 individuals (excluding Russia and Belarus)
and 17,000-18,000 individuals including European Russia, respectively. The largest subpopulations are
the autochthonous ones in the north and east which have around 1,500-2,500 individuals each:
Scandinavian (~1,300‐1,800), Karelian (Finish part ~2,500), Baltic (~1,200-1,500), Carpathian (~2,100-
2,400). All the re‐introduced populations are still of small size. The current subpopulation sizes are as
follows: Alpine 140‐170, Bohemian‐Bavarian-Austrian 60-80, Dinaric ~140, Jura ~140, Vosges‐Palatinian
a few individuals, Harz 46 individuals. The subpopulation of greatest conservation concern is the fifth
autochthonous one, the Balkan lynx subpopulation, which numbers only 20-39 mature individuals.
Most subpopulations have generally been stable in the past few years. Exceptions are the Scandinavian
and Baltic subpopulations which have decreased and the Vosges-Palatinian population which has almost
vanished. Information on the status, distribution and developments of the European subpopulations
over time are compiled in Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten (1990), Breitenmoser et al. (2000),
von Arx et al. (2004), Linnell et al. (2008), Kasczensky et al. (2013), Chapron et al. (2014) and LCIE (in
prep.).
Current Population Trend: Stable
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Throughout Europe and Siberia, the Eurasian Lynx is primarily associated with forested areas which have
good ungulate populations and which provide enough cover for hunting. It inhabits extended,
temperate and boreal forests from the Atlantic in Western Europe to the Pacific coast in the Russian Far
East (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In Europe, it can be found in Mediterranean
forests up to the transition zone of taiga to tundra and lives from sea level up to the tree line
(Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In the far north of Scandinavia lynx can also make
extensive use of open alpine tundra habitats. The Eurasian lynx is the largest species in the Lynx genus,
and the only one to primarily depend on ungulate prey, although they rely on smaller species where
ungulates are less abundant. Lynx kill ungulates ranging in size from the 15 kg musk deer to 220 kg adult
male red deer, but show a preference for the smaller ungulate species, such as roe deer and chamois.
Occasionally, lynx also hunt foxes, hares, marmots, wild pigs, beavers, birds or domestic animals such as
sheep and goats, or, in Scandinavia, semi-domestic reindeer (Odden et al. 2013, Mattisson et al. 2014).
In the northern parts of European Russia and western Siberia, where roe deer are absent, mountain
hares and tetraonids form the basic prey base (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008,
Matyushkin and Vaisfeld 2003). Home range size varies widely from 100 to over 1,000 km²
(Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008) depending on both prey density and social pressure
(Herfindal et al. 2005, Aronsson et al. 2016). Home ranges averaged 248 km² for males (n = 5) and 133
km² for females (n = 5) in a radio telemetry study in Poland’s Bialowieza forest (Schmidt et al. 1997).
Average home range sizes in Switzerland were 90 km² for females and 150 km² for male lynx
(Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). In contrast, home range sizes are almost an order of
magnitude larger in northern Scandinavia. Male home ranges generally enclose 1-2 female territories.
Densities are typically 1-3 adults per 100 km², although higher densities of up to 5/100 km² have been
reported from Eastern Europe and parts of Russia and lower densities of 0.3/100 km² from Scandinavia
(Jedrzejewski et al. 1996, Schmidt et al. 2011, Sunde et al. 2000).
Systems: Terrestrial
Use and Trade
The species is sometimes hunted for sport. In some countries the species is also important for the skin
market and the pelt industry.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

The major threats to lynx in Europe are low acceptance due to conflict with hunters (and in northern
Europe also with livestock farmers and semi-domestic reindeer herders), illegal killing, habitat loss and
fragmentation mainly due to infrastructure development, poor wildlife management structures and
poor law enforcement, and accidental mortality. There are also concerns in regard to the low genetic
diversity and small population sizes shown in some of the populations. Besides the authochthonous
Balkan lynx population this particularly concerns all the reintroduced populations which have –
compared to the Carpathian source population – a considerably reduced heterozygosity and the high
number of lost alleles as a consequence of genetic drift (Breitenmoser et al. 2011, Breitenmoser-
Würsten and Obexer-Ruff unpubl.). This phenomenon is more pronounced in the Alpine (Breitenmoser-
Würsten and Obexer-Ruff unpubl., Breitenmoser-Würsten and Obexer-Ruff 2003), Dinaric (Sindicic et al.
2013), Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian and Vosges-Palatinian populations (Bull et al. 2016) while the Jura
subpopulation is doing better. Inbreeding and inbreeding depression is, therefore, a potential threat to
all the reintroduced, small subpopulations. Additional threats to the European populations are detailed
below:
1. Jura
Traffic accidents, illegal killing, conflicts with hunters and lack of knowledge about conflict mitigation. 2.
Vosges-Palatinian
Illegal killing due to conflicts with hunters and fragmentation used to be the major threats. Currently,
the small population size is of big concern. 3. Alpine
Threats include illegal killing, infrastructure development (especially road constructions), vehicle and
train collisions, and limited dispersal. An emerging threat for the Alpine population 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. Genetic analysis indicates that the Alpine population has today the smallest
level of heterozygosity of all European lynx populations. 4. Bohemian-Bavarian-Austrian
Intentional illegal killing, conflicts with hunters, and poor enforcement of legislation are the most
relevant threats. Illegal killing is considered the most likely cause for the limited distribution (Magg et al.
2016). 5. Dinaric
Poor enforcement of legislation (illegal killing), traffic mortalities and prey/food base depletion are
major threats to the Dinaric population. An emerging additional threat is inbreeding depression as the
population displays a considerable level of inbreeding (Sindicic et al. 2013). 6. Carpathian
Poor integration of science into decision-making, traffic mortalities, conflicts with hunters, and lack of
knowledge about species numbers and trends (lack of robust monitoring systems) are considered the
most prominent threats. 7. Scandinavian
The main threats are legal hunting (i.e. quotas are set too high) and illegal killing, both due to conflicts
with livestock (nomadic grazing of reindeer, free-ranging sheep, Mattisson et al. 2014) and conflicts with
hunters. Data indicate that illegal killing is an important mortality cause in some areas (Andrén et al.
2011). 8. Karelian
Potential threats are intentional legal hunting/calling, conflicts with hunters, and lack of capacity and
funding in management authorities. 9. Baltic
Roads and railroads, poor dialogue with stakeholders, prey/food base, lack of knowledge about species
numbers and trends, and lack of capacity and funding in management structures were considered the
most important threats. 10. Balkan
Poor enforcement of legislation, lack of capacity and funding in management structures, poor
integration of science into decision making, corruption, accidental illegal killing and poorly regulated
large-scale forestry all pose a major threat to the Balkan lynx. 11. Harz
Road fatalities and diseases are the most relevant mortality factors of the released lynx so far (Anders
2016).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Included on CITES Appendix II and protected under the Bern Convention (Appendix III with the
exception of the Balkan lynx Lynx lynx balcanicus which is listed in Appendix II) and the EU Habitats
Directive (Annexes II and IV, except for Estonia where it is Annex V and with an exception from Annex II,
and Finland and Latvia where it also has an exception from Annex II). The Lynx is protected and hunting
prohibited in Albania, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and
Ukraine. In Sweden, Finland and Romania the lynx is protected but a limited number of lynx can be
killed under Derogation. In Estonia and Norway the lynx is listed as a game species with an open hunting
season and in Latvia lynx are exploited to a limited extent under derogation (Kaczensky et al. 2013). In
the European part of Russia, the lynx is hunted/trapped in places where it is abundant as in some areas
of the Central region and the Volga region, and in most areas of the North-Western region. Hunting is
not allowed in the Northern Caucasus and in the Southern region (Bersenev et al. 2011). Since 2006, a
programme for the recovery of the Balkan Lynx is being implemented aiming to secure the survival and
recovery of this Critically Endangered subspecies. In several European range states, prevention
measures to counteract livestock depredation are in place and awareness has increased but measures
for managing conflicts with hunters are still missing (Kaczensky et al. 2013). There is a need for
improved monitoring activities in many parts of the Carpathian and Baltic populations. The small and
isolated European lynx populations in western and central Europe need a genetic improvement through
the translocation of individuals from the source population (Carpathian) and improved connectivity
between the populations to allow gene flow and prevent inbreeding depression. Further
recommendations on general and population-specific measures for the European populations are
compiled in Boitani et al. (2015).
Credits
Assessor(s): von Arx, M.
Reviewer(s): Lanz, T.
Contributor(s): Agreiter, A., Anders, O., Avukatov, V., Bagrade, G., Balys, V., Bartol, M., Belotti,
E., Bionda, R., Blažič, M., Bojda, M., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten,
C., Bufka, L., Da Rold, O., De Martin, D., Denk, M., Duchamp, C., Duľa, M.,
Dykyy, I., Engleder, T., Fattori, U., Fuxjäger, C., Gagliardi, A., Galanaki, A.,
Gerngross, P., Gomerčić, T., Groff, C., Gužvica, G., Herdtfelder, M., Holmala, K.,
Hoxha, B., Hucht-Ciorga, I., Huckschlag, D., Ionescu, G., Ionescu, O., Jerina, K.,
Jokisch, S., Jonozovič, M., Kalaš, M., Kominos, T., Koren, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M.,
Krojerová, J., Kunz, F., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Kübarsepp, M., Lūkins, M.,
Machciník, B., Majić Skrbinšek, A., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Middlehoff, L.,
Mingozzi, A., Mináriková, T., Molinari, P., Molinari-Jobin, A., Mysłajek, R.W.,
Männil, P., Müller, U., Nowak, S., Ozoliņš, J., Pagon, N., Paunović, M., Popa,
M., Potočnik, H., Rigg, R., Sanaja, B., Shkvyria, M., Sindičić, M., Skrbinšek, T.,
Slijepčević, V., Tomaić, J., Trajçe, A., Trbojević, I., Trbojević, T., Veeroja, R.,
Volfová, J., Weingarth, K., Woelfl, M., Woelfl, S., Yakovlev, Y., Zetterberg, A.,
Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., Zschille, J., Ćirović, D. & Černe, R.
Partner(s) and IUCN SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe

Institution(s):
Authority/Authorities: IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (wild cats)
Bibliography
Anders, O. 2016. Die Auswilderung des Luchses im Harz, Leipziger Blaue Hefte, 8. Leipziger,
Tierärztekongress. Tagungsband 1: 385-388.
Andrén, H, Samelius, G., Segerstroem, P., Skoeld, K., Rauset, G.R. and Persson, J. 2011. Mortality and
poaching of lynx in Sweden. Riddarhyttan, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).
Aronsson, M., Low, M., Lopez-Bao, J.V., Persson, J., Odden, J., Linnell, J.D.C. and Andren, H. 2016.
Intensity of space use reveals conditional sex-specific effects of prey and conspecific density on home
range size. Ecology and Evolution 8: 2957-2967.
Bersenev, A.E., Blohin, G.I., Vaisman, A.L., Gruzdev, A.R., Gubar, YuP., Domsky, I.A., Sipko, P., Pavlov, P.M.,
Okhlopkov, I.M., Pronyaev, A.B., Savelyev, A.P., Danilkin, A.A. et al. 2011. The lynx. Hunting and Hunting
Resources of Russian Federation, State resource management Special. (Государственное управление
ресурсами СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ ВЫПУСК 2011 ОХОТА И ОХОТНИЧЬИ РЕСУРСЫ РОССИЙСКОЙ
ФЕДЕРАЦИИ), pp. 59-65. Molodava gvardiya-style, Perm, Russia.
Boitani, L., Alvarez, F., Anders, O., Andrén, H., Avanzinelli, E., Balys, V. Blanco, J., Breitenmoser, U.,
Chapron, G., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Groff, C., Huber, D., Ionescu, O., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kubala, J., Kutal,
M., Linnell, J., Majic, A., Mannil, P., Manz, R., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Molinari, A., Norberg, H., Nowak,
S., Ozolins, J., Palazon, S., Potocnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Selva, N., Sergiel, A.,
Shkvyria, M., Swenson, J., Trajce, A., von Arx, M., Wolfl, M., Wotschikowsky, U. and Zlatanova, D. 2015.
Key actions for Large Carnivore populations in Europe. Report to DG Environment, European
Commission, Bruxelles. Contract no. 07.0307/2013/654446/SER/B3. Institute of Applied Ecology, Rome,
Italy.
Bragina, E.V., Ives, A.R., Pidgeon, A.M., Kuemmerle, T., Baskin, L.M., Gubar, Y.P., Piquer-Rodriguez, M.,
Keuler, N.S., Petrosyan, V.G. and Radeloff, V.C. 2015. Rapid declines of large mammal populations after
the collapse of the Soviet Union. Conservation Biology 29(3): 844-853.
Breitenmoser, U. and Breitenmoser-Würsten, Ch. 1990. Status, Conservation Needs and Reintroduction
of the Lynx Lynx lynx in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Nature and Environment Serie 45(1-43).
Breitenmoser, U. and Breitenmoser-Würsten, Ch. 2008. Der Luchs: Ein Grossraubtier in der
Kulturlandschaft. Salm Verlag, Wohlen/Bern.
Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Okarma, H., Kaphegyi, T., Kaphegyi-Wallmann, U. and
Müller, U. M. 2000. Action Plan for the conservation of the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe. Council
of Europe, Strasbourg.
Breitenmoser, U. et al.. 2011. Genetic status and conservation management of reintroduced and small
autochthonous Eurasian lynx populations in Europe. International Exploratory Workshop. Report on
behalf of Swiss National Science Foundation.
Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. and Obexer-Ruff, G. 2003. Population genetics of two reintroduced lynx (Lynx
lynx) populations in Switzerland: a molecular evaluation 25 years after translocation. Progress report.
KORA Bericht. Bern.
Bull, J.K., Heurich, M., Saveljev, A.P., Schmidt, K., Fickel, J. and Foerster, D.W. 2016. The effect of
reintroductions on the genetic variability in Eurasian lynx populations: the cases of Bohemian-Bavarian
and Vosges-Palatinian populations. Conservation Genetics 17(5): 1129-1234.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D.C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., Vicente López-Bao, J.,
Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C.,
Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C.,
Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, Knauer, F., Kojola,
I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R.,
Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Odden, J.,
Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I.,
Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A.,
Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F.,
Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. 2014. Recovery of Large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated
landscapes. Science 346: 1517-1519.
Herfindal, I., Linnell, J.D.C., Odden, J., Nilsen, E.B. and Andersen, R. 2015. Prey density, environmental
productivity, and home range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Journal of Zoology 265: 63-71.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 15 November 2018).
IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 10 December 2020).
Jedrzejewski, W., Jedrzejewska, B., Okarma, H., Schmidt, K., Bunevich, A.N. and Milowski, L. 1996.
Population dynamics (1896-1994), demography, and home ranges of the lynx in Bialowieza Primeval
Forest (Poland and Belarus). Ecography 19: 122-138.
Kaczensky P., G. Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, C.H., and Linnell, J. 2013. Status,
management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine in Europe. Instituto di
Ecologia Applicata and with contributions of the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe.
Kitchener, A.C., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Eizirik, E., Gentry, A., Werdelin, L., Wilting, A., Yamaguchi, N.,
Abramov, A.V., Christiansen, P., Driscoll, C., Duckworth, J.W., Johnson, W., Luo, S.-J., Meijaard, E.,
O'Donoghue, P., Sanderson, J., Seymour, K., Bruford, M., Groves, C., Hoffman, M., Nowell, K., Timmons,
Z. and Tobe, S. 2017. A revised taxonomy of the Felidae. The final report of the Cat Classification Task
Force of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. Cat News Special Issue 11.
Kubala, J., Smolko, P., Zimmermann, F., Rigg, R., Tam, B., Ilko,T., Foresti, D., Breitenmoser-Würsten, Ch.,
Kropil, R. and Breitenmoser, U. 2017. Robust monitoring of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in the Slovak
Carpathians reveals lower numbers than officially reported. Oryx.
Kutal, M., Belotti, E., Volfová, J., Mináriková, T., Bufka, L., Poledník, L., Krojerová, J., Bojda, M., Váňa, M.,
Kutalová, L., Beneš, J., Flousek, J., Tomášek, V., Kafka, P., Poledníková, K., Pospíšková, J., Dekař, P.,
Machciník, B., Koubek, P. and Duľa, M. 2017. Occurrence of large carnivores – Lynx lynx, Canis lupus, and
Ursus arctos – and of Felis silvestris in the Czech Republic and western Slovakia in 2012–2016
(Carnivora). Lynx n.s. (Praha). 48: 93-107. (in Czech with English abstract).
LCIE. In prep. Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores. Instituto di
Ecologia Applicata, Rome.
Linnell, J., Salvatori, V. and Boitani, L. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for large
carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European
Commission, Rome.
Magg, N., Mueller, J., Heibl, C., Hacklaender, K., Woelfl, S., Woelfl, M., Bufka, L., Cerveny, J. and Heurich,
M. 2016. Habitat availability is not limiting the distribution of the Bohemian-Bavarian lynx Lynx lynx
population. Oryx 50(4): 742-752.
Mattisson, J., Odden, J. and Linnell, J.D.C. 2014. A catch-22 conflict: Access to semi-domestic reindeer
modulates Eurasian lynx depredation on domestic sheep. Biological Conservation 179: 116-122.
Matyushkin, Y.N. and Vaisfeld, M.A. 2003. The lynx – regional features of ecology, use and protection.
Nauka, Moscow, Russia.
Melovski, D., Breitenmoser, U., von Arx, M., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. and Lanz, T. 2015. Lynx lynx ssp.
balcanicus (errata version published in 2016). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
4.RLTS.T68986842A68986849.en. (Accessed: Downloaded on 31 May 2018).
Molinari-Jobin, A., Kery, M., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Zimmermann, F., Molinari, P., Frick, H.,
Fuxjaeger, C., Woelfl, S., Bled, F., Breitenmoser-Wuersten, C., Kos, I., Woelfl, M., Cerne, R., Mueller, O.
and Breitenmoser, U. 2018. Mapping range dynamics from opportunistic data: spatiotemporal modelling
of the lynx distribution in the Alps over 21 years. Animal Conservation 21(2): 168-180.
Molinari-Jobin, A., Wölfl, S., Marboutin, E., Molinari, P., Wölfl, M., Kos, I., Fasel, M., Koren, I., Fuxjäger,
C., Breitenmoser, C., Huber, T., Blazic, M. and Breitenmoser, U. 2012. Monitoring the Lynx in the Alps.
Hystrix 23: 49-53.
Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. Wild Cats. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Odden, J., Nilsen, E.B. and Linell, J.D.C. 2013. Density of wild prey modulates lynx kill rates on free-
ranging domestic sheep. PLoS ONE 8(11): 1-8.
Schmidt, K., Jedrzejewski, W. and Okarma, H. 1997. Spatial organization and social relations in the
Eurasian lynx population in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriologica 42: 289-312.
Schmidt, K., Ratkiewicz, M. and Konopinski, M.K. 2011. The importance of genetic variability and
population differentiation in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) for conservation, in the context of habitat and
climate change. Mammal Review 412: 112-124.
Sindicic, M., Gomercic, T., Kusak, J., Slijepcevic, V., Huber, D. and Frkovic, A. 2016. Mortality in the
Eurasian lynx population in Croatia during the 40 years. Mammalian Biology 81: 290-294.
Sindicic, M., Polanc, P., Gomercic, T., Jelencic, M., Huber, D., Trontelj, P. and Skrbinsek, T. 2013. Genetic
data confirm critical status of the reintroduced Dinaric population of Eurasian lynx. Conservation
Genetics: 1-12.
Sunde, P., Kvam, T., Moa, P., Negard, A. and Overskaug, K. 2000. Space use by Eurasian lynxes Lynx lynx in
central Norway. Acta theriologica 45(4): 507-524.
Sunquist, M. and Sunquist, F. 2002. Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press.
von Arx, M., Breitenmoser-Würsten, Ch., Zimmermann, F. and Breitenmoser, U. (eds). 2004. Status and
conservation of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe in 2001: Eurasian Lynx Online Information
System for Europe ELOIS.
Citation
von Arx, M. 2020. Lynx lynx (amended version of 2018 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2020: e.T12519A177350310. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-
3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Major
Habitat Season Suitability
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.1. Forest - Boreal - Suitable Yes
1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.3. Shrubland - Boreal - Suitable Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate - Suitable Yes
4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate - Suitable Yes
Use and Trade

End Use Local National International
Sport hunting/specimen collecting No Yes No
Wearing apparel, accessories No Yes No
Threats
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Future Minority (50%) Unknown Unknown
Housing & urban areas
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3. Future Majority (50- Unknown Unknown
Tourism & recreation areas 90%)

2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming Ongoing Minority (50%) Slow, significant Low impact: 5
& ranching -> 2.3.1. Nomadic grazing declines
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
4. Transportation & service corridors -> 4.1. Roads & Ongoing Whole (>90%) Slow, significant Medium
railroads declines impact: 7

2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Majority (50- Causing/could Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is 90%) cause fluctuations impact: 6
the target)
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping Ongoing Whole (>90%) Slow, significant Medium
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.3. Persecution/control declines impact: 7
5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood Ongoing Minority (50%) Unknown Unknown
harvesting -> 5.3.4. Unintentional effects: (large
scale) [harvest]
6. Human intrusions & disturbance -> 6.1. Future Majority (50- Unknown Unknown
Recreational activities 90%)
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water Future Unknown Unknown Unknown
management/use -> 7.2.9. Small dams
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water Future Unknown Unknown Unknown
management/use -> 7.2.10. Large dams
Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Action in Place

In-place land/water protection
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
In-place species management
Harvest management plan: Yes
Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly: Yes
In-place education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Action Needed

1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
Conservation Action Needed
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.1. International level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.3. Sub-national level
Research Needed
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.4. Harvest, use & livelihoods
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.2. Area-based Management Plan
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields

Distribution
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): >20,000
Population
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
Habitats and Ecology

Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Unknown
Amendment
Amendment This amended assessment was created to change the population status to "stable" and
reason: to update the Supplementary Information. An earlier errata version of this assessment
addressed some minor typographic errors, added some textual clarifications,
corrected the 'country of occurrence' entries, and added Contributors to the
assessment.
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

10.2305_IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en (1)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.2305_IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.2305_IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T12519A177350310.en (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™

ISSN 2307-8235 (online)

Lynx lynx, Eurasian Lynx

THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae

Scientific Name: Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758)

Infra-specific Taxa Assessed:

- Carpathian Lynx L. l. carpathicus: Carpathian Mountains.

- Balkan Lynx L. l. balcanicus: Balkans (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo).

- Turkestan Lynx L. l. isabellinus: Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan,

- Siberian Lynx L. l. wrangeli: Siberia east of the Yenisei River (Russia).

- Altai Lynx L. l. wardi: Altai Mountains (Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia).

Year Published: 2020

Date Assessed: May 25, 2018

Previously Published Red List Assessments

2007 – Least Concern (LC)

For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.

Native, Extant (passage): Greece

Presence Uncertain & Vagrant: Bulgaria; Hungary; Montenegro

Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)

Threats (see Appendix for additional information)

Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)

Partner(s) and IUCN SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe

Authority/Authorities: IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (wild cats)

1. Forest -> 1.1. Forest - Boreal - Suitable Yes

1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.3. Shrubland - Boreal - Suitable Yes

3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate - Suitable Yes

4. Grassland -> 4.4. Grassland - Temperate - Suitable Yes

Use and Trade

End Use Local National International

Sport hunting/specimen collecting No Yes No

Wearing apparel, accessories No Yes No

Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality

Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.2. Species disturbance

Conservation Actions in Place

Conservation Action in Place

Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range

In-place species management

Harvest management plan: Yes

Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly: Yes

Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes

Conservation Actions Needed

Conservation Action Needed

2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management

3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction

4. Education & awareness -> 4.2. Training

4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications

1. Research -> 1.4. Harvest, use & livelihoods

2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan

2. Conservation Planning -> 2.2. Area-based Management Plan

3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends

Additional Data Fields

Population severely fragmented: No

Habitats and Ecology