Foundation For Otters
(Alapítvány A Vidrákért) -1156 Budapest, Nyírpalota utca 60.



Report on execution of  K+F agreement The national survey of the protected 
and endangered otter, numbered 1153/K


1995-1996






I. Introduction

Between November 1995 and March 1996 in Hungary with the co-ordination and 
organisation of the Foundation For Otters (Alapítvány A Vidrákért) on behalf of 
Departure of Research and Education of Ministry of Environment and Region 
Improvement took place the survey of otter (Lutra lutra). Our work has two main 
objectives:

1. Getting to know the territorial distribution of Hungarian otter population, 
exploring endangering reasons and formulating recommendations for 
protecting the species.
2. Real judging of compensating of damages on fishing ponds caused by otters, 
establishing the degree and the scale of damages.

This report contains finishing of the task mentioned above in the first point, consistent 
and recommendations coming from the results. We have not get particular 
commission to judge damages at fishing ponds yet.



II. Background

The number of otters become less frequent in our continent, the continuous 
populations became fragmented, and the smaller ones became isolated. At the 
conference in Leeuwarden (which was held on discussing the situation of the species 
and the possibilities of the protection) on 7-11. June 1994. five more or less isolated 
populations were reported:

1. British Islands: United Kingdom and Ireland are very important areas, the 
otter is still common, in spite of declining and being rare in most areas of 
England.
2. Scandinavia: Otter populations (in the southern part of the countries) are 
apparently declining. It would be important to provide connection between 
Scandinavian and Northern European areas.
3. Southwest Europe: The Spanish Peninsula and Western part of France are 
one of the most important habitats for otter.
4. Central Europe: In Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, 
Northern France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and West part of Germany otter 
now became extinct or remains in small isolated populations.
5. Eastern Europe: Russia, Lithuania, Bielorussia, Poland, Eastern parts of 
Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Moldavia, Hungary, Romania, 
Slovenia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Turkey. In this 
region strong otter populations are still present, but signs of deterioration can 
be found.



In the countries of Western Europe attempts are made in order to prevent the further 
decline of the species with great amount of financial means and mental energy. 
Nowdays the main problems are destruction of habitats, pollution of water and 
growing of human disturbance so these problems must be solve first.

Our country has key role in saving the otter, because saving and growing stronger of  
stock of otters of Carpathian Basin can be very important condition of surviving of the 
species. It burdens us with heavy responsibility financially, morally and professionally.

It is a fact that the most important tasks at present are conservation of suitable 
areas, habitats, preservation of populations living there, connecting these populations 
through providing ecological/green corridors, stopping illegal chasing. These are 
difficult and complex works.

European otter as a species at the top of the food chain is a good indicator of general 
health of  wetland habitats, therefore any act, which serves the well-being of the 
species will act for the benefit for the whole ecosystem including sources used by 
humankind (e.g. fish).

It is clear that the species' future depends on how those countries that have wide 
spread and developing populations can insure the survival. The decline can be fast and 
the strengthening if occurs at all can be very slow. On the other hand forming the 
efficient protection need to know the number of otters in the countries, so it is 
important to use standardised methods.

Otter is protected in our country since 1974. In the interests of maintaining the 
increased protection it is important to get to know the spreading, distribution and 
endangering reasons of Hungarian population.

Surveys in the past showed developing population (Nechay G. 1980., Szemethy L. 
1990., I. Kemenes - A. Demeter 1994.). Now it was important to repeat the survey, 
because the recent social and economical changes touched fundamentally the 
property relations. Nowdays the proportion of agricultural areas owned by private 
farmers is significant, because 40 percent of the fishing ponds which are important 
habitats for otters are belong to private owners. These changes required the survey 
and formulating recommendations on the basis of data.


III. Matter and method

The survey was arranged by the method minimum-standard worked out by IUCN. It 
was necessary to use that because in Western Europe the same method was used 
and therefore the results are comparable with one another (annex I.).

We made a questionnaire (annex II.) arranging the survey and adding the description 
of method sent to the following organisations:

- Nemzeti Parki és Természetvédelmi Igazgatóságok (National Park and Nature 
Conservation Management)
- Zöld Zala Természetvédelmi Egyesület (Green Zala Nature Conservation 
Society)
- Országos Magyar Vadászat Védegylet (National Hungarian Shooting Society 
For Promotion)
- Haltermelők Országos Szövetsége (National Association of Fish-Farmers)
- Egyetemes Létezés Természetvédelmi Egyesület Klubja
- Fekete István Környezet- és Természetvédelmi Klub, Mosonmagyaróvár 
(Fekete István Environment and Nature Conservation Club, Mosonmagyaróvár)
- Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége (Association of Hungarian Nature 
Conservationists)

The UTM map was provided by Magyar Madártani és Természetvédelmi Egyesület 
(Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society).

We asked these organisations to support because the Foundation can not cover the 
whole country alone during the survey.

We compiled the questionnaire to get the most information from it. We asked to sign 
not only the presence or absence of the species but answers on questions needed for 
future protection. After receiving and processing data we made UTM standard map 
arranged 10x10 km (map).

We noted that data-suppliers could be influenced by subjective reasons and so we did 
not get always the real facts. After receiving the answers we controlled 111 
questionnaires (from five data-suppliers), and we found that 7 was not correct. While 
during the survey period the required information can not be collected with another 
method.


IV. The survey and the results

18OO of the questionnaires were sent to the members  of the Foundation and to 
other observers,  1119 of them had been filled in appreciably, and 34 contained so 
little information, that they could not be considered. On the other hand the 
questionnaires were filled out in different ways, because some of the questions were 
not answered every time.

The types of the areas where the otter has been found were signed   in 1087 
questionnaires appreciably. The distribution of the otter is  showed by the following 
marks:

I   - permanent
II  - not permanent
III - hasn't been found
IV - nor the permanent neither the temporary attendance can be proved

Though the last  category was not mentioned in the questionnaires, it was thought to 
be written here, because the permanent or temporary attendance in many times 
couldn't be proved .


Type of area
I
II
III
IV
Total

artificial lake
205
26
39
11
281

   channel
176
36
42
21
275

   river
145
15
11
9
180

   stream
39
21
96
7
163

   backwater
75
17
14
8
114

   natural lake
29
5
3
7
44

   water basin
18
4
2
6
30



It is clear that the artificial and natural lakes and the channels were the most frequent 
places where the otter was found, after them the rivers (Dráva, Mura, Tisza, Kőrös, 
Berettyó, Duna, Sió, Rába, Rábca) and their backwaters. The population is also 
stabile in these places. Most of the water basins are also inhabited by the otter, but 
footmarks referring to otter weren't registrated near by many of the streams.

In many cases (65)  the permanent or temporary attendance  wasn't proved, because 
marks recognised during the observation  couldn't be correctly identified (too old or 
blurred), and talking with local inhabitants (verification or denial of the otter's 
attendance) wasn't successful.

The permanent attendance of otter was ascertained at most of the artificial and 
natural lakes and channels, while the temporary attendance  was registrated in less 
cases. The fish population of the latter areas isn't present during the whole year, and 
the littoral vegetation was mostly plough-land, meadow, pasture.

The population is also stable at rivers, backwaters and waterbasins. The  temporary 
attendance was registrated those places where river's current is strong, or the river 
itself was polluted, and the littoral vegetation is lacking or scattered.

Near those streams, where the otter is permanent there are generally areas 
abounding in fish or the stream itself supplies the otter with fish. These conditions 
aren't given in places where  provisionary attendance was registrated. The lack of 
littoral vegetation and considerably human disturbation can be mentioned as reasons 
as well.

Lakes not visited by otters at all are mostly angler-lakes with embanked shore 
generally. These areas in most of the cases aren't covered by plants and deserted 
without considerable population of fish.

The parts of the channels, waterbasins, rivers and streams  where the otter wasn't 
found are either disturbed (close to settlement, regular human motion), or polluted, 
the rivers' current are too strong, the fish population is missing totally, and lacking of 
the littoral vegetation is conspicious.

It is ought to be mentioned, that human disturbance is responsible in the smallest 
degree for the otter's disturbance, the observers met otters many times near by 
human settlements, and the attendance is not temporary there as well (for example 
animals regularly  visit towns like Kaposvár, Szigetvár).The most important reasons 
for temporary attendance are:

- pollution of water
- food supply is not suitable
- bankside vegetation is lacking



Answers returned from each county by and the types of areas are the following:

0   - no information
I    - natural lake
II   - artificial lake
III  - river
IV  - channel
V   - waterbasin
VI  - stream
VII - backwater
T   - total


County
0
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
T

Szabolcs
0
1
16
76
27
1
0
80
201

Hajdú
5
0
42
21
65
1
0
1
155

Somogy
7
3
63
7
32
2
29
3
146

Pest
4
3
36
20
3
5
48
2
121

Baranya
7
3
30
2
36
8
20
0
106

Zala
1
7
31
6
4
3
18
4
74

Veszprém
1
6
16
2
6
1
39
0
71

Csongrád
0
6
6
11
18
4
0
2
47

Bács
0
4
3
4
21
0
0
5
37

Fejér
0
2
12
7
16
0
0
0
37

Szolnok
5
1
5
4
9
4
0
0
28

Tolna
0
0
3
3
7
0
0
7
20

Vas
0
2
7
3
0
0
6
1
19

Békés
0
4
3
4
2
0
0
5
18

Győr-Sopron
0
0
1
6
8
0
0
0
15

Borsod
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
4
8

Heves
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
6

Komárom
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5

Nógrád
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
5

Total
32
44
281
180
275
30
163
114
1119



This table shows that the attendance of otter is most frequent in the south-west and 
west part  and the east and south-east part of the country, and perceptible in the 
north-west part of the Dunántúl- Transdanubian region, Mezőföld, and areas between 
the Danube and Tisza.

No otter was found in the Northern mountains.

Survey in Kisalföld show this species appears in Szigetköz region again.  We have 
few data from county of Nógrád, Heves, Komárom and Borsod.

Though the otter often attends near fish ponds in the Dunántúl - Transdanubian region 
(it doesn't mean that rivers and channels aren't visited by this animal), in other parts of 
the country this type of area wasn't the most frequent one, though lakes have great 
importance.

Processing data about the bankside vegetation had the following results (1001 
appreciable answers were sent back):



Bankside vegetation
Frequency

reed and sedge together
470

forest
91

reed
120

sedge
97

meadow
79

other (pasture, plough-land)
44

Together
1001


It is apparent, that otter prefers reed-sledge vegetation but can be found in areas 
covered only by reed, and in forests near the shores. These places are thick and well-
covered, so the otter can hide in and make nests. In the other cases the otter could 
be registered only if there was thick vegetation near by.

The questionnaires' results shows that the animal attends in 908 areas, where 
attendance can be told as:

	-permanent in							649 areas
	-eventually otter may appear in 				176 areas
	-can't be decided if the attendance is permanent or temporary in 83 areas
	(We recognised these areas as temporary ones.)

	-wasn't found in 						211 areas


717 appreciable answers referring to marks of otters were sent back.


Marks
Number of perception

many types of marks
416

footmarks
106

remains of fish
89

spraints
64

dead otter
11

living otter
31

Total
717




The simultaneous traces, indicated from 416 sites, were:

	- footmarks and spraints		276 times
	- footmarks with fish remains		56 times
	- fish remains and spraints		27 times
	- all three of the above		57 times



During the survey we could generally record several otter-indicating, species-
characteristic traces. Registering  a singular trace is also current; however it is to be 
noted that in case of recording fish remains or droppings as a singular trace, we 
emphasised repeated checking (and asked the surveyors to act accordingly), as 
other species may produce similar traces. This was important because in such cases, 
the probability of a mistake or misjudgement is relatively high.

Unfortunately in the case of fallen otters, the surveyors did not give more information 
than registering the dead animals. Only four records were made about the cause of 
death: three otters were reported to have been crashed by cars; one was killed by 
foxes.

Living otters were mostly seen at dawn and late in the evening, generally by wildlife 
guards and hunters. On eight occasions they were observed by daylight: on the ice 
(four times) or on the river bank (three times). Once (in January 1996) three otters were 
seen together; probably a female with the cubs.


We have 861 records of the weather during observations:


Weather
How many times

snowy
576

sunny
165

rainy
16

other (fog, snow-storm, thunder-storm)
104

In all
861



Observation was much facilitated by snowy weather, for then it is easier to register 
traces. Also many records were made in sunny weather, though a great majority 
(147) of such cases consisted of inspection of snow-covered sites. As the probability 
of false records is high in rainy or very heavy weather, the given area was repeatedly 
checked under similar conditions.


The following appraisal responses arrived concerning the way (I) and site (II) of 
observation.


Observation
No of times

I
from vehicle
0


scouting
576


from a post
5 (living otters)


other
17

II
on dams
372


near water
528


under bridge
404


other
8




Analysing the above answers shows that most observations were made:

	- scouting near water			2O2
	- scouting on dams			117
	- scouting under bridges		1O1
	- scouting near water, on dams
	 and under bridges at the same time	 8O
	- scouting under bridges and on dams	 76
	- scouting near water, under bridges	147
	- scouting near water on dams	  	 99 cases.


It is apparent that otters show a preference for leaving traces under bridges and on 
dams, since the result obtained other than by was of scouting (that is, those 
concentrated specifically on an under-bridge area or a dam part) indicate 156 times 
the presence of otters.
The five otters seen from a post, were observed by professional hunters or wild-life-
guards.



V. Conclusions

It could be inferred that otters populate mostly areas with ample food supplies where 
the vegetation is sufficiently dense to provide shelter and nesting facilities for them. In 
areas with insufficient food supplies (i.e. areas where fish are scarce or missing) and 
little or no coastal vegetation otters appear only occasionally and do not settle down 
permanently. They prefer reed-sedge vegetation and also like dense coastal forests, 
forest patches and coastal bush vegetation. It is important -especially in the case of 
fish farms and ponds maintained for sports- to preserve coastal and aquatic 
vegetation as its destruction may also lead to the disappearance of otters from the 
area. If appropriate lairs are available otters even tolerate strong disturbance and do 
not leave the region. Otters are very adaptable - they regularly enter even inhabited 
areas if it feels safe (e.g. in the region of Szigetvár, Kaposvár).
In the case of rivers and streams also water pollution may cause a problem apart 
from insufficient food supplies and the lack of coastal vegetation.
Despite all the aforementioned problems the population of otters in Hungary seems to 
be stable and growing. Yet the recent changes in ownership of land and the closely 
related increase of illegal killing (hunting, trapping, etc.) of otters may cause 
irreparable damage.
The study has shown clearly that most problems arise in the neighbourhood of fish 
farms. From these regions -where the presence of otters is known- more claims for 
damages have been made.
We have to point out, however, that the study was conducted in winter when otters 
visit the neighbourhood of fish farms more frequently. Most of the damage is, hence, 
concentrated to the wintering facilities and in the other seasons the presence of otters 
goes often completely unnoticed. That is why most claims from the neighbourhood of 
fish farms are made in winter while claims in other seasons are negligible compared 
to these.

We must also see that in many cases it is the animals (mammals, birds) living there 
that managers of fish-ponds hold responsible for low profits. This seems a forced 
effort to explain low profits and the inappropriate management by the people and 
organisations working at the ponds. It is also a fact that the locals have voiced their 
dislike of the present regulation which rules that they receive no compensation for 
damage done by an animal under protection. At the present the processing of 
compensation claims (shooting claims) is a slow, hard procedure, this is also a reason 
why part of the fish-pond managers are not co-operative with the nature protection 
authorities. 

We should like to point out that compensation is not the only way though we think it is 
clearly advisable for the protection of this species in the future. Instead, the otter 
should be incorporated into the management of fish-ponds, through stimulating 
system that allows the "damage" coming from the otters presence and lifestyle to be 
the part of the economy and the management.



We can see that, according to locals, it is an unwanted visitor at the fish ponds where 
its presence is known. Also, in the present the species is clearly (though illegally, but 
more or less openly) hunted around the lakes, which is already a serious problem for 
the environmentalists today and maybe in the future. 

We must also note that the damage it does and being hunted are not closely linked. 
We can observe that it's hunted at lakes where it is said to do minimal damage, and 
that in places where unbearable damage has been reported, it is left alone. In several 
cases the reason for its killing is tradition: for there are deeply rooted traditions alive 
even today, and capture, trapping and killing animals (otters, among them) is one of 
them. Also, it is fashionable to kill otters one is to have otter skin, pelt, even if there is 
no profit from it at all. Therefore, damage can definitely not be considered the prime 
reason for its hunt.




VI. Recommendations

- Suppressing the illegal hunting of the otter in the area of fish ponds by 
estimating and measuring the veracity of the compensation claims and by 
giving partial or full compensation for the damages caused by otters.

- Creating economic regulations which could make possible that the damage 
costs caused by otters would be compensated through tax and credit relieves.

- Checking regularly the feeding habits of the otter which is a very important tool 
in  deciding about the veracity of  compensation claims for damages caused by 
otters.

- Moving otters from a dangerous territory to such habitat where all the 
important conditions are insured for them (preferably nationally protected 
areas). It should be supported by a serious preparatory (ethological, ecological 
and genetic research) and implementation  studies.

- Examining those areas which have not been checked before and making 
comprehensive studies on it.

- Supporting research works which aim to examine the connections between the 
occurrence of otters and water pollution or the vegetation types of the different 
fresh-water ecosystems. 




References

- Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 
(1994): Seminar on the Conservation of the European Otter (Lutra lutra) - 
Leeuwarden, Nederland

- Nechay, G. (1980): Die Situation der Fischotter in Ungarn; p. 215-221. Ex. 
Reuter & C. Antal, F. : Der Fischotter in Europa, Oderhaus, Göttingen.

- Szementhy, L. (1990): Egyes védett ragadozók elterjedése Magyarországon. 
Agrártudományi Egyetem Vadbiológiai Kutató, Gödöllő.

- I. Kemenes & A. Demeter (1994): Uni- and miltivariate analysis of the effects of 
environmental factors on the occurance of otters (Lutra lutra) in Hungary. 
Annales Historico, Maturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, p. 133-138.




Annex I.


The aim, principles and methods of a national otter survey.

Aim:
To investigate the spatial/territorial distribution of the otter (Lutra lutra) therefore to 
get an estimation about the national otter population. 

Basic principles:
The presence of the otter can be fairly easily and certainly recognised in a given 
habitat on the basis of foot-marks, droppings and other characteristics, so called 
otter-signs/marks. However making a quantitative survey is extremely difficult 
because more than one individuals can use regularly the same trap. Because the otter 
always lives near water courses, it is easy to determine its habitat on a larger 
scale?/area. The presence of the otter can be marked by carrying out a survey on the 
already determined large habitat or on parts of it. Therefore a survey only shows the 
presence or the absence of the otter, however, it is also advisable to record if there 
has been seen signs of only (probably) one otter or many otters (e.g. many foot-
marks of different sizes); or that there has been plenty of marks/signs seen.

Methods:
The methods of otter survey is uniform in all over Europe. A minimum of 600 metres 
section of a given territory should be thoroughly examined. It means that e. g. the 
section of this size should be looked through on river-bank and only after doing so, 
can be declared the presence or the absence of the otter. If there are otter-signs on 
the first ten metres section, there is no need to continue the survey on the remaining 
of the whole section. It can already be concluded that this survey point is used by the 
otter. It complies to other survey points as well. Survey points which should be 
examined by all means: water courses flowing under roads (bridges), dams between 
lakes or water-reservoirs. 
If it is not possible to examine a 600 metres section because of the shortness of a 
dam, the survey should be continued on the neighbouring dams or river banks and 
lake shores. If the lake is so small that even the last mentioned survey method is 
impossible to be carried out, then the survey should be continued on the banks of the 
incoming or outgoing water-courses/flows. 
The survey can be carried out in any time of the year, however, it is very difficult to be 
done in the months of lush vegetation (from May to October) and the possibility of 
making mistakes is also higher in this period. Therefore the surveys should be done 
from October to end of March.
Recording the time of survey and the characteristics of the territory is very important. 
If there are no typical characteristics of a given territory the person making the survey 
may need to create some.




Annex II.

Questionnaire for a National Otter Survey
Please answer only those questions to which you can give a sure answer.
Please send the filled out questionnaire to the address of the "Otter Foundation or 
Foundation for the Otters" ( 1156. Budapest, Nyirpalota utca 60.) until 30th of March 
1996.
Thank you very much for your help.

Name:
Address:
Time of survey:

1. County:
1.1. Nearest settlements:

1.2. The area where the otter has been seen/observed:

1.3. The size of the area where the otter has been  observed/seen, and the 
proportions of surface-water:
 
1.4. Characteristics of the area:
- natural or artificial lake
- river
- channel
- water-reservoir
- other

1.5. Riparian vegetation type:
- reeds
- rush
- meadow
- forest
- other

2. Result of the survey:
- presence of otter(s)
- absence 

2.1. Is the presence of otters permanent?
- yes
- no

2.2. Observed signs of otters:
 
- footmarks
- remains of fish
- spraint
- dead otters
- other
2.3. Wheather-conditions during the observation:
- rainy
- snowy
- sunny
- other

2.4. Other conditions of the observation:
- sitting on  a vehicle	-standing on a dam
- stalking	-on river-bank or lake-shore
- sitting	-under the bridge
- other	-other

2.5. Local people's opinion about the otter

2.6. Other information relevant to the survey: