On the evening of Monday 22 June in the woods of Monte Peller in Trentino, two men, father and son, came across a bear specimen. According to the story of the unfortunate, the young man was walking along a path, followed a short distance by his father, when suddenly he found himself face to face with the bear. When he fell to the ground, he was surmounted by the animal and at that point the father's reaction was to lash out against the plantigrade, injuring a leg in several places.
Once the bear disappeared, the two went to Cles hospital for appropriate treatment, from which they were subsequently discharged.
Following this episode, a culling request was immediately issued by the province of Trento, without however, at the time of the request, the same identity as the bear guilty of the meeting or any outcomes of genetic analysis were known to further clarify the 'episode.
Proearlier the same day, on the other side of the world, exactly in Yellowstone Park, a 37-year-old tourist was also injured by another bear, a female grizzly. Following this attack, the US authorities have reported that < > in addition, the bear management authorities in the area have specified that < >.
Two diametrically opposed approaches that open up different questions and give ideas for some reflections: by juxtaposing these two episodes, some may think that the comparison "Trentino VS Yellowstone" is risky, yet the two areas have a lot in common with each other, starting with the value of tourism for the area, a fundamental part of their annual turnover, they are both marginal lands, with sometimes difficult contexts as regards development opportunities, both have natural parks of great importance and both host, in proportion and according to the characteristics of their territory, wild animals that inevitably can come into conflict with human activities which were reintroduced by him in the 90s with appropriate projects: the wolf in Yellowstone and the bear in Trentino.
What happened in recent days therefore opens for the umpteenth time a profound discussion on the presence of the bear in the Alps, a discussion never dormant in reality and animated in recent months not only by the debate relating to the events of the M49 bear, but also by the continuous approach on issues related to large carnivores by the junta in charge, often very critical of the presence of bears and wolves on the provincial territory.
In our opinion, this approach is absolutely incompatible with what is the reality of Trentino: a territory for over 60% covered by woods where nature, albeit in rural contexts that are often rather man-made, cannot do without the presence of large carnivores that they make it not only “authentic” but that they represent a necessary presence in it for the functioning of the ecosystem which needs these species, called “umbrella species” whose conservation indirectly affects the conservation of many others in a positive way.
In addition, these animals with strong cultural symbolism are a tourist attraction that needs to exist in these places regardless of its "submission" to the will of man. To think, therefore, as heard several times in recent days, that there is a "threshold" beyond which there should be no more bears (or wolves) on the territory of the Autonomous Province of Trento is the very antithesis of biodiversity: a "Wild but not too wild" which risks becoming a boomerang both for tourism, the pride of the area, and for the population that lives there because it will not be the possibility of having fewer bears in the area that will prevent encounters between them and man in the future.
In these days there has been a lot of talk about this new case and the choir, which our association also joins is unanimous: in these times and in these ways it is not possible to claim the desire to remove a specimen of which not only nothing is known yet, but who is probably considered "guilty" of having done what perfectly falls within the ethology of his species: protect their young ones, in case it was a female with puppies or to remove a stranger from a sudden encounter and probably too close as it could be if we found ourselves in front of a male, a young person or any other specimen of bear. Keeping pretending that bears don't make bears and wolves stop being wolves is an attitude that can no longer be tolerated and it is necessary to undertake concrete actions that solve the problems, however avoiding hiding them quickly under the doormat for fear of tackling them in a non-lethal way, providing solutions that often seem to be electoral flags for an ever smaller slice of the population that would need more than continuous information bear that of solutions that do not really solve the problems. Furthermore, and this is a common denominator throughout our country, it is necessary to start living the wood by accepting that inside it there may be dangers that are beyond our control and that perhaps they represent the true essence of it that we often insist on wanting to "tame" according to our will or our needs.
In the spirit that animates our association we therefore took some time to reflect on what happened and we assessed, in the light of the last years of management, some ideas that can be a positive starting point for the conservation of the bear, but also of the wolf, at the in order to develop concrete ideas from this certainly unpleasant episode, especially towards the unfortunate to whom we express all our solidarity.
We have thus elaborated 5 simple ideas which we send, not only to the competent authorities, the parks involved, the environmental associations and stakeholders, but which we publish with the wish to receive your reflections and improve them with an inclusive approach of all those who for better or for worse they live this territoryio.
- REVIEW AND UPDATING OF THE PACOBACE
The PACOBACE (Interregional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps) is the reference for the management of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) for the regions and autonomous provinces of the central-eastern Alps.
This Plan, drawn up by an interregional technical panel made up of the Autonomous Province of Trento, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regions, the Lombardy Region, the Veneto Region, the Ministry of the Environment and ISPRA, was formally adopted by the territorial administrations involved and approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of the Territory and the Sea with Directorial Decree no. 1810 of November 5, 2008 with a subsequent modification in the summer of 2015.
The document contains a table showing the degree of problematic nature of a bear's possible behaviors and the related actions to be taken but, in light of the latest facts and the experience gained in the management of the bear in many European and non-European countries the plan should be updated by examining many aspects within it, in order not only to prevent the same plan becoming a kind of indisputable pass to take any action without having first deepened and understood it, but that consider the origin of the behaviors found by presumed problematic animals respecting the ethology of the species: e.g. a bear that deliberately attacks a man without apparent causes can certainly be classified as a problematic bear, a bear that defends its offspring during a sudden encounter cannot be defined problematic as it acts within what are the known characteristics of the species and how such cannot be removed.
- TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE PRESENCE AREAS OF FEMALES WITH OFFSPRING
Whether they are inside a Natural Park or not, the total or partial temporary closure of the areas to the public which is interesting from the presence of the females with cubs is an important action that has the dual task of protecting man and keeping the bear, yet in Trentino this correct habit, often practiced successfully elsewhere is, as far as we know, a rarity, both outside and inside the parks.
Not even on Monte Peller this action has been taken, yet, in principle, having requested its immediate killing, the bear responsible for the attack of recent days could strike again considering that anyone is free to frequent those same woods without any limitation. .
Suffice it to say that the National Park of Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise not only provides for the closure of the areas where peaceful females are used to stay with the puppies, but also to close some important paths during the peak tourist months in order not to disturb the Marsican bear.
Why in Trentino do you limit yourself to signaling the areas of presence of females with puppies and not to close or limit, for those particularly problematic summer months, the transit in these areas?
- PROMOTE THE MOBILITY OF THE SPECIES ON THE ALPINE ARC
Most of the Trentino bear population is concentrated in a part of the provincial territory west of the city of Trento, around the Brenta massif.
This is mainly due to the reduced mobility of the females who during their life tend to gravitate to the same area and to the detriment of the males who often, even moving away for hundreds of kilometers from these areas eventually end up going back as elsewhere the total absence of females it does not allow the population to expand.
The possibility of favoring the movement and expansion of the homerange of the population could be the real initiative that could create a natural "threshold" of presence in the province.
Such as? It is not easy to imagine such an action without a concert of intentions on an extra-regional and European scale, but the importance of this action is not only aimed at the enlargement of the population in the Alpine territory, but also at the conservation of the current population which today, with this territorial maintenance, certainly faces genetic problems that could seriously compromise it.
- LIBERALIZATION OF THE SALE OF (TRUE) ANTI BEAR SPRAY
There has also been a lot of talk about this topic, and however complex it may seem, the possibility of being able to purchase a simple spray that can help in the event of close encounters could help to encourage acceptance, especially among those categories that work or they live constantly in the woods.
Plus this liberalization the real anti-bear spray and not the chilli pepper spray for personal defense should be associated with a training course that could provide for the possibility of purchase only by those who have been trained in its use: hunters, fungaioli, guides, woodcutters could benefit from the possibility of removing a bear in a non-lethal way during their activities thus avoiding problematic interactions.
In addition there are several studies that testify how effective this method is, what do you expect to allow the sale?
- ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT ORGAN FOR THE BEAR AND THE WOLF IN THE ALPS
In recent days countless opinions, petitions, analyzes and different points of view have followed, yet the conservation of the bear in the Alpine area cannot be separated from the birth of an organism free from political constraints that can be an authoritative voice for the bear theme . Be it a board of various associations or a simple comparison table that is quick to act and competent in issues, it cannot fail to include within it also voices that apparently may seem distant from the conservation of the bear but which instead, according to ours are fundamental as the hunting world or the mycological world, in order to create a cohesive and choral dialogue that works for the bear in an authoritative manner and that knows how to dialogue with the institutions called to manage it.
These are just some of our ideas, and many more could be written.
If you have concrete ideas contact us here.