Human-Bear conflict is actually the most critical argument of discussion in the wildlife world.
The actual situation about conservation of bear needs to be explained. If you look for the bear in general, is not threatened. So you can think there is no problem for bear. It is false, this is an overall evaluation, but when we go to analyze divided by species, the situation is radically changed. An example is the spectacled bear ( Andean bear )
. If we go deep and we considerate even the regional division by species, we discover another big problem, in the same area can be found a zone where is extinct.
Many people think which is in general level there is no problem the ecosystem is in balance. Is a totally false approach and is a theory used from who want to hide his personal interests. Imagine your body, and imagine to feel pain at an arm, the pain is localized in that arm, but the problem will interest all your body and your life, the same is for the ecosystems if one small part of the ecosystem is injured the entire ecosystem will be afflicted.
Looking around the world, we can see that human-bear conflict managing is a big problem. Local administrator mostly time are not prepared to manage the problem because there is ignorance on the theme. Conservationist have sometimes not correct approach, and scientist uses terms of difficulty understanding. A consequence of this situation is the increase in the conflict. Is not our intention to accuse some of the actors, but we want to remark the problem. We want to offer some suggestion to arrive at the best result which is the best for human and for bear.
A lot of time I eared shepherds tell “bear, it was introduced here, before, it was not.” It is typical of who have insufficient knowledge about wildlife. Don’t exist a program which introduces an animal species in the ecosystem which never been there. Why was it reintroduced? Because if in the past, it was there, the absence creates a problem in the ecosystem balancing. It is not against the shepherds or for funny the reintroduction.
I saw even some administrators order to kill one bear because he had injured a man, nothing is more stupid of this action, in the 80% of cases was a mother with cubs and when you kill the mother, you condemn the cubs. And in the remain cases is the incorrect approach at the environment the problem, the human is not a prey for bear, but can be a danger, and he will defend himself.
What can we do to help the correct managing of the human-bear conflict? Actually, we need to understand the right approach is local. Any location has its culture. Especially the rural areas have a different approach to the wilderness. The past actions have shown, the bear presence is more accepted if the shepherds are refunded in case of lost their livestock.
Is necessary from scientist and conservationist ( mostly time are the same actors ) to institute educational programs for the communities interested. People need to know what the program is doing. Explaining through the time the situation of the bear population and help the locals to have passion for their treasure.
Administrator doesn’t look how many votes give them back a determinate action. It is time to think for a common interest, for that you have been elected. When there is a problem, the first thing is to have the correct information from scientists. The decision, like for example the transfer of the critical animal, need to be evaluated with the scientist team.
We think it is a good idea to involve the rangers in the project. They are not a wardens only, they are the first animal lovers, and they have even contact with the community.
Finally, we think a modern approach to management is needed. All the actors necessitate to be part of the project, and they need to be stimulated. Just all together, we can have a better world. Don’t forget to watch the video above, it can explain to you a lot of things simply.