Human-Bear conflict is actually the most important argument of discussion in the wildlife world.
The actually situation about conservation of bear need to be explained, because if you look for the bear in general, is not threatened, so you can think there is no problem for bear, is false, this is a generally evaluation but when we go to analyze divided by specie the situation radically change, for example the spectacled bear ( Andean bear ), and is not enough, if we go deep and we considerate even the regional division by specie, we discover another big problem in the same area can be found zone where is extinct.
Many people think which if in general level there is no problem the ecosystem is in balancing. 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 afflict.
Looking around the world we can see that the 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 use terms of difficult understanding. Consequence of this situation is the increase of the conflict. Is not our intention to accuse some of the actors but we want to remark the problem and offer some suggestion for 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 ” , is typically of who have insufficient knowledge about wildlife, don’t exist a program which introduce an animal specie in ecosystem which never been there. Why it was reintroduced? because if in the past it was there, the absence create a problem in the ecosystem balancing, 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, human are not a prey for bear, but can be a danger and he will defend himself .
What we can do for to help the correct managing of the human-bear conflict? actually need to understand the correct approach is locally. Any location have his culture, specially the rural areas have different approach wit the wilderness. The past actions have showed, 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 need don’t look how many votes give they back a determinate action, is time to think for a common interest, for that you was been elected. When there is a problem the first thing is to have correct information from scientist and the decision, like for example the transfer of the critical animal, need to be evaluate with scientist team.
We think 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 the contact with the community .
Finally we think is necessary a modern approach of the managing, all the actors need to be part of the project and they need to be stimulated. Just all together we can have a better world. Donn’t forget to watch the video above, it can explain you a lot of things simply.