Environment Ministry poised to open the season for bear trophy hunting
Environment Ministry poised to open the season for bear trophy hunting
Bucharest, 1 April 2021 – Agent Green warns that Environment Minister Tanczos Barna intends to break the law by permitting the preventive killing of bears.
“The minister has already shown many signs of sympathy for the trophy-hunting industry’s needs, but today’s statements confirmed his purpose at the ministry. Preventive hunting was common practice until 2016. The largest bears were taken for trophies. The population’s structure was disrupted, and today we see the consequences. Returning to preventive hunting would deal this species the final blow, as it will increase the number of problem bears, lead to persecution and ultimately eradicate the species,” warns Gabriel Păun.
“We will allow preventive intervention,” Environment Minister Tanczos Barna told a press meeting. Asked what preventive intervention means in practice, the minister replied: “removal or capture and relocation.”
Video for free distribution with credit to the source, Agent Green:
Although we agree that managing carnivore species does not mean being passive and doing nothing, we remind Environment Minister Barna Tánczos that Romania’s bears must be managed under ENVIRONMENT MINISTER ORDER No. 625 of 28.06.2018 approving the National Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear Population in Romania, rather than on the basis of opinions.
As the legislation in force provides, intentional taking of individuals from the wild to regulate brown bear population densities through hunting regulated by the central authority responsible for species management, under derogations in circumstances provided by law, must comply with points 2 and 3 of Action 1.5. These provide that the maximum intervention level is set on the basis of annual national studies founded on clear analyses and criteria:
– A specialist study estimating brown bear numbers nationally will be conducted every year, following which the Environment Ministry approves a maximum intervention level in the brown bear population.
– Setting, with the necessary caution, responsible annual maximum intervention levels in the population, based on analyses and criteria developed by specialists from institutions/universities/entities with the relevant competence and expertise.
We recall that the same National Action Plan obliges the central environmental authority to establish and clearly record the level of damage and conflicts, actual population numbers compared with optimal numbers, and also to know, before deciding to harvest the species, the population’s trend and structure and the reduction in the risk of damage and direct human-bear conflict.
As the Environment Minister stated, the intention is to maintain the intervention level from 2018, without clearly specifying whether the study required for 2021 has been conducted and whether specialists have the information required by the legislation in force.
Without these studies, we can only conclude that environmental legislation is being breached by the very people who should apply it, and that the impact on strictly protected species may be significant without success in preventing conflicts and damage.
Agent Green calls on the Environment Ministry to abandon any initiative that would allow preventive hunting of brown bears and to focus on addressing causes rather than effects. Those causes are habitat degradation, climate change and persecution of the species at the trophy-hunting industry’s instigation.
Press contact:
Further clarifications on managing Romania’s brown bear population
Any consideration of lethal population control or the use of other methods that could negatively affect bear survival must be treated with the utmost caution, given the variety of threats facing brown bears. Brown bears must have safe habitats and avoid human persecution (Weaver et al., 1996, Estes et al., 2011, Ripple et al., 2014, Darimont et al., 2015). A brown bear needs a large habitat free from human conflict to seek food, mates, shelter and den sites. An ideal brown bear habitat must have an adequate distribution and abundance of food so that bears can develop harmoniously. Another critical threat to bears is the incursion of motorised machinery into their habitats (Craighead 2002).
Furthermore, many researchers have argued that climate change will have harmful effects on bears by further altering the availability of food sources in their habitat. Their conclusions demonstrate that the Romanian government must take the impact of climate change on brown bears with the utmost seriousness. For example, Bojarska and Selva (2012) conducted a global review of bear food selection in relation to geographical location (latitude, longitude, altitude) and numerous environmental variables such as the duration and depth of snow cover.
They found that some of “the most important factors affecting brown bear feeding ecology” were “temperature and snow conditions” (Bojarska & Selva 2012). They determined that climate change can be expected to greatly influence brown bears’ feeding habits through changes in food availability, hibernation patterns, nutritional and energy requirements, and feeding behaviour. Rising global temperatures produce shorter winters with less snow, especially at northern latitudes and in high-altitude areas (Sagarin & Micheli 2001, Wilmers & Post 2006). Early snowmelt substantially reduces the amount of food in late winter and spring, which is vital for bears after hibernation and until other food resources become available (Wilmers & Post 2006).
Climate change can affect brown bear feeding habits through changes in plant distribution and phenology. In response to higher temperatures, Rodriguez et al. (2007) demonstrated a long-term decline in the contribution of boreal and temperate foods to the brown bear diet during the hyperphagic season, when brown bears usually consume large quantities of fruit to accumulate fat for hibernation and successful reproduction. Changes in the timing and abundance of fruit, the collection of fruit and acorns, and a decline in the availability of high-quality fruit can have important consequences for brown bear population dynamics (Rodriguez et al., 2007).
If brown bears’ main food resources disappear without a corresponding change in the timing of alternative food resources, a serious dietary deficit could arise (Bojarska and Silva 2012, pp. 133-4). The currently available scientific studies make it clear that climate change threatens and will continue to threaten brown bears by adversely altering their habitat.
Dorresteijn et al. (2014) studied brown bear coexistence with humans in Transylvania, Romania. The researchers found that “bears and humans coexisted relatively peacefully, despite occasional conflicts”. The keys to this coexistence were: 1) the availability of wooded areas connected to bear populations in the Carpathian Mountains; 2) the use of traditional livestock management to minimise damage caused by bears; and 3) a degree of tolerance among shepherds towards occasional conflict with bears.
Dorresteijn et al. found that bear activity was not associated with human settlements, and compensation for livestock losses does not influence people’s attitudes towards bears.
These studies show that conflict between people and bears is low in the regions of Romania where hunting quotas and, probably, bear populations are highest. Clearly, claims that hunting is needed to address conflict between people and bears in this region are false.
Co-adaptation and coexistence with Romania’s brown bears are essential for the safety of the human population, animals and agriculture.
Agent Green recommends that the environment ministry’s action plan firmly require co-adaptation and coexistence with Romania’s brown bears. Co-adaptation and coexistence must happen if we want bears to continue to exist; this means that people must be willing to share habitat and tolerate the low level of risk they pose (Dubois et al., 2017, Carter and Linnell, 2016, Chapron, Guillaume et al., 2016). People must counter their own tendency to be a “super-predator” of other species and their habitats (Darimont et al., 2015, Chapron and López-Bao, 2016).
In 2015, a group of academics, industry representatives and non-governmental organisations from five continents met at a 2-day workshop to develop the first international principles for ethical decision-making in wildlife control. The group’s conclusions were published and are summarised as follows:
“They determined that wildlife control efforts should begin wherever possible by changing the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and developing a culture of coexistence; that significant harm to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems and/or other animals should be demonstrated by evidence; that there should be measurable, outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored and adaptable; that predictable reductions in animal welfare should affect the smallest number of animals; that efforts should be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical and practical information; that they should be integrated into systematic long-term management plans; and that they should be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (harmful, too numerous) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide the development of standards and decisions and the implementation of international, national and local standards” (Dubois et al., 2017).
We recognise that living with bears can be difficult in rural areas. When property is damaged (including homes, crops, livestock, commercial forestry, etc.), compensation should be delivered promptly with local authorities’ help. This will improve people’s tolerance of bears, reducing the risk and frequency of retaliatory poaching.
In extreme situations where bears genuinely pose a risk to people and/or their property, the Environment Ministry should have an Emergency Plan (at national or administrative level) enabling it to intervene case by case to eliminate dangerous situations. This Emergency Plan should be permanently separate from any harvesting quotas that might be allocated to managers and clearly state that its specific and sole purpose is to address extreme cases. Trophies from approved interventions should not be traded commercially, thus preventing fraudulent killing of bears disguised as emergencies.
Agent Green therefore considers it necessary for state authorities to set specific conservation objectives based on environmental, social and economic objectives — the basis for current and timely information about species. To facilitate cooperation between stakeholders, decision-making transparency and predictability are needed in setting the proposed objectives, measures and actions. Only in this way is it possible to facilitate not only the maintenance of a balanced social climate, but also the maintenance of an ethical and non-discretionary framework in Romania’s brown bear population management system.
We also support proposals for studies on the impact of mushroom and berry gathering on the brown bear population and on determining brown bears’ impact on prey species (red deer, roe deer, wild boar), with implications for hunting and the agricultural and forestry sectors. However, we would recommend that independent agencies conduct these studies to ensure that the results are not biased to serve private interests.
