Open letter – draft order to kill 486 bears
Bucharest, 2 May 2023
Open letter concerning: Draft Order approving prevention and intervention levels to prevent damage and accidents caused by the bear species (Ursus arctos)
Dear Minister Tanczos Barna,
We consider that the draft order you submitted to public debate contains glaring legal, scientific and moral errors from the first page to the last, and we ask you to withdraw it immediately. It brings shame on the institution called the “Ministry of Environment”. What you have published as a study does not look like a study at all. You cannot submit a draft order to public debate without the Romanian Academy’s endorsement, which in any case cannot be given without committing an abuse. The draft has no serious methodology, and the data collection period suggests instead that you sporadically took your team on picnics with trophy-hunting organisers to negotiate by telephone with hunting grounds the price and bribe for each bear execution. The draft does not address the cause of the problem, only its effect. In the form submitted to debate, it will certainly worsen the problem: more human-bear conflicts, more damage, loss of life and disruption of the bear population. Most seriously, after reading the draft order we realised that what you call a study to justify the planned killing of 486 bears does not present the impact on the brown bear population in any form.
Your intention to favour the trophy-hunting industry at the expense of the brown bear population is evident throughout the order. From the very first page, the introduction, we could see the contradiction between the study’s objectives and publicly available information. Officially, before the Revolution, in 1988, Romania had 7880 bears. Three decades followed in which the population declined, including because of poaching, poisoning and killing quotas proposed and approved (1419 bears legally killed between 1990-1996) to reduce damage, as recorded in the draft order’s introduction. The recorded bear population fell sharply in just a few years to 5500 individuals in 1996. Accepting these official data invites a repetition of the mistakes made 33 years ago that led to the current situation, and makes your draft order a utopia.
Below, we will criticise several problematic aspects of the draft order point by point, then offer considerations for a new order. As a principle, Agent Green supports coexistence and coadaptation with bears by addressing the cause of problems rather than their effect. The organisation does not support lethal measures in any form. Habituated bears that cause problems are the result of poor public policies and bear no blame. Killing them is morally wrong. The Ministry of Environment has a duty to ensure them a dignified life in sanctuaries established and maintained by the Romanian state. It must guarantee healthy habitat for non-habituated bears, progressively expanding that habitat. Currently, it is degraded and restricted to a few mountain areas where the species has taken refuge rather than being at ease. The ministry must urgently repair the bear’s reputation, having contributed to its persecution through poor policies and alarmist statements made in bad faith. Future public policies must account for climate change, which is having an increasingly rapid negative impact on the brown bear population.
Point 1 of the study, “Purpose and necessity”, subsection 1.1, “Reference elements”, states: “Derogations are not granted if there is a risk that they will have a significant negative qualitative or quantitative impact on the population subject to the derogation.”
But nowhere does the study present the impact on the population, only methods for calculating a maximum level of removal of bears from a population. A study must present a detailed risk analysis and an impact assessment.
Under point 2, “Specific activities”, you write: “these being distributed throughout the species’ range, with a greater number in the counties of Harghita, Mureș, Covasna, Brașov, Argeș, Sibiu and Prahova, in direct correlation with the high densities recorded.”
In reality, the damage presented is not spread throughout the species’ range. Please therefore quantify the distribution of damage in relation to the species’ distribution. Nor can you legitimately use the phrase “direct correlation”, since “correlation” does not implicitly mean “causation”. On page 11 of the study you approved, the section explaining the calculation method presents the correlation coefficient “r” between bear density and the number of damage incidents as 0.2. That means a weak correlation (“p” is < 0.00, but “r” coefficients below 0.3 indicate a weak correlation between the variables analysed). Interpreting the calculation in favour of a higher quota is therefore an abuse.
Further on, also under point 2, “Specific activities”, it states: “In the rest of the brown bear’s range, the amount of damage varies between 170 and 580128 lei at hunting ground level, with the highest values reported in Harghita, Mureș, Covasna, Brașov and Sibiu counties. The distribution of damage values is directly correlated with the species’ density recorded in the areas mentioned above.”
This is serious misinformation through deliberate omission: presenting the variation in compensation values without indicating when and where the minimum, maximum and intermediate values were recorded, and without presenting a mean value, lacks credibility. The correlation between the number of derogations allocated per hunting ground and the number of damage incidents + their value must also be presented to quantify the effect of derogations on damage levels. Finally, the problem with the correlation between the damage values presented and bear density persists, because the calculated “r” coefficient of 0.13 indicates a weak correlation.
“2. Analysis of derogations granted under ministerial orders derogating from protection measures, compared with the location of conflict situations and damage recorded in 2015-2020, at hunting ground level;” Heading on page 5
Analysing conflicts during 2015-2020 against derogations from 2019-2022 is entirely inappropriate because the nature of the derogations applied in 2015-2020 differs completely from those in 2019-2022. It is like comparing Romanians’ standard of living in 1990-2007 with production capacity in 2007-2022. Moreover, the chapter analyses, or rather compares, applications for derogations with derogations granted; we identified no quantitative element concerning damage or conflict situations.
Point 2.2, “Analysis of derogations granted under ministerial orders derogating from protection measures, compared with the location of conflict situations and damage recorded in 2015-2020, at hunting ground level”, states: “Data on derogations were taken from the beneficiary’s website for 2019-2022 (the period agreed with the beneficiary). The analysis of derogations granted compared applications for derogations with derogations granted. In total, 356 derogations were requested and 187 granted, of which 140 were carried out. Of those 140 derogations, 122 involved harvesting brown bears, while 18 involved relocating bears (Fig. 3-5). Most derogations were granted in the counties with the highest damage and densities.”
This wording does not indicate which regulatory acts were considered or the period and context in which the derogations applied. This section cannot be called an “analysis”. It claims that derogations up to 2022 were distributed where damage and densities were high, but does not show how they helped reduce damage and densities. In conclusion, allocating a maximum level of derogations for killing cannot resolve damage, conflicts or population density.
Further on, the study’s authors claim that the number of animals killed according to the data in “Status of derogations for the brown bear (Ursus arctos), under Ministerial Order 724/2019, as of 11.10.2022” “represents less than 1% of the population and has had an insignificant influence on its behaviour and dynamics; the damage caused by this species maintains its upward trend.”
This interpretation is abusive and illogical. In fact, the derogations granted officially targeted problem bears, not a reduction in the bear population. The logical interpretation is therefore that we cannot expect derogations under Ministerial Order 724/2019 to change the population’s behaviour and dynamics.
Under point 3.3, “Participation, together with hunting ground managers, local environmental protection agencies and other stakeholders (NGOs, research institutes/universities, museums), in field data collection on 10% of the hunting grounds occupied by brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcat (Felis silvestris), and spot-checking the assessment on another 10% of hunting grounds occupied by brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcat (Felis silvestris), through visits to managers in at least 10 counties; identification of reproductive units (females with cubs). Field data collection for bears will follow Ministerial Order no. 625/28.06.2018, published in Romania’s Official Gazette no. 549 of 02.07.2018, approving the National Action Plan for Conservation of Romania’s Brown Bear Population – action 1.3, Monitoring the brown bear population nationally, point c), Permanent monitoring.”
Comparing figures 6 and 8 shows that at least in Caraș Severin, Mehedinți, Bihor, Suceava and Maramureș counties, research was conducted but no bears were found. We assume the data presented are either wrong or incomplete. The dates and locations where NGO or other interested observers were also present are not specified, nor is the verification method used. Identifying reproductive units cannot be used for verification and validation without knowing other population indicators, such as female/male or adult/juvenile ratios. Science does not validate this method as a control method.
The action plan does not provide a clear methodology for annual bear population monitoring, but recommends the transect method proposed in the LIFEURSUS project, which was not visibly applied during 2021 and 2022.
Under point 2.5.1, “Analysis of hunting ground, county and national data in GIS and production of GIS maps by density category for the bear population”, the authors state: “The national minimum number of individuals was calculated using the average percentage growth of bear populations worldwide (1.136). Romania’s brown bear population may have higher growth rates than other populations, given the widespread practice of supplementary feeding, which could lead to higher survival (Popescu et al. 2016) (Article attached in the annexes).”
The supposedly worldwide average percentage population growth of 1.136 is actually the maximum annual population growth rate estimated in 1974-1994 for the grizzly bear population in the Canadian state of British Columbia, a different subspecies from the brown bear living in Europe. The information was taken incorrectly from the cited article by Popescu et al. in 2016. Feeding bears is no longer permitted by the Council of Europe. The study’s authors must clarify the statement on feeding bears. Since they believe feeding increases the population while the objective is to reduce it, we ask them to clarify to what extent this practice should be abandoned or continued, and to what extent it contributes to damage.
Under point 2.5.2, the authors state: “The maximum reference value reported by our country for 2013-2018 was used (7200 individuals, representing the sum of the values by bioregion), used in this study for 2018 as the reference population:
https://nature-art17.eionet.europa.eu/article17/species/report
This wording suggests that the maximum value reported in 2018 (7200 individuals) was used to calculate the minimum. That is incorrect because, in current practice, mean values rather than maxima are used to estimate a minimum. Moreover, it is scientifically wrong to compare values calculated at bioregion level (by sampling) with those calculated at hunting ground and county level, regardless of the method used.
Under point 2.5.3: “Using the average percentage growth of bear populations worldwide (1.136), applied to 7200, resulted in a minimum of 7703 individuals for 2023.”
We consider this calculation wrong. Multiplying N2018 = 7200 by λ = 1.136 does not produce the authors’ value of 7703. Calculating growth for 2018-2022 gives a growth rate of 1.07 (that is, 7%), which appears nowhere in the methodology. Given the 4-year interval and this rate, it seems unnatural for the rate to have remained constant for four years, while the authors do not show whether they calculated other annual growth rates for this period. We may therefore regard 7703 as a figure unrelated to science and instead subject to arbitrary choice. The fate of a species key to the ecosystem cannot be jeopardised by bad calculations.
Under point 2.5.4: “The maximum number of individuals was calculated for 2022, starting from hunting ground estimates centralised by the county Environmental Protection Agencies and applying a negative correction of 0.5. The result was a maximum of 8093 individuals, which was used for all subsequent calculations. This correction followed field verification, applying the ‘COY’ index for the reproductive-unit method (Krkovic et.al., 2001).”
This approach represents the demise of science: minimum and maximum bear population estimates used two different methods, one for the minimum and another for the maximum, according to what suited the authors and beneficiaries best. For the minimum, they estimated growth relative to a value established in 2018 (at bioregion level, with sampled data). For the maximum, they calculated from hunting ground bear numbers reported by managers, applying a 50% correction with no scientific basis, because the cited article contains no methods or results suggesting that 0.5 can be used as a population correction value.
It then states: “The densities calculated for each hunting ground used the mean of favourable brown bear habitat extracted from Corine Land Cover and the hunting ground’s area, related to 100 km2 (10,000 ha), Fig. 7-8.”
Establishing the reference area for calculating bear density by averaging favourable habitat with fictitious administrative boundaries is scientifically invalid according to the current literature on this species.
Under point 2.6, “Identification, analysis and presentation of acceptable alternatives; proposed derogations for a number of bears, lynx and wildcats will be correlated with significant damage and cases in which these species endangered people’s health and physical integrity during 2015–2022; scientific justification for the proposed derogations and establishing the link between favourable conservation status and removal of a certain number of brown bears (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wildcats (Felis silvestris), under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive); estimating the number of derogations that may be granted for 2023 by manager and county.” It specifies: “Presence data for brown bears at hunting ground level consisted of the maximum from the analysis under point 5 (8093 individuals nationally), because this point proposes the maximum level of intervention in the population (the maximum number of individuals resulting from the study), and because this value followed correction of nationally centralised data verified by the county Environmental Protection Agencies. Moreover, the proposed intervention in the brown bear population is maximal, without affecting its current conservation status, while there is no obligation to carry it out in full. Since this study proposes the maximum prevention intervention level for bears, the following calculation formula resulting from the analysis was used: N=(N1+N2)/2, where N is the maximum number of individuals proposed for prevention at hunting ground level;”
The meaning of “presence data” at hunting ground level is vague, and its association with a nationally established maximum is a mystery, given that Romanian scientific literature shows that an individual bear occupies a range spanning several hunting grounds. Furthermore, since the bear is protected, the prevention principle requires any potential lethal intervention to relate to the minimum estimated population and the minimum quota capable of affecting it. Under that principle, basing a quota on a maximum population estimate (incorrectly calculated) and maximum intervention (calculated using a formula without scientific basis) is wrong and dangerous. The absence of an obligation to implement the maximum does not justify deciding on maximum intervention. To respect the prevention principle, the maximum level should be the minimum at which an impact can be assessed against a population estimated through a clear, scientifically validated method.
Page 19 introduces another inconsistency. The authors write: “For Romania’s bear population there is no satisfactory alternative to derogation, given that the hundreds of relocations undertaken have proved ineffective; relocated adult bears returned to their place of origin or created conflicts in relocation areas and had to be eliminated.”
Under point 2, the same authors say that 18 relocations were carried out; this section mentions hundreds. We ask the ministry to publish the study listing the hundreds of relocations and to interpret their results.
The authors then write: “Romania’s very high bear density causes numerous cub losses through killing by males, the reaction of females with cubs to protect them; – abandoning natural habitat and taking refuge in crops, small patches of woodland and near settlements, where conflict risks with local people increase and cubs grow up practically habituated.”
Thus, natural population regulation by males killing cubs is identified, yet the last paragraph explicitly calls for removing males to “allow females to return to their natural habitat”. In effect, it recommends reducing an important element of the natural population regulation mechanism. This reveals an interest in trophies and incompetence.
In fact, it is not even explained to what extent the objective of reducing the population can be achieved by removing the dominant males that ensure the population’s natural regulation. Nor is any justification given for this recommendation in a context where the objective is to reduce the population. We consider this recommendation in the study, in relation to the proposal in the draft order to set a maximum threshold of 500 CIC points, worrying and intended to support the killing of adult specimens with valuable trophies, a measure that cannot contribute to reducing the population in the short term but will additionally disrupt its structure, increase it in the long term by broadening the base of the bear population pyramid, and create a risk of inbreeding. This recommendation thus contradicts the study’s objectives and the spirit of the prevention quota.
The authors go on to write in increasingly broken Romanian that “Given the situation created by the unfortunate (wrong) decision in 2016 regarding bear management in Romania, a decision that led to dozens of people being killed or mutilated by bears, an exponential increase in state expenditure on compensation and the alteration of bears’ natural behaviour, as well as a decline in local people’s acceptance/tolerance of bears’ presence in communities, agricultural crops, orchards and household outbuildings, serious damage to crops, livestock and forests, in the interests of public health and safety and even to protect fauna, there is no viable alternative other than issuing derogations within the prevention and intervention quota.”
This statement is speculation because there are no studies or data to support it.
Near the end, the authors say that “For Romania’s bear population, intervention is possible without causing problems affecting its dynamics and favourable conservation status within a limit of 10% of the minimum population level. Both intervention and prevention derogations will fall within this number. While intervention derogations will focus mainly on specimens with deviant behaviour regardless of sex or age, preventive harvesting will seek to reduce the proportion of males so that females with cubs can return to their natural habitat. According to scientific studies, dominant males put constant pressure on young specimens and especially on females with cubs, which resort to leaving favourable living areas and moving increasingly close to inhabited areas to avoid predation (Steyer et. all 2013).”
The study does not carry out an impact analysis to establish this 10% threshold as one with no impact on the population. The bear action plan proposes a threshold of 8%, while the ministry’s attempted study proposes a threshold of 5.94%. This statement therefore contradicts the rest of the study.
Additional considerations for the future order on brown bear population management in Romania
Controlling the brown bear population through lethal means or using other methods that could negatively affect bear survival must be ruled out, 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 of human conflict in order to seek food, a mate, shelter and den sites. An ideal brown bear habitat must have an adequate distribution and abundance of food for bears to develop harmoniously. In addition, 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 measures 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 are aware that living with bears in rural areas can be difficult if people do not protect themselves and receive no support from the authorities for protecting their households and for education. When property is damaged (including homes, crops, livestock, commercial forestry, etc.), compensation should be delivered promptly, with the help of local authorities. This will improve people’s tolerance of bears, reducing the risk and frequency of retaliatory poaching.
In extreme situations where bears really pose a risk to the human population and/or its property, the Ministry of Environment should have an Emergency Plan (at national or administrative level) allowing it to intervene on a case-by-case basis to eliminate dangerous situations. This Emergency Plan must no longer include lethal measures under any circumstances, only measures for co-adaptation and coexistence. This would eliminate the interest in trophies. In the current context, there can be no guarantee that approved interventions (intervention + prevention) are not subject to commercial transactions that support the fraudulent killing of bears disguised as emergency situations.
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 wild berry gathering on the brown bear population and for determining the impact of brown bears on prey species (red deer, roe deer, wild boar), with implications for hunting and the agricultural and forestry sectors. However, we would recommend that such studies be conducted by independent institutions to ensure that the results are not biased to serve private interests.
Please consider our comments and considerations and reply to each, point by point, at office@agentgreen.org within 10 days of receiving this open letter.
Yours sincerely,
President of Agent Green
