Italian Association for Wilderness (AIW)
A COMMENT To the questions and answers asked and given in a pamphlet released last August 19 to the readers of the Abruzzo newspaper IL CENTRO by the authorities of the Abruzzo National Park
Obviously, August and the full number of tourists were expected to distribute a brochure onMarsican bear in which some questions have been listed that many may ask themselves while visiting the Abruzzo Park, knowing that it is the place of choice for those who want to observe or, in any case, perceive the presence of this animal; and the authorities respond to them, it goes without saying, "authoritatively". The brochure was offered free of charge to those who bought the newspaper IL CENTRO - a newspaper that was already buggered when it was persuaded to launch a fundraising campaign in favor of the Marsican bear - 10.000 Euros! - which were then donated in a useless operation for a domestic apple orchard now abandoned, built where it would have been better - and spending a trifle! - sow a large cornfield there (see Wilderness / Documents No. 2/2015). Oh well, there are those who love to persevere in error and never look to the past: and it is perhaps the most macroscopic error of authorities, politicians and mass media, for which in Italy many problems are never solved, and action is almost always taken oxen outside the stables or done with facade operations only).
Even if in the brochure the undersigned association has not been included in the final list of Internet sites where the citizen can have information on the Marsican Bear, at least the undersigned believes he can "authoritatively" intervene as he was the first scholar in the field of this animal, when the animal's situation was already critical, although seen from today it could be considered flourishing. Please note, the AIW has not been included in the list of sites by visiting which you can get more information on the Marsican Bear, despite being, without false modesty, the environmental association that has mostly printed and disseminated articles and documents on this animal MORE THAN ANY OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION! More than the Park authorities themselves.
Evidently the attacks on people in Trentino by bears reintroduced from Slovenia have taught and frightened, so the title of the booklet: "IS THE MARSICAN BROWN BEAR DANGEROUS?" The answers to the most frequently asked questions to know and respect the Bear.
Already in the presentation of the President of the Park - who obviously had never dealt with this problem before the political office that was conferred on him: but you know, in these cases the writer is often never the authority but the technicians who are behind, so it is largely excusable - there are many comments and / or suggestions to be made.
. He writes that "there are international and national standards that protect the bear. We have to enforce them. There is a National Plan for the protection of the Marsican bear (PATOM). We have to make it happen". To tell the truth, there is a national rule, which dates back to 1936 and is due to the (liberal) Senator and Count Gian Giacomo Gallarati Scotti, who forbade it to be hunted. For the rest, these are mostly "managerial" indications of its habitat, or repetitive of the prohibition to hunt it. It is a pity that the Park itself has rarely provided for those management initiatives aimed at improving its habitat and preserving the tranquility necessary for the life of the animal, and has rather aimed at expanding the Park more and more (operation NEVER required by the aforementioned international standards), as if with an enlarged park the hunting ban increased in severity, to combat poaching that HAS NEVER BEEN THERE! Because true poaching is something else, and should not be confused with killings, which have always been merely occasional, for revenge and defense of economic interests; misdeeds, yes, but which are fought with other "weapons" and not with prohibitions, which leave the time they find; that is, with measures that have rarely been taken by the many authorities involved in the PATOM project.. He then addresses the citizens, arguing that "to save the bear we must respect it. To better respect it, we need to know it". As if the Marsican bear still needed to be "defended" by the citizens and visitors of the Park! After over fifty years of long-winded education on this subject! The truth is that the expense and distribution of the brochure had to be justified, because today in Italy, apart from some unfortunate and uneducated shepherd or hunter (who would never read the brochure!) NOBODY imagines more than killing the Marsican bear, and so much less would the local inhabitants who are so fond of this animal that they have given it numerous nicknames of sympathy (different in Trentino, where the reintroduction of more "aggressive" bears are putting the survival of these specimens at risk). Or maybe with that "to get to know him", We want to justify the MILLIONS of Euros spent so far in studies and research which, if not useless, are at least repetitive - and in some cases perhaps even dangerous, given that the Ministry of the Environment itself had (is it still in force?) Prohibited the capture and sedation of specimens for this purpose.
And we come to the questions.
1 - What is the current situation of the bear in the Apennines?
The question already hides the subtle recognition of a state of affairs that has been transformed from negative into positive. The Marsican bear lived only in the Abruzzo Park and its close vicinity from the beginning of the last century to the 70s. Only AFTER did it expand to the "Apennines", but not because of an increase in the population as someone has repeatedly tried to make believe, but for its dispersion (the famous "diaspora", or "emigration phenomenon", as I defined it starting from those 70s): a defeat for the authorities, who in charge of his defense, instead acted to his detriment with a management work which, in my opinion, ended up making him increasingly move away from the Park and its restricted surroundings (where Ermino Sipari placed him, and then protected him with a prohibition of hunting provided for by the same law that had established the Park, so even before Count Gallarati Scotti obtained its protection from the Parliament; an area that still today the same brochure identifies as "main area of the bear"). Obviously, the "authorities" respond to the question with a first "solid" untruth. "Within the PNALM a population of about 50 individuals is estimated"! Do you want to make believe that on the outside you can count on the presence of other individuals? And why until yesterday there was always talk of 40/50 individuals throughout the Apennines? They then talk to us about "3-4 females that would reproduce every year", as if it were the norm, when this would mean a maximum growth of 3-4 bears per year (considering the high mortality of the young, which the authorities themselves recognize: "the mortality of puppies (…) is particularly high"), which means a net loss in the face of mortality that claims to be "every year of 2-3 bears found dead": That is, those NOT found but statistically evaluable are ignored! Then the statement is dramatic “Although more than 8 puppies have been born in the last 60 years, there is no evidence of growth”, Which in fact confirms my hypothesis and disavows the optimism spread throughout the booklet!
2 - Can the Apennine bear population be considered stable, increasing or endangered?
Another mystification: after what was written in the first answer, one has the courage to argue that "Based on the most recent estimates, produced between 2008 and 2014, the population appears numerically stable in its central portions of the range". An optimistic answer, to try to diminish the drama of the situation described in answering the first question?
3 - Is there evidence of expansion in other areas? Why is the process so slow?
You answer by referring to a "crescendo of reports", But that the presence of mostly males would slow the process of new colonization, also due to"reduced dispersion capacity (…) of females who tend to be very tied to their own territory and to the maternal one". Also, they say, due to "cases of mortality from anthropogenic causes", Considering this"one of the factors that could limit the expansion the most". Please note, an expansion that is referred to as "slow", As if it were a positive fact, while it is absolutely NEGATIVE in the face of a lack of population growth (passed from about 100 bears in the 70s, to about 50 today!) representing a "DISPERSIVE" PHENOMENON, which is different from AN EXPANSION caused by population growth. Therefore, expansion is slow due to the lack of an excess of individuals who should provoke it!
4 - What are the main causes of bear mortality?
Nothing to say about the data, as long as they are real (although at least fifty bears died only between the late 70s and mid-80s: which makes the data of 117 dead bears between 1970 and 2014. And a higher mortality would show that the population was much more prosperous in the past than what we are trying to believe today, because otherwise he would not have endured such a mortality rate. These are numbers, not gossip (but the numbers, you know, are also given by the authorities and contesting them is not always easy for the ordinary citizen who wants to do it, not having access to official documents)! It is also ridiculous that to illustrate these data on mortality, which is charged at 44,8% to "poisoning or killing with a firearm"We chose a drawing that illustrates what is the mortality of only"3 cases of road accidents". It almost seems to want to inflate a false problem to justify the exaggerated alarms that in recent years have been launched against the risk of collision with cars. He then retorts on the fact that "mortality due to illegal anthropogenic activities remains widespread and the efforts to combat this threat put in place in the past decades have proved substantially ineffective". When it comes to the obvious, because ONLY ANTHROPIC ACTIVITIES are the threats that every animal species must face! The problem is, if anything, explain why "they have proved substantially ineffective" the "law enforcement efforts". It means that it has failed on the whole field! It means that perhaps there were other things that had to be done and that have not been done, such as making sure that the bears were not pushed to leave the natural and wild areas of the Park due to: one, of the tourist disturbance; two looking for food of anthropogenic origin (agricultural and pastoral). But they don't tell us this! The reference to “5 cases for health reasons". Because as far as we know there would be only one case for suppository bovine tbc. What would be the evils that led to the death of 4 other specimens? These are real contagious diseases, or just suppositions, given that as far as is known of no prophylaxis has ever been known (except that against rabies, but, always as far as is known, by initiatives not always conducted by the Park authorities). PS It is important to highlight how many dead bears "were recovered thanks to the radio collar": As if this were the function of such an instrument of torture, among other things risky for the very safety of the captured specimens (since to do so using steel rope laces that tighten them to the legs) and sedation (notoriously dangerous even for humans!), while they have no use in preventing death by killing.
5 - What is the consequence of the removal of a breeding female on the future of the bear population?
An obvious answer is given that could not be more obvious, as it applies to all animal species: "Every time a female is lost, not just one bear is lost, but more than one generation of bears"! That is, an established truth is stated that adds nothing to the conservation problems of each animal species, as not only the bear but also many other female animals do not give birth every year (man himself!), But only every certain number of years. This they say, just to argue that female losses should be avoided to avert the risk of extinction: an obvious pleonastic biological rule that applies to every animal species!
You May Also Like ..
6 - Given such a small population, has it been thought about the possibility of introducing subjects from other geographical areas, such as in Trentino?
In this case it must be recognized that a wise answer is given: “The Marsican bear is considered an evolutionary unit in its own right with characteristics (…) to be kept as such. Introducing new bears into the population from other geographic areas would result in a loss of these evolutionary uniqueness", Although it is feared that it will be precisely the scholars who sooner or later will press for a re-bleeding to be carried out, given that this possibility has always been talked about since the time of Ermino Sipari and even before, given that history tells us that some bear would have already been introduced in the Bourbon era to re-bleed a population made up of individuals who considered themselves "miserable and wretched" (not having, at the time, understood - nor did they know it, of course - that precisely that being miserable and miserable distinguishes them genetically, physically and even behaviorally from any other brown bear population!).
Here it is mystified again! that is, the answer is made by making believe that the bear feeds ONLY natural food resources, since only these are referred to, arguing that they are sufficient for the vital needs of the bear, while it is well known that this diet is abundantly integrated with food resources of anthropogenic origins (crops and domestic livestock). In practice, they try to make people believe that the bear could also live on natural food resources alone. A true thing, however, which, as happens in any other place on earth where bears live, would considerably reduce their presence: and, in fact, the high concentration of bears historically present in Abruzzo is due precisely to these resources. To pretend that after millennia of bear-human coexistence, the bear suddenly returns to an earlier era, it is the most serious mistake that current animal scholars and the authorities who are paying attention to it are making! And it is one of the major explanations of why the "great escape" from the Park towards the outside occurs, not surprisingly, towards areas still with a high presence of crops and breeding of domestic livestock. Of course "forest management interventions that maintain a high productivity of acorns, beech and ramno"; expensive forest manipulations absolutely in contrast with the idea of the Park, and also useless given the large trophic availability that exists even leaving oak, beech and ramno to spontaneous development (see Wilderness / Documents N. 2/2015).
8 - Is there a relationship between female productivity and food availability and what are the management implications?
Obviously, even in this case the answer is pleonastic, since it applies to every animal species (they spent millions of Euros, to establish the obvious? To discover hot water?); It is a pity that in giving importance to pre-partum nutrition, one ignores the equally and perhaps even more important post-partum diet! In fact, at the first exit from the winter burrows, bears need to find large food resources in order to produce the nourishment necessary for the growth of the cubs, but these resources are increasingly scarce. or even no longer exist due to an incorrect management of the Park's fauna: that is, the presence of an excess of wild boars and deer which make it possible that during the winter they make all the presence of autumn fruits left on the ground disappear (in particular wild apples and pears) which were once the first nutritious spring food sources for the bear! To avoid this, the presence of deer and wild boar should be drastically reduced to keep their numbers low: but this is not done for the usual typically Italian taboo, that "in the Parks you must never hunt"! And to hide this need, obviously we don't talk about it. In support of this question, a table is then published which highlights how in the summer period food resources of anthropogenic origin also appear in the diet (symbolized by wheat, domestic bees and sheep), to which, however, no mention is made in the answer! Because? A question that perhaps some readers will ask themselves, but without having received an answer!
9 - Why do bears approach countries? Can it be avoided?
Another mystification of a fact that has historically never occurred before, but which is presented in a different light. It is even claimed that their approach to countries is "more natural than what is commonly extinguished". Too bad that the local inhabitants have no historical memory of these facts, whose events can only be traced back to the last few years and in particular to the period in which the research and manipulation of bears for this purpose began (catches, sedations and radio collars)! It is argued that "Bears can be attracted by the possibility of accessing 'easy' and very nutritious resources (e.g. feed, hives, livestock), a phenomenon that can amplify in seasons or years of low availability of natural foods and which causes conflict with man". That is, with this answer, what is written in the previous question on nutrition is rejected, given that it is understood that at least there are years in which human resources can be indispensable to the life of the animal. The thing that even borders on the ridiculous is where it is argued that the female bears would approach the countries "to reduce the risk of assault by adult males"! And why this had never happened in at least two millennia? Is it only today that females fear the presence of males? The fact that the bear has "need to move in a large area (...) it follows that a country can easily fall back into the territory of a bear"Is just as ridiculous, since this has always been, and never before have these phenomena occurred! It then refers to the fact that the bears would approach the countries as there would be "human-related food sources, for example abandoned orchards, as well as easy to find natural food sources, such as acorns, near villages"; that is, situations that have always existed, but that never pushed bears to ENTER THE COUNTRIES, between the houses, and even on the terraces, in the rabbit hutches and in the chicken coops! Things, it repeats itself, historically never occurred before the last few decades! Then we continue with other obvious things, such as declaring that it is "It is important that this behavior does not become such a habit that bears can completely lose their distrust of humans and continually enter inhabited centers to feed themselves". Too bad that THE PROBLEM SHOULD NOT BE AVOIDED AS MUCH AS STUDIED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE BEARS HAVE TAKEN THIS HABIT !!! And it concludes by proposing another obviousness: "protect waste bins, vegetable gardens and chicken coops to completely prevent access to the bear"! That is, close the taps so as not to let the water out, it seems that you want to say!
10 - What is a confidant bear and what is a problem bear?
This is what the studies and researches are for: to be able to divide a single problem into two categories: as if a bear confidante wasn't even a bear problematic! Even if they end up contradicting each other, closing the answer with a "however, it is good to prevent the behavior of confident bears to prevent them from maturing into problematic attitudes". Obviously it could not be more obvious! And of course completely ignored is the fact THAT NEVER BEFORE THERE HAVE BEEN SUCH TYPES OF BEARS! And no words to explain the reasons!
11 - How much and what damage does the bear do?
Also in this case we can see the clear contradiction with the answer to a previous question, because in the answer the very serious and enormous damage that bears cause to the agro-pastoral economy is stated: but how, one would say, but if we said who feed mainly on natural resources, how do you explain these figures? And let's see them: "from a minimum of 119 to a maximum of 245 inspections for damage to the fauna attributable to the bear". Figures presented as a trifle to the reader, almost proof of the scarcity of damage! What then these damages are "in 66% (...) livestock (...) and 34% to crops”Tells us very little if we are not given the general total of these damages in order to make a reasonable comparison and CORRECTLY answer the question. They justify themselves, to diminish the impact on agriculture and livestock, by giving us the data on those from problematic bears ("approximately 29%"). Another manipulated truth is that of the payment of damages: “damages are regularly compensated from an economic point of view”. True, but it is not said that the damage compensated is never 100% refunded, that is, including the indirect damages suffered by the breeders (for example, a pregnant sheep or cow are evaluated as if they were not. Nor are the costs of finding others to replace them considered; and even less are affective damages considered! ). In other words, how was it possible to say to the last former President of the Park: has everything due ever been donated to those who complained of the damage? That is, if he was owed 100 and only reimbursed 50, it cannot be argued that the damage was reimbursed! It is also worth commenting on the fact that the measures taken with "safety devices”To prevent bears from attacking pens, chicken coops or fields they do not favor the presence of the bear in the Park, but rather push it to move further and further away in search of the same things not put "insecurity". But perhaps the scholars and park managers have not thought of this! The problem is not the "secure"These resources, but in case they must be encouraged!
12 - Is the bear dangerous?
Correct, or almost correct, the answer on the harmlessness of the Marsican bear. Just a lie: historically there was at least one attack, although it was caused by a pastor who had shot one of them and then approached him believing him to be dead. In any case, in some cases, fake (?) Attacks can occur if the females have young. In these cases the female clearly acts with an initial violent aggressive act: what should be established is, how far it would lead, because if the person remains immobile, the escape of the bear is certain (or almost, because like men, bears too have different nature from individual to individual), but if the person flees, does the gold also escape or continue the attack?
13 - What makes the bear more vulnerable than other species?
Correct answer. Too bad that while pointing out the particular needs of the bear, nothing is said about the need to reserve areas where it can not be disturbed by man (read tourism). It is also argued that it is important for the bear to find abundant food. "Freed from the need to be able to feed on resources that are very abundant and of high quality (high nutritional and energy content)". But then the importance of favoring it with disposable crops and farms is minimized or completely ignored, to be left to its sole and exclusive disposal., with the "Finamore enclosures" (the only ones really able to ensure access ONLY TO THE BEAR) for crops and with public flocks (publicly owned) for sheep.
14 - What bothers the bear and when is it most vulnerable?
The answer is correct and responsible, which however contrasts with the reality of the lack of areas to be reserved exclusively for the bear, and the continuous failure to accompany tourist excursions in order to make it observed by visitors. That is, the good resolution that "In man-made contexts, bears may have few 'choices' and few, if any, are the chances of adapting to increasing levels of human pressure", But clearly in contrast with the reality of the facts, since in the Abruzzo Park you take advantage of these delicate situations - Ramneti - just to accompany you visits who are always guided by human intrusions (in Montana, USA, the native tribes of the Salish and Kootenai provide it every year, ABSOLUTELY closing ALL access to the most important food areas of the Grizzly bear, to avoid their disturbance). "The periods of greatest vulnerability are the months between August and November, during which the bear dedicates almost all of its time to feeding to accumulate energy resources for (...) the wintering period (November-April) (...) Disturb a bear in den, in particular a female with young, can lead not only to the abandonment of the den, but also that of the newborns by the mother ". Too bad that it was only last spring that the authorization for a noisy CAI trip with almost 300 people, in an area close to the bear's wintering dens in the spring period when they came out of hibernation (see Wilderness / Documents N. 2 / 2015). That the right hand does not see what the left is doing, does it make us think? It rightly concludes with a warning to oneself: "Various human activities potentially conflict with autumn feeding and wintering areas - eg. hunting, dog training, forest cutting, truffle harvesting, hiking -, activities that should be regulated in forms and methods compatible with the areas and periods of presence of the bear but which currently are only minimally". And who is to blame if the measures were taken only "minimally"? And why this delay, given that we have been talking about restrictive measures for some forms of disorder for fifty years? And then, why would the search for truffles be a nuisance and not the collection of mushrooms? Perhaps because of the presence of dogs - animals that frighten bears less than humans do, given the ancient relationship between the two - or not to “touch” too much untouchable tourism? Better to blame the hunting and cutting of forests; when these activities have always been carried out in the Park without ever disturbing the bear, a sign that perhaps the TRUE disorder is another, namely the one aimed at the bear: and no woodcutter or shepherd or hunter has ever been interested in the bear, while the exaggerated and particular interest exists for hikers and nature photographers (even encouraged by the Park itself with ad hoc events).
15 - What could be the future strategy for the conservation of the Marsican bear?
Beautiful propositive ideas, but which the Park itself has often never implemented first, despite decades of studies and proposals by various experts, each time always referring the skills to others: "Given the critical state in which the population finds itself, its conservation must pass through the identification of political, creative, courageous and timely solutions, feasible only in the presence of effective territorial and political coordination. All this should be aimed at: reducing the current causes of anthropogenic mortality; reduce and / or control the disturbing factors on this population; reduce the levels of conflict with man and his activities". But also great obviousness: "In order for a population to remain stable or grow and expand, the number of individuals who are recruited into the population must compensate for or exceed the number of individuals who die.". !!! The key to the importance of reducing mortality is struck, but not a word about what to do, and the first and most important is to DO NOT let the bears out of the park, which can be done ONLY increased their security of peace and the certainty of easily finding those food resources of anthropogenic origin that today they are forced to look elsewhere, exposing oneself to: dying crossing roads; being killed by poachers or careless hunters; poisoned or shot by those who are tired take damage. Just as we insist on the health problem, which, apart from official declarations, has never been INCONFUTABLY proven (so much so that in some cases the supposed risk would have been denied by the competent health authorities themselves). That is, we try to unload other responsibilities that perhaps should be sought in the years of wrong management of the Park Authority. Because "increase the level of awareness and tolerance for this species (...) a local bear culture through the active participation of local communities in conflict resolution”, Is useless, given that both the national and local communities HAVE BEEN COLLABORATIVE AND TOLERANT FOR YEARS. This is not the problem! The problem is to understand why despite this collaboration and tolerance, the anger against the Park authorities continues to persist! Maybe someone doesn't tell it all right.
16 - Why is the future of the bear a game that is played outside the boundaries of the Park?
HERE, THIS QUESTION IS THE BEST ANSWER TO THE ABOVE! The aims towards greater power to be extended over ever greater territories, as if with this the problems that already afflict the current Park could be solved! They write that "The bear is a species that needs very large territories for its survival". But how come this amplitude required today was not needed until the 70s when there were twice as many bears as today? In practice, we want to use the presence of the bear to extend the Park more and more and to have others set up! As if it were the initials "Park" to save the bear, while there are other problems, which should and could be solved even without expanding the Park, because bears cannot be chased by means of binding decrees for each of their movements, but trying to understand why they move, and solve their problem at the source of the problem: source which is located in the Abruzzo National Park! We even talk about "to favor its expansion and the consequent permanent settlement outside the Park". An absurdity, given that the bears are already favored by all the shortcomings mentioned above and which force him to move further and further away from the Park. If anything it should be, Not "help its expansion and the consequent permanent settlement outside the Park", But do everything possible to get him back into the Park and, last resort, ENSURE its presence where it has moved, hoping that at least new nuclei can be created; a presence that can be protected by collaborating with all the local social components and with constraints of a nature other than that of a Park, which in order to save the bear only risks penalizing the local populations of the inhabitants. What, yes, should be "FAVORITE", it is his return to the Park territory!!!
17 - How can I find out about the bear?
See what has been commented on the initial declaration of the President of the Park.
Finally, information or disinformation?
Murialdo, 29 August 2015
Frank Zunino
AIW SECRETARY GENERAL
download the brochure:
