The point of view of the association
We want to say our thoughts on the bear issue and on what happened to Caldes, between Val di Sole and Val di Non in Trentino, starting from the supportive closeness to the pain of the family of Andrea Papi, the first "victim announced" as expressed by the mother, of this Life Ursus project. Today, only twenty years after the end of the project, the objective set has been largely exceeded and no one is taking steps to imagine that we have to find the way to stop this rapid expansion, on the contrary we want to create wildlife corridors under the highways and railways for being able to allow him to conquer other territories, obviously beyond the opinion of those who live there and do business there. Because it's easy to say you agree and to be on the side of the animals, of these problematic species, while living in the center of Milan or Rome, less easy for those who still resist in the mountains, guaranteeing the livability of the same for all of us.
Too many meeting opportunities
Because if the presence of the bear in 1800/900 was already problematic with half of the current population and with almost no non-working activity of the residents, so much so that their eradication was pursued, today with those who practice our woods for their own economic activities but even for activities such as ski mountaineering, mountain running competitions, naturalistic excursions, picking mushrooms and berries, hunting and tourism in general, the opportunities to meet are multiplying. And with these densities already reached, no one is able to guarantee that the fact that has just occurred cannot be repeated, except for blocking all human activity in the territories concerned. In the face of this human killing, the President of the Province of Trento issued an order for the capture and killing of the bear identified as Jj4, which in the past had already been responsible for injuring both father and son in those areas. But this culling ordinance was suspended by the Trento TAR just as in 2020 the same ordinance was suspended, always concerning this same bear after that wounding. But do any of the LAV and LAC applicants, and judges of the TAR, feel and assume responsibility for what happened and could happen again? Now these animal rights activists are referring to a transfer of the bear just captured to a safe haven, but how big since until yesterday they told us that zoos must be closed and the animals released.
The need for a comparison
Even the governor of Veneto has made it known that the bear must not be killed; but to those who asked him if he was willing to host the bear in Veneto he said NO, because Veneto, rightly so, is too inhabited, but perhaps so are the rest of our mountains. Now we are not the justicialists of the last hour; however, we believe that a purely ideological approach without a serious confrontation does not resolve the issues and above all does not eliminate future dangers. We need to understand where, how and how many bears there should be, and how we can stop their numerical expansion. Even in the Province of Brescia alone, the presence index last year was more than thirty sightings between the upper and middle Valcamonica, the area of Bagolino, Maniva, Bazena, Campolaro and upper Garda. And if the quantitative index and the place of presence are not clear, even just communication and reporting policies of possible dangers become difficult. And the areas listed above have an important index of human presence in every season which can lead to the possibility of an encounter with a bear.
Responsibilities
The Life Ursus project has also prepared the chapter on compensation, naturally referring exclusively to animals raised by man and possible objects of predation; and naturally the chapter of the sheep or goats or of the torn donkeys has no effect, so much, it is said, they pay you; apart from the fact that there is also an emotional and commitment value as well as an economic one. But does this State that considers wildlife as its unavailable heritage assume responsibility for compensation, assuming that they are ever quantifiable for a family, in these tragic situations? And in that case do you then consider the whole chapter of liability resolved? There is much to reflect on, to rebuild in relationships and with the populations residing in the places occupied by bears, to share and to set as possible limits, which certainly do not eliminate fears or risks but which can lead to a possible coexistence ; without the consent of the residents, do-it-yourself solutions could be found which could undermine the entire project which, in any case, cannot continue to grow unchecked as has happened so far (FEDERCACCIA BRESCIA – CACCIAPENSIERI).