When almost a year ago, two young people were killed by a drugged driver, no one defended the author of the massacre, on the contrary, it was absolutely normal. If the death penalty was in force, it would most likely have been unanimously demanded for him.
On Tuesday, a 19-year-old girl was killed by a bear, who made absolutely no provocative mistake towards the wild animal. From all the information, the girl was walking on a marked trail, the animal appeared suddenly between the trees, bit her legs, dragged her, and dropped her into a ravine. The mountain rescuers were also in danger of being attacked by the animal claiming its prey.
And yet, on various social media groups, there are numerous individuals trying to blame the victim and lament the death of the bear, ultimately killed to prevent it from also killing the mountain rescuers.
It's a double standard that could contribute to the absurdity we find ourselves in, including regarding animal protection.
Who Needs Protection
It is evident that bears have become a major problem in Romania. And I am not referring to the antics of those with the mind of a peanut, who feed them from the car window and try to befriend them as if they were cats. Nor to the adventurers who venture into the heart of the forest, into the wilderness, entering unprepared into the exclusive territory of wild animals.
Those, unfortunately, somewhat deserve their fate.
Therefore, I am not referring to unfortunate accidents that occur when humans expose themselves to risks, but to people who make no mistakes, like the girl who met her horrible end on Jepii Mici.
And to many other people in mountainous or sub-mountainous areas who can no longer go out in the evening, who no longer have the courage to let their children play, who wake up at night with their fences torn down and their animals stolen or killed. These people do not lead a normal life, although they are entitled to it.
According to the Minister of Environment's estimation, half of the EU's bear population lives in Romania. There are around 8-9000 bears estimated, in a habitat suitable for 4,000.
In these conditions, it is quite evident that the relocation solution has not yielded results, but has only shifted the problems from one place to another.
I happen to live in an area that until a few years ago did not have such problems. Now, almost every week we receive a bear alert, fortunately without victims, but almost always with damages. And I assure you that no one feeds the bears, no one leaves food on the street, no one takes selfies with them. They have appeared entirely uninvited.
Environmental activists say that the blame lies with the humans who invaded their territory and left them without resources. There is some truth to this, undoubtedly, but when dealing with the most powerful predator, the top of the food chain, you cannot rely on natural balances to limit the increase in the number of individuals.
Since bears only die of old age or as a result of accidents, I fear that without human intervention, balance cannot be achieved.
Rashness on the Wave of Emotion
Which does not mean that the legislative rashness announced by Marcel Ciolacu, fueled by the emotions of the moment, is encouraging. As we have seen in the case of the emergency ordinance on drugs, a fundamentally correct solution can become toxic if poorly implemented.
There is therefore a risk of swinging to the other extreme, towards a genuine massacre of bears, including for entertainment, trophies, thus as a business. And when substantial gains come into play, any abuse is possible.
The idea is not to exterminate the bears, but to eliminate the danger for those who do not misbehave and only wish to lead a normal life on their streets, in their yards, or on predetermined mountain trails. You only need to eliminate the aggressive individuals that threaten the localities.
Years of Indolence
Just like in other cases I have recently written about, in this case too, the years of passivity are taking their toll.
First of all, a complete bear census has not been conducted to this day, which makes it difficult to even determine which are the high-risk areas, which Mr. Ciolacu claims the new legislation would target.
The most recent is an estimative study, presented last year by former Minister Tanczos Barna. In April, Minister Fechet announced on Europa FM that the DNA-based census was to be completed in the spring. There is no information on the completion and results.
Secondly, there are several bills that could have been debated, improved, but have been left in limbo because no one wanted to bear the political cost of a polarizing issue.
They are now rushing into it, on the wave of emotion provoked by the young woman's tragedy. This emotion will fade quickly anyway, and with it, the interest in the issue, until the next tragedy, of course, when again the wave, the interest, the hair pulling, and the forgetfulness.
Certainly, regulation under the influence of emotion is just as dangerous regardless of the nature of the emotion, whether it is in favor of bears or in favor of humans, depending on who was the victim assumed by the majority of public opinion.
What both humans and bears need is a well-considered law by those who truly understand, a law that protects both parties and devises rules for coexistence.