Deputies were summoned on Monday, July 15, for an extraordinary session to adopt the „bear law” that would allow for the easier elimination of aggressive animals. In fact, it is strictly a law in favor of hunters, stated Codruț Feher – vice president of the Association Alliance for Combating Abuses, the only NGO in Romania that had a case at the CJEU.
„I agree that we haven’t addressed the root causes and a problem has accumulated downstream. We go and solve this problem hastily, but at the same time, we cannot perpetuate indefinitely the proliferation of causes and actions only on effects,” said Codruț Feher.
In an interview with SpotMedia.ro, Codruț Feher explained why the new law does not solve real problems, on the contrary, and how simple a well-targeted and efficient action would be.
The first subject of dispute is regarding the number of bears in Romania. We have contested estimates that suggest reaching up to 3 times the normal quota for this species' habitat. What do you think?
The bear, like other predators, is strictly protected by the EU's "Habitat" Directive from 1992, which aims to restore the populations of these species that were reduced to historical levels in the 1950s and disappeared from many countries.
The particular situation of the bear is that this predator also represents a top trophy.
Posing the issue that bears are multiplying abnormally is ecologically stupid in the first place. At the top of the food chain, you are determined by what happens below you.
Bears reproduce very slowly. The female gives birth every 2 years, requiring a large territory. They are extremely sensitive to all climate changes, habitat fragmentation, so practically their population cannot increase.
However, it is certain that bears have appeared in Romania in areas where they were not present a few years ago.
Perhaps bears have multiplied, but compared to what have they multiplied? If they have multiplied compared to a historical minimum, then it is a natural process, as they have reached a certain ceiling established in an absolutely artificial manner.
Only in Romania have I heard of the concept of an optimal number, which is pseudo-scientific, for bears - 4,000. They say that this established optimal number represents the best number in which a certain species coexists with other species.
Such optimal numbers are established for about 7 species, including for the capercaillie - 7,433, which do not disturb either biodiversity or humans. If we look at what is being reported, practically, we see that for all wild species, the optimal number is far exceeded. It's a Procrustean bed.
In the biology of species and scientific ecology, we talk about favorable or unfavorable conservation states. This means that a certain threshold is a favorable state, below a certain threshold is an unfavorable state.
If the increase is not so spectacular, where did the bears that were not present before appear, as I mentioned?
It is a natural expansion process. It is possible that it is primarily due to massive habitat fragmentation in the last 10 years and intrusion into the wild habitat.
The forested areas have 5 cm seedlings, while the cleared forests are the ancient ones, the natural habitat and the quiet areas of biodiversity.
But I say that diversity is most disturbed by hunting. Bears are not hunted, but hundreds of thousands of animals are shot annually by hunters. Hundreds of thousands of gunshots are fired in the forests. Perhaps because of this, such predators migrate and expand.
Have relocations contributed to this expansion?
Relocations have not been done sensibly.
We do not have a genetic study. One was done in Romania, but on a smaller area, by the Conservation Carpathia Foundation, a few years ago.
According to this first serious study in Romania, conducted at the University of Ljubljana, with specialists, with rules to prevent fraud, on an area of 1,200 km², where the most bears in Romania should be, namely the Făgăraș Mountains, Piatra Craiului, Iezer-Păpușa, 283 bears were genetically identified, fewer females than males.
The study found that only 5% of them approached human communities and caused problems, and only three should be eliminated because they did not respond to alternative measures to killing.
In 2021, Minister Tanczos Barna announced that we have started a nationwide genetic study and will soon have relevant data.
Last October, there were some leaked information in the press that based on the samples collected until then, a number of 3,000 bears had been identified. After that, they did not say anything more.
They extended it under the idea that they did not collect enough samples, and now they risk going beyond an optimal period.
So?
If we collect samples for 10 years, the period is too extended, and we will demonstrate that there are 10,000 bears, which, however, have not coexisted in the same time period. Many of them have died in the meantime, others have been born in the meantime. That's why samples are collected within a maximum of one year.
So they put this study aside and reactivated old studies, made with a pen, by the Forest Research Institute, through estimates of hunters, based on tracks, on bears they have seen, after which a growth percentage is applied, which is falsified. This is how they arrived at 8,000 bears.
Alright, I understand the problematic premise. What do you reproach the law that is being debated in the extraordinary session of Parliament?
We start from a tragedy and begin a "jacquerie." That's how the law is in Romania. Yes, we start a popular uprising, we come with pitchforks, with axes, and we rush towards the entire population.
We want to avoid such tragedies, to avoid damages caused by bears, to avoid terror, and what do we do? We call some foreign hunters to save us.
They will not hunt the bears that cause the conflictual, potential, or actual situations we want to resolve, but the dominant male in the middle of the forest, and they will take him home.
On what do you base this suspicion?
It is not a suspicion. The "Habitat" Directive allows for the shooting of bears based on derogations, exceptions to strict protection, but you must have reasons.
There are three tests:
1. the reason test - public safety and prevention of significant damages;
2. not affecting the favorable conservation status of the species - let's say we have a favorable status;
3. there are no satisfactory alternatives to killing.
The commission's guide for derogations and the CJEU, in interpreting the directive, state that the residual problem is targeted, meaning those individuals not deterred by alternative measures.
That is, those bears not stopped by fences, aversive conditioning, or waste closure, only they can be killed.
What does the currently debated law fail to respect?
No, it is made only for trophies. The EU requires states to create and implement a coherent system for the protection of bears and humans to reduce conflict situations.
This means electric fences, public education, many similar measures that could have been implemented with EU funds.
Until 2021, Romania has not accessed any funds.
French shepherds have built pastures with surveillance cameras, electric fence systems, with a lot of dogs, and have been able to purchase highly specialized dogs.
So we have not implemented any coherent real prevention measures to reduce human-bear conflicts with EU funds.
We do not guard the herds at all because there are situations where there are no dogs. Cows are left free in the bear's habitat. If we do not take any prevention measures of this kind, we will be in the situation of a hunter luring the prey to kill it.
Many will ask about the EU countries that have systematically exterminated bear populations and the countries that have refused to accept bears offered by Romania?
Bears were exterminated long before the Directive came into force. And I have never seen any document offering a bear to anyone.
What needed to be done was not done in Bușteni. In 2021, Mr. Tanczos Barna came with Emergency Ordinance 81 for intervention in urban areas, which he extended in 2022 to rural areas throughout the country.
So practically, if someone reports to 112 a situation where a suspicious bear is roaming in populated areas, even if it is not a conflictual situation, an intervention team should come.
There were numerous reports to 112 in Bușteni in the days before the tragedy. No one intervened, although the intervention team should have gone and closed the intervention within 24 hours with a solution.
They did not go at all, and I even hear that the gendarmes, informed that a bear appeared on the trail, asked: Did it bite you? No? Call me when it bites you.
I understand that a bear chased some runners two days before and no one paid attention. If the team had moved, it was very likely to drive away that bear.
But even the drives must be done with intelligence, with increasing the intensity of the repellent. We drive them away with honking, then they come back, and we drive them away again with honking, and they come back again.
You need to increase the intensity, use rubber bullets, a practice that is not done in Romania. If it returns again, you can take the fatal solution.
The tragedy in Bușteni occurred in the forest, but what about the communities?
In Tușnad, a pilot project started a year ago to keep bears away from the locality. The mayor and vice-mayor claim it is a success.
What have they done?
They cut down some fruit trees, closed containers, educated the population, and removed bears with certain deterrents. For example, they install poles with cells that trigger a paralyzing spray when a bear passes by.
There are no miraculous solutions, but there is the principle of not baiting. We cannot just remove the effect without addressing the cause.
I agree that we haven't addressed the root causes, and as a result, a problem has accumulated downstream. We are addressing this problem hastily, but at the same time, we cannot perpetuate the proliferation of causes and actions based solely on effects.
You said the law was useless. How should it have been handled?
No law was necessary. Only a ministerial order was needed to transpose the European regulations. Article 38 of Emergency Ordinance 57/2007 speaks of derogations.
In the application of this article, the Ministry of Environment issues an order detailing how derogations are to be granted. A reliable system with body cameras could be used to transmit real-time images of the animal to the ministry: here is the animal, this is how it behaves, within minutes you provide me with a preformatted derogation.
For years, these derogations have been misused by hunters. The most concrete case is that of bear Arthur. A hunting fund reported damages in February caused in August-September.
In March, a derogation was granted for a female bear with cubs. In April, Prince Emanuel Liechtenstein arrived and shot a top male bear with 500 points. This is how derogations were handled in Romania.
When a derogation was issued, someone from abroad was called in, two months passed, and another bear was shot.
This is not a matter of entertainment or recreational hunting; it is a public service to ensure public safety, public health, and prevent significant damages.
You don't provide a public service with hunters who come for recreational hunting, you do it with state institutions that have the potential to be continuously present, such as the Romanian Gendarmerie, Mountain Gendarmerie.
Mr. Tanczos proposed, when he was minister, a ministerial order to allow hunters to hunt 481 bears, not the staff employed by the managers. The Romanian Academy rejected the study because the counting was not scientific.
The new law is Tanczos's order, which sought to bypass the Romanian Academy.
However, does the law establish criteria for selecting the bears to be killed?
That's the problem with this law. They divided these bears into two categories: intervention level and prevention level.
The intervention level includes exactly those bears that cause problems. Even the bear from Bucegi was in the intervention level. In an order issued last year by Mr. Fechet, there was a prevention quota of 140 bears and an intervention quota of 80.
I checked the numbers in June. Out of the 80 bears in the intervention quota, only 14 derogations were granted nationwide, seven were harvested, none were requested from the 25 Bușteni Hunting Fund.
There is also a register of interventions based on Emergency Ordinance 81. Since the ordinance came into force in 2021, there have been around 700 or 600 dispersals, about 100 relocations, and around 80 harvests.
The prevention quota includes other bears than those causing problems.
How do you define that?
There is a circular definition in the law and the order: bears that can be shot to prevent who knows what. But the study on which the law is based states: harvesting for prevention aims to reduce the proportion of males so that females with cubs can return to their natural environment.
So, to justify hunting, this pseudo-scientific theory was created, stating that we are going to shoot a dominant male in the wild, which we believe, without any evidence or study, because we think he has pushed those who come to human communities.
Why? Most hunters want to hunt a dominant male in the wild. They don't want to stay with a rifle at a container, on paths, or anywhere else. If they pay €10,000, they want to shoot a wild bear.
I don't have an issue with implementing these measures to address this accumulated problem downstream, but don't come to fool me.