See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336021258

A reflection on the policy of culling brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Romania

Experiment Findings · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 114

1 author:

Tiago Lima Quintanilha

ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
55 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A reflection on the policy of culling brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Romania View project

Publicações OberCom View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tiago Lima Quintanilha on 25 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

A reflection on the policy of culling brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Romania

Author: Tiago Lima Quintanilha, September 2019

Abstract
In this article, we present a preventive critical reflection on the hypothetical policy of culling
brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations in Romania, to understand how these policies should
be adjusted by introducing complementary analyses of the (neglected) impact of
anthropogenic effects upon bear habitats. In particular, we focus on human-driven
deforestation and its effects on increasing conflicts between bears and human settlements,
as well as the use of unrealistic bear population estimates to legitimise larger hunting quotas
for economic purposes.
We use studies on the impact of human activity upon the habitats of different sub-species of
bears to demonstrate that human interference in bear habitats is not only responsible for
massive deforestation in Romania, but also leads to an increase in human-bear conflicts in
the country, in a growing phenomenon that is then used to demonise the bear. Thereby, we
attempt to demonstrate that preventive brown bear culling policies in Romania, which would
tend to legitimise, tacitly, the demonization of bear populations, can be unfounded according
to multiple studies and could be replaced by alternative models to manage human-bear
conflicts (i.e. the augmentation of protected forest areas with strict control on illegal hunting
and deforestation).

Keywords: Brown bears (Ursus arctos); Romania; culling policies; Human-Wildlife Conflicts;
Human-Wildlife Interactions; Human-Bear Conflicts; Deforestation; Hunting quotas;
Anthropogenic effects; Human-bear conflict management.
 2

“Anthropocentrism can and should be a powerful motivation for environmental protection”

(Kopnina, Washington, Taylor & Piccolo, 2018, p.110)

1. Introduction
The Carpathian region, a refuge area for brown bears (Matosiuk, Smietana, Czajkowska,
Paule, Stofík, Krajmerova and Bashta, 2018, p. 2), is thought to be home to an estimated 8,000
bears, a third of the total number of brown bears in Europe. Figure 1 illustrates Euronatur's
2018 estimates for European populations.
Although some environmental research centres, such as the German Centre for Integrative
Biodiversity Research, consider that several areas of the European continent contain suitable
habitats for bears, the populations of brown bears in Europe seem to be mostly concentrated
in the Balkan regions (including Romania, represented graphically with an arrow in Figure 2),
and dispersed in the Baltic and northern Scandinavian peninsula. The remaining European
territory is a vast region where the bear is locally extinct or nearly extinct.
The European bear is considered nearly or totally extinct in many parts of Europe (e.g. the
Alps and Pyrenees). Matosiuk (et al., 2018) recalls that previously bear populations occupied
all of Europe. However, since the 19th century, habitat destruction and human persecution
have led to a severe decline in brown bear populations in Europe, resulting in local
extirpations and population fragmentation (Matosiuk et al., 2018, p. 2). In the early 20th
century, there was a severe decline of the largest European brown bear population in the
Carpathian Mountains, due to extensive deforestation and over-hunting, which led to the
isolation of smaller populations of brown bears in this area (Matosiuk et al., 2012, p.3).
Nevertheless, “changes in management policies and protective legislation have allowed for
the restoration of the Carpathian brown bear population, especially after World War II”
(Matosiuk et al., 2018, p.3).
Public policy is one important component of strategies promoting coexistence of people and
wildlife (Nyhus, 2016), and after the greater civilizational development in post-war Europe
and the foundation of the European Union, highly endangered species needed special
attention from political actors and environmental working groups. This applied to all the
subspecies of bears in Annex II1 of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitat2, which was signed in Bern on 19 September 1979, leading to their
 3

inclusion in the broader framework of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and directive
LIFE13NAT/RO/001154.
In Romania, hunting was regulated for decades, in order to maintain sustainable populations
of large carnivores (Adamescu et al. 2014). Romania integrated an axis of countries with
action plans to manage human-bear conflict (Figure 3).
Nonetheless, a project was recently set up to cull a substantial number of bears in Romania,
while a campaign demonizing bears made them public enemy number one in rural Romania3.
This led to their rapid populational decline (Straka et al., 2012, p.160), through local
persecution and significant habitat fragmentation.
Nyhus (2016) refers that one of the most common human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) and
problems of coexistence results from carnivore activity. People around the world have
expressed deep hostility against carnivores, because of real and perceived impacts on human
health and livelihood, resulting in a major and escalating threat to their conservation (Can et
al. 2014). This problem is one of several human behavioural factors influencing wildlife
conflicts in the form of emotional experiences, ideologies, beliefs and socio-psychological
factors.
Given the difficult coexistence and growing conflicts between bears and human settlements,
supervised4 bear hunting returned to the Carpathians and the government agenda.
The message in the Romanian and foreign media is that of increased risk of conflict between
locals (including their livestock), tourists and Romania's bear population, based on the idea
that risk has been exacerbated by a reduced safety perimeter between animals and humans.
The demonization of bears is often used as an argument5.
A recent piece by the BBC6 on 7 August 2017 demonstrated this very thing and reported that
a “hungry species” was scavenging for food in towns and villages in Romania (Harghita and
Prahova). The report said that locals were demanding action, in clear reference to measures
to control the number of bears in their areas. On 16 October 2014, The Guardian7 said that
the Romanian government was calling for more active help from the armed forces in
controlling the bear population.
However, the problem is much larger. As Singh, Sonone and Dharaiya (2018, p.338) note:
“conflicts with wild animals are increasing as human populations grow and related
anthropogenic activities encroach into wildlife habitats”.
 4

The characterization of the human-bear conflict in Romania is often based on overestimating

the negative effects of bear activity upon human life. This also occurs in some literature on
the phenomena. For example, Can (et al. 2014, p.501) defines human-bear conflict as “any
situation where wild bears use (undesirably) or damage human property; where wild bears
harm people; or where people perceive bears to be a direct threat to their property or safety”.
This imminently pejorative evaluation, clearly unfavourable to the bear, obscures that the
human-bear relation works both ways. Perhaps for that reason, some authors (Davidar, 2018)
criticize the use of the term HWC, as it "suggests ´conscious antagonism between wildlife and
humans’ and implies that wildlife act consciously and often places wildlife entities on an equal
footing with people in the role of combatants, even though they cannot represent themselves
in the political sphere against people” (Davidar, 2018, p.12083).
Definitions as those by Can (et al. 2014) are dangerous, because they neglect the impact of
anthropogenic effects upon the interpretation of conflicts, contributing towards views that,
in the case of Romania, tend to undervalue key issues like forest harvesting —an expanding
activity in the country—, its effects upon bear habitat fragmentation, and the resulting
increase in contact between bear populations and human settlements, especially in rural and
peri-urban areas (e.g., Brasov). In addition, the discussion on the need to regulate the number
of bears in the Carpathian forests tends to disregard that (un)controlled hunting is based on
unrealistic estimates, used to legitimize larger hunting quotas of bears. Moreover, the
discussion does not consider relations already studied in academia, namely how increased
forest harvesting leads to higher hunting quotas, and how these anthropogenic effects and
economic principles may play a role, particularly in the Romanian case.
On the other hand, we dispute the widespread idea in the form of pseudo-knowledge that
the slaughtering of bear populations in Romania is a necessary means to regulate the
population growth of the species. From our point of view, this idea minimises, in a more or
less deliberate way, the effects of what in the academy are designated as sources of conflict
between bears and humans (i.e. increased levels of deforestation and human interference in
bears' habitats), with the objective being to demonise the animal and to legitimise what could
become a massacre of the European brown bear species. Thus, we intend to take a preventive
stance, presenting potential solutions to reduce the levels of conflict between bears and
settlements by recalling previous case studies for example in regions of Russia and the United
 5

States, as well as other necessary prophylactic measures such as the augmentation of

protected forests with strict control on illegal hunting and deforestation.
The following research question is therefore established: how do the different studies on bear
ecology and human-bear conflict and coexistence help us explain the imprecision and
inadequacy of the hypothetical policy of culling brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Romania, and
what is the impact of anthropogenic effects (forest harvesting and trophy hunting) on the
explanation of this inadequacy?

1. Method

The method used in this reconnaissance study includes an appropriate literature review that
lies at the intersection between bear ecology and conservation, and human-bear conflict and
coexistence theories. If studies on bear ecology and conservation constitute a consolidated
theoretical and empirical body, the study of conflicts between humans and bears —which
Nyhus (2016, p.1) characterizes as part of the global human experience— seem to have drawn
less attention than conflicts with other large carnivores (Can et al. 2014, p.501), which
conveys as added value to this study's contribution towards studies on Human-wildlife
conflicts.

2.1. Lethal control of Ursus arctos in Romania. The head count and real figures.

Can (et al. 2012, p.512) reminds us that retaliation against bears, in the form of lethal control,
“is the principal cause for mortality in recovering bear populations in Europe and signals the
need for a critical look at the management and conservation initiatives on bears there”. One
of the arguments most used by the Romanian institutions to defend the need for higher bear
hunting quotas is the fact that the bear population might allegedly be out of control in some
parts of the Carpathians, especially in Transylvania. In an article entitled “Getting the numbers
right on Brown Bears in Romania”8, published on 3 August 2016, the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) warned that the bear count for the whole of Romania might be wrong and misleading,
indicating that game managers accepted the counts as too high, with single animals being
counted repeatedly. In 2014, the Romanian WWF announced that the bear count, presumably
 6

a key element in discussions on culling and relocation, was unrealistic, contradictory and
lacking any scientific background, according to research by Pop and Papp (2014) on the brown
bear population and management in Romania. In summary, they state that the bear count
has been inflated by those in favour of hunting them, a practice institutionalized during the
communist regime of Ceausescu, himself a hunting enthusiast of brown bear in the Romanian
forests (Quammen, 2003).
Popescu, Artelle, Pop, Manolache and Rozylowicz (2016) concluded that, for years, in several
regions of Romania, the size of bear populations was systematically overestimated when
compared to population trajectories from other well-studied European populations (Figures
4 and 5). The authors called this a biased information process, where the “public and private
game managers were the only beneficiaries of revenue from hunting activities” (Popescu et
al. 2016, p. 1248).
Popescu et al. (2016), when analysing the consequence of biased bear counts argues that
indiscriminate bear hunting may promote unsustainable mortality, if monitoring is
inadequate and the data on animal abundance is poor, leading to cumulatively unsustainable
mortality levels. Consequently, in Romania, “large carnivore management is often at the
centre of contentious debates between supporters and opponents of hunting practices”
(Popescu et al. 2016, p. 1249). For Treves (2009), the basic requirement for effective carnivore
management is an accurate estimate of population abundance and density, which should
support biologically meaningful hunting quotas. This is not the case in Romania, with
successive overestimates defined as official counts.
Lindsey, Roulet and Romanach (2007) identified a correlation between unrealistic abundance
estimates (as those detected for bear counts in Romania) and higher hunting quotas, a
relationship that is fundamentally enhanced and guided by issues of an economic nature. In
other words, larger differences between estimates/real counts and unrealistic estimates are
related with higher hunting quotas. As mentioned by Popescu (et al. 2016, p. 1257), “brown
bear hunting is a lucrative business (> 1 million EUR per year from trophies alone), and hunting
quotas are proportional to reported estimates (…) that are determined by economic factors
rather than demographic processes”. Popescu (et al. 2016) observes that one of the evident
signs of exaggerated overestimation of bear numbers in the Carpathian region is the
identification of considerably higher growth rates for Ursos arctos compared to other regions
of Europe and North America.
 7

Nyhus (2016) considers that, throughout history, lethal control has been a common and
controversial method to manage animal damage, one widely used to reduce or eliminate
predator populations. In addition to the obvious impact of reducing the bear population,
Nyhus (2016) considers that the dangers of hunting also include the risk of increased
hybridization, reduced juvenile survival, and reduced gene transfer among populations. This
opinion is shared by Matosiuk (et al. 2018) who argues that these factors have a
disproportional effect upon shaping genetic diversity of this wide-ranging carnivore.
Lastly, and regarding Romania, Popescu (et al. 2016, p.1258) claim that:
"When managers that benefit from hunting are responsible for reporting
abundances, there is a clear need for independent assessments of the
veracity, and biological plausibility of the abundance estimates. Until such
assessments become available, careful planning of yearly harvests along
with conservative hunting targets is one precautionary management action
that might benefit large favourable conservation status."

2.2. Deforestation as an argument against bear culling policies in the Romanian forests

According to Frackowiak, Theverkauf, Pirga and Gula (2014, p. 926), in Europe, brown bear
habitats frequently overlap with human settlements and infrastructure. Today it is clear to
some social actors, such as environmental groups, that the whole media controversy about
culling bears in Romania can be explained by the longitudinal variation in deforestation, which
according to some studies (Proctor et al. 2012, p.348) contributes significantly to the
threatened status of bear populations by causing loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and
decreased habitat effectiveness.
Popescu (et al. 2016) establishes a relationship between decreased brown bear habitat and
the increase in hunting quotas in the country: reduction and fragmentation of habitat
increases human-bear conflicts (HBCs), which could be the basis for the lethal-control policies
the Romanian government allegedly intends to reinforce.
Irene Teodor states, in an article in Vice9 from 20 March 2014, that the Romanian forest was
losing thousands of hectares of green areas. She claimed that between 1990 and 2011
hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest had been destroyed by private companies and
public organizations. Radu Vlad, coordinator of the WWF reforestation program, indicated as
 8

one of the main explanations for this rapid deforestation the downfall of the communist
regime in Romania, which resulted in careless, random distribution of forest areas, then partly
appropriated by unregulated, opportunistic capitalists.
Greenpeace estimates that, between 2000 and 2014 (Figure 6), the level of illegal forest
harvesting was higher than eight million cubic meters of wood, per year. An article in
Deutsche Welle10, on 7 January 2017, entitled “Deforestation in the Carpathians”, states that
three hectares of forest are destroyed in the Carpathian Mountains every hour. A piece in The
Guardian11, on 31 May 2018, described illegal logging of 25 million euros worth of timber in
virgin Carpathian forests and suspected criminal groups working to hijack public auctions
organization at the level of forestry departments.
In short, this seems to be the environmentalists' main defence12. They claim13 that increasing
contact between bears and humans originates upstream with unrestrained logging and
growing deforestation, a major anthropogenic force according to Nyhus (2016). These factors
contribute not only to the destruction of the country's resources and natural areas, but also
visibly reduce species habitats and increase contact and conflicts between bears and
settlements, as well as predation on livestock (Nyhus, 2016). These issues were analysed by
Papp (2018)14, a biologist and one of the Romanian researchers that most works on the topic
of human-bear conflicts in Romania. In an article published in The New York Times, Papp and
other researchers highlighted the problem of shrinking brown bear habitat in Romania, and
how habitat shrinkage leads bears to increasingly seek rural and peri-urban areas in search of
food, a process designated as 'food scavenging', which entails increased rates of HBCs.

2.3. Impact of human-driven deforestation upon bear habitats and its effect on
increased contact and conflict between bears and human settlements

One of the best-known effects of deforestation on the habitat and survival of wild animals is
severe population decline of some primates in different parts of the world (Boyle, 2017).
Boyle argues that human activity is largely to blame for deforestation around the world,
mainly for purposes of urban growth and the international agricultural trade “driven by
economic incentives and potential benefits to the parties involved with deforestation” (Boyle,
 9

2017, p. 1). For this author, “deforestation not only reduces the extent of forest, but also can
lead to fragmentation of the remaining forest” (Boyle, 2017, p.1).
Tarique (2018) underlines the interdependence between deforestation and environmental
sustainability, and authors like Hernández, Suárez, Corral-Verdugo and Hess (2012) consider
these anthropogenic effects as part of a fundamentally human biological egocentrism, an
ecological system in itself. All over the world, the effects of deforestation tend to have a
negative impact upon the survival of several species. For instance, in India, forest
fragmentation not only destroys the wild tiger habitat, but also further exposes the tiger,
leading individuals to stray from their habitat into human occupied areas, thus fostering
conflicts with humans (Chouksey, 2018, p.11845).
In the Carpathians, and according to Straka, Paule, Ionescu, Stofík and Adamec (2012), the
formerly large brown bear population experienced a radical decrease in population size due
to human activities in bear territory, including human exploitation of forested habitats. The
subsequent fragmentation of bear populations may have implications upon the preservation
of the original genetic variation. For Popescu (et al. 2016), these anthropogenic effects
provoked by forest harvesting are, together with hunting, a widely used method for large
carnivore management.
Forests in Romania occupy around a fourth of the country (Ioan & Radulescu, 2015) and
account for around 6.5 million hectares of woodlands. The counties in Transylvania (Brasov,
Covasna, and Harghita) have the largest green areas (Ioan & Radulescu, 2015). However, the
rate of anthropogenic pressure and “the changing legal framework of the last two decades
created circumstances that increased the incentives for deforestation and illegal logging that
affected almost 0.5 million hectares” in Romania (Roman et al., 2008, apud Ioan and
Radulescu, 2015, p.13). Increasing deforestation in Romania is due to what Ioan and
Radulescu (2015) call the short-term economic benefits provided by wood harvesting, but
also from land use change (Ioan & Radulescu, 2015, p.12): “Policy measures applied for forest
protection and encouragement of sustainable management failed to withstand the economic
pressure in many cases” (Ioan & Radulescu, 2015, p.12).
In this scenario, the counties of Transylvania, the important bastions of the European brown
bear, are also those suffering most from deforestation. In 2014, Greenpeace15 estimated that
forests were losing an average of three hectares every hour.
 10

The impact of human activity on different species of bears has been widely debated16.
Mattson (1989), for example, studied the human impact on bear habitats, with a focus on
contact between animals and settlements: “Human effects on bear habitat use are mediated
through food biomass changes, bear tolerance of humans and their impacts, and human
tolerance of bears” (Mattson, 1989, p. 33). He analysed growing proximity between bears and
humans as a cause of human influence on wildlands and, consequently, on bear food biomass.
He argued that human encroachment on bear habitats and the fact that bears have a very
similar diet to humans has led to growing contact between bears and humans: “Although
bears tend to avoid humans, they will also use exotic and native foods in close proximity to
humans” (Mattson, 1989, p.33).
Mattson (1989, p. 35) refers to cycles of human intolerance of bears. These cycles led to the
extinction of the California grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus) throughout the American
northwest as a result of exhaustion of native food biomass and the conversion of habitats for
human use and hunting. According to Mattson (1989, p.35) “Conversion of bear habitat to
intensive agriculture, industry, and human habitation has been and continues to be
widespread, with negative impacts on bear populations”.
Other authors, like Kusak and Huber (1998) in their research of brown bear habitat in Croatia,
also draw attention to the sensitive relationship between human activity and bear wellbeing.
They address the necessary relationship between improving bear habitat and minimising
anthropogenic effects, by managing access and forest road traffic, access to and
indiscriminate activities in restricted areas, and in terms of changes to the forest landscape
caused by reforestation with certain tree species.
Bears tend to avoid humans, even in the backcountry. However, due to anthropogenic effects
on native food biomass and abundance of anthropogenic food sources, bears tend to visit
more dumps or other human facilities in sparsely or moderately populated forest habitat
areas and use edible garbage virtually everywhere it is available (Mattson, 1989, p. 41). This
increases the number of cases of contact and conflicts between bears and local inhabitants in
a process called habituation. This conforms to what Manen and Pelton (1997, p. 10) consider
opportunistic behaviour by bears, who tend to go where the food is and avoid unproductive
areas. Furthermore, in areas where human encroachment on bear food biomass is small or
non-existent, their reproductive success improves, their population density increases and
there is a rise in their body mass, longevity, etc. (Ciarnello, Boyce, Heard & Seip, 2007, p.
 11

1446). The authors uphold that even human activity in bear habitats with no anthropogenic
impacts (such as camping, berry picking, in contrast with hunting, landscape changes) tends
to indirectly interfere with bear living conditions. In this regard, Creachbaum, Johnson and
Schmidt (1998, p.269) discuss the need to recreate facilities that encourage more appropriate
human behaviour within bear habitat, such as new campground design.
Ciarnello, Boyce, Heard and Seip (2007) conclude their study by stating:
“The results of the habitat-based density modelling suggest that simply providing
habitat is not enough to sustain grizzly bear populations at their current numbers.
We predict that if our current system of forestry management continues, and
logging roads remain accessible to the public after the timber has been extracted,
the number of bears will decline” (Ciarnello, Boyce, Heard & Seip, 2007, p. 1456).
On the other hand, according to research by Mattson (1989), there are different degrees of
contact between humans and bears, posing different degrees of risk. Even though bears tend
to avoid human contact, records show that the degree of danger depends on their willingness
to tolerate humans when procuring anthropogenic food sources. It also depends on factors
such as sex and size related behaviours, associated with dominance hierarchies, individual
personalities and the aggressive defence of young (Mattson, 1989, p. 44) and COY (cubs-of-
the-year). He states: “Females with young and subadult males are most likely to tolerate
humans in the pursuit of both native and human-related foods” (Mattson, 1989, p. 44). This
is because they need to find more food, as adult males consume most of the available food
resources in the forest areas suffering anthropogenic effects.
Young and Beecham (1986) propose the contrary relationship between sex and degree of
contact. Their study of the black bear (Ursus americanus) population in Priest Lake, Idaho,
concluded that females with cubs were less likely to frequent areas of human use, such as
roads, due to innate maternal instincts. Zager (1980) found the same result in female grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) with cubs in Montana.
There is also variation among populations. Research by Mohorovic, Krofel and Jerina (2017,
p.15) upholds that a “comparison between Europe and North America indicates stronger
avoidance of urban areas among European bears”.
Mattson (1989, p. 46), quoting authors like Bailey (1931) and Storer and Travis (1955) on the
effects of human encroachment upon bear habitats, concludes: “Ironically, in the past as well
 12

as present, human-caused habitat alterations probably contribute substantially to conflicts

usually rationalized by humans as due to the 'irascible' and 'irredeemable' nature of bears".

3. Human-bear conflict management and some ideas applicable in Romania

Mitigating conflict between humans and large carnivores, like brown bears, is one of the most
pressing concerns in conservation and land-use planning (Atwood & Breck, 2012, p.1). The
academic literature indicates, on the one hand, that human-bear conflicts (HBCs) cause
financial losses, injuries and even human deaths (Can et al., 2014, p. 501; Jangid, 2018) and,
on the other hand, that the anthropogenic impacts, often fostered by economic factors (i.e.,
deforestation and reduction of bear habitats; lethal control based on unchecked bear
populations to legitimize bigger hunting quotas), contribute to aspects such as 1) bear habitat
reduction and fragmentation, leading to increased frequency of conflicts and interactions
between animals and humans; 2) increased bear mortality; 3) reduced juvenile survival; 4)
increased hybridization; and 5) reduced gene transfer among bear populations and therefore
loss of genetic diversity. These repercussions affect the whole ecosystem.
Therefore, some authors (Pokrovskaya, Seryodkin & Zhakov, 2012; Can et al., 2014; Lischka et
al., 2018; Proctor et al., 2018) have tried to design socio-ecological systems that frame the
context of human-wildlife interactions (HWIs) and conflicts (HWCs), presenting some solutions
and interpretations of the phenomena that may be used to resolve the present case study,
namely the resolution of human-brown bear conflicts (HBCs) in Romania.
The model by Can (et al. 2014), based on the analysis of multiple levels analysed in different
countries, contains three dimensions (Figure 7). Firstly, the community, with management of
human-bear conflicts guided by measures essentially preventing situations of animal-human
conflict, such as physical barriers, raising awareness and educating human populations17, and
finally compensation programs that address damages provoked by bears (household damage;
cattle-bear interactions and predation on livestock, etc.). Secondly, a dimension that can be
understood as an extension of the first, namely measures of habitat management that
mitigate conflicts. Lastly, a third dimension that should be understood as an alternative if the
first two are inefficient, entailing the non-lethal control of bears, including for instance their
relocation, or the lethal removal of bears when this is the only means to mitigate the levels of
 13

human-bear conflict, based on scientific criteria of bear counts and an evaluation of the impact
of lethal-control on the whole ecosystem.
Pokrovskaya, Seryodkin and Zhakov (2012) studied 780 cases of human-bear conflicts in
Kamchatka, eastern Russia, concluding that the main reason for these human-bear conflicts
in the Kamchatka peninsula is the absence of organic waste transport and treatment systems,
leading to bear attraction to human lodgings, and a high density of bears coupled with low
ecological culture of the local people.
Towards the resolution of these conflicts, the authors suggest the following non-lethal
measures for preventing human-bear conflicts: 1) removal of bear attractants; 2)
immobilization and translocation; and 3) harassment, repellents and exclusion techniques.
In line with these authors, Noel, Pienaar and Orlando (2017) reinforce the idea that human
waste management should be understood as a crucial aspect of any human-bear conflict
management plan. The authors observe that it is much easier for a bear to obtain its daily
calorie requirement by eating from human garbage than by scavenging all day for acorns, nuts,
berries, etc. In addition, habituation to these anthropogenic food sources fosters large part of
the conflicts between bears and humans. These authors therefore underline the urgency of
limiting access to human garbage, using bear-resistant trash cans and bear-resistant caddies.
A study by Proctor (et al. 2018, p. 348) on how to reduce conflicts between Brown bears and
humans suggested further alternatives to lethal-control, including strategic private lands
purchased to reduce human density in wildlife corridors; the reduction of bear attractants
where human settlement and agriculture exist; and attractant management strategies
encompassing public education (such as bear safety courses and bear spray training), cost-
share electric fencing, bear-resistant garbage containers, and deadstock containment. In
contrast, Lischka et al. (2018) begins by building a Socio-Ecological System (figure 8) capable
of identifying the areas of Human-Wildlife Interactions (HWIs) that foster increased human-
bear conflicts.
For Lischka (et al. 2018, p.81), wildlife activities within an ecological system are influenced by
a combination of internal and external factors that occur at different hierarchical levels. These
levels of decreasing organizational complexity, from ecosystems to individuals, provide the
structure where wildlife activities occur and the context for HWIs (table 1), in a model that
results from a systematic study of descriptors of human-black bear conflicts.
 14

4. Conclusion

In this article, we scrutinized the widespread idea that increasing conflicts between bears and
inhabitants in Romania is only related to an uncontrolled growth of bear populations. We
suggest that the rhetorical argument defending the need to cull large numbers of brown bears
in Romania because of the growing human-bear conflicts needs to consider issues such as
reduction of bear habitat and food sources and consequent decrease of safety perimeters
between bears and settlements, which also tend to lead to higher hunting quotas.
This article contributes to a debate that, above all, should warn about the irreversible effects
of culling this protected species in Europe. We conclude that these measures are part of a
reductionist vision that denies the anthropogenic effects on bear habitats, such as
deforestation for human use, and the danger of over-counting bears in order to legitimise the
millionaire hunting industry in Romania in favour of economic driven policies —those global
trends defined by Nyhus (2016) as part of the risk factors that foster the adverse effects of
HWCs, HWIs and HBCs— and that turn people against bears, in order to institutionalise a new
lethal control of bears in the Carpathian mountains, instead of benign solutions capable of
preserving the sustainability of bear populations in the Carpathian forests.

5. Future paths

Preventive studies taking into account how the reduction in bear populations and other
predators contributes to the imbalance of the planet's ecosystems and biomes will always be
of use in the defence of this and other species. One way of looking at the issue of hunting and
culling European brown bears, other than their expedient demonization, may be to look back
in history and study the effects of the reduction of predator populations on natural
deforestation in different ecosystems on the planet. Predators play a crucial role in different
ecosystems (Fraser, 2011). They restructure and balance both fauna and flora, whose
development and regeneration depends directly on the activity of predators such as bears in
adjusting and balancing species of herbivores that share the same territories. A very telling
example occurred18 in Yellowstone Park in the United States in the 20th century, when wolves
were wiped out. Without wolves and with few predators in general, the herbivores
 15

proliferated, invaded the remaining areas, stripped trees and other vegetation, and hastened
erosion and the disappearance of large green areas. This seriously affected the habitats of
birds and other animals adapted to the old ecosystem and directly impacted the region's
economy.
As Fraser (2011) underlined, only recently have we realised that ecosystems are basically
managed from the top of the food chain. Only recently have scientists begun to understand
the vital role played by top predators in ecosystems and the profound impacts of predator
removal on issues such as regulation of forest ecosystem erosion and ability to sustain
biodiversity instead of monocultures (Fraser, 2011).
Therefore, a means to mitigate and counter the policies of culling Brown bear populations
will require the development of prospective studies on the impact of a drastic decrease in
bear populations in Romanian forests and the region's ecosystem, presenting well-founded
results that can at least serve to alert public opinion to the nefarious effects of this problem.

Glossary
HWCs: Human-Wildlife Conflicts
HBCs: Human-Bear conflicts
HWIs: Human-wildlife Interactions

References
Adamescu, M.C., Cazacu, C., Ionescu, O., Ionescu, G., Jurj, R., Popa,M., Cazacu, R. & Cotovelea,
A. (2014) Mapping trends of large andmedium size carnivores of conservation interest in
Romania. Annals of Forest Research 57: 97–107.
Artelle, K.A., Reynolds, J.D., Paquet, P.C. & Darimont, C.T. (2014). When science-based
management isn’t. Science 343: 1311.
Atwood, T.C. & Breck, S.W. (2012). Carnivores, conflict, and conservation: defining the
landscape of conflict. Colorado: USDA National Wildlife Research Center.
Boyle, S. (2017). Deforestation. In A. Fuentes. The International Encyclopedia of Primatology.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
 16

Can, E.O., D´Cruze, N., Garshelis, D., Beecham, J. & Macdonald, D.W. (2014). Resolving
Human-Bear conflict: A Global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conservation
letters 7(6): 501-513.
Chouksey, S. & Singh, S. (2018). Assessment on the impacts of human-tiger conflict and
community-based conservation in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(7): 11844-11849.
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3015.10.7.11844-11849
Ciarnello, L.M., Boyce, M.S., Heard, D.C. and Seip, D.R. (2007). Components of Grizzly Bear
Habitat Selection: Density, Habitats, Roads, and Mortality Risk. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71(5): 1446-1457.
Creachbaum, M.S., Johnson, C & Schmidt, R.H. (1998). Living on the edge: a process for
redesigning campgrounds in grizzly bear habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 269-
286.
Davidar, P. (2018). The term human-wildlife conflict creates more problems than it resolves:
better labels should be considered. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(8), 12082–12085.
http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4319.10.8.12082-12085.
Frackowiak, W., Theverkauf, J., Pirga, B. and Gula, R. (2014). Brown bear habitat selection in
relation to anthropogenic structures in the Bieszczady Mountains, Poland. Biologia 69(7):
926-930. DOI: 10.2478/s11756-014-0386-4
Fraser, C. (2011). The crucial role of predators: a new perspective on Ecology. USA: Yale
Environment 360.
Hernández, B, Suárez, E., Corral-Verdugo, V. and Hess, S. (2012). The relationship between
social and environmental interdependence as an explanation of proenvironmental
behavior. Human Ecology Review 19(1): 1-9.
Ioan, I. & Radulescu, C.V. (2015). Anthropogenic pressure on forests in Romania. The USV
Annals of Economics and Public Administration 15: 12-18.
Jangid, A.K. (2018). How Locals Characterize the Causes of Sloth Bear Attacks in Jawai,
Rajasthan. In International Bear News - Tri-Annual Newsletter of the International
Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) and the IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist
Group 27(1): 11-12.
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., Piccolo, J.J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: more than just
a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and environmental ethics 31(1): 109-127.
 17

Kusak, J. and Huber, D. (1998). Brown Bear habitat quality in Gorski Kotar, Croatia.
International Association for Bear Research and Management 10: 281-291.
Lindsey, P., Roulet, P. & Romanach, S. (2007) Economic and conservation significance of the
trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 455–469.
Lischka, S., Teel, T.L., Johnson, H.E., Reed, S.E., Breck, S., Carlos, A.D., Crooks, K.R. (2018). A
conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand
human-wildlife interactions. Biological Conservation 225: 80-87.
Matosiuk, M., Smietana, W., Czajkowska, M., Paule, L., Stofik, J., Krajmerova, D., Bashta, A. T.,
Jakimiuk, S. & Ratkiewicz, M. (2018). Genetic differentiation and asymmetric gene flow
among Carpathian brown bear (Ursus arctos) populations – implications for conservation
of transboundary populations. Ecology and Evolution: 1-11. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.
Mattson, D.J. (1989). Human Impacts on Bear Habitat Use. International Association of Bear
Research and Management 8: 33-56.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3872901?origin=JSTOR-
pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Mohorovic, M., Krofel, M. and Jerina, K. (2017). Review of Brown bear (Ursus arctos) habitat
selection in relation to anthropogenic disturbances. Acta Silvae et Ligni 113: 14-28.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320623479_Review_of_Brown_bear_Ursus_a
rctos_habitat_selection_in_relation_to_anthropogenic_disturbances
Noel, E.T., Pienaar, E.F. & Orlando, M. (2017). Reducing Human-bear conflicts: Bear-resistant
trash Cans. Florida: University of Florida.
Nyhus, P.J. (2016). Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Animal Review of Environment
and Resources 41: 143-171.
Pokrovskaya L., Seryodkin I., Zhakov V. (2012). Human-bear conflicts on Kamchatka: on the
way to peaceful coexistence. 24th International Conference on Bear Research and
Management: "Learning from our past to our future". Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
Pop, I.M. & Papp, C.R. (2014). Scurtă a analiză a populației de urs brun (Ursus arctos, Linnaeus,
1758) și a managementului aplicat acestuia in zona de nord-vest a Carpaților Orientali.
ACTA MUSEI MARAMOROSIENSIS IX, Sighetu Marmației. Retrieved from from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306025134_Scurta_a_analiza_a_populatiei_d
 18

e_urs_brun_Ursus_arctos_Linnaeus_1758_si_a_managementului_aplicat_acestuia_in_zo
na_de_nord-vest_a_Carpatilor_Orientali
Popescu, V.D., Artelle, K.A., Pop, M.I., Manolache, S. & Rozylowicz, L. (2016). Assessing
biological realism of wildlife population estimates in data-poor systems. Journal of Applied
Ecology 53: 1248-1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12660
Proctor, M.F., Kasworm, W.F., Annis, K.M., MacHutchon, A.G., Teisberg, J.E., Radant, T.G.,
Servheen, C. (2018). Conservation of threatened Canada-USA trans-border Grizzly bears
linked to comprehensive conflict reduction. Human-Wildlife Interactions 12(3): 348-372.
Quammen, D. (2003). The Bear Slayer. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/07/the-bear-slayer/302768/
Sanchez-Mercado, A. (2015). The impact of climate change on Andean-bear habitat suitability
across the venezuelan Andes. International Bear News 24(1): 29-31.
Singh, N., Sonone, S., Dharaiya, N. (2018). Sloth bear attacks on humans in central India:
implications for species conservation. Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(3): 338–347.
Straka, M., Paule, L., Ionescu, O., Stofík, J., Adamec, M. (2012). Microsatellite diversity and
structure of Carpathian Brown Bears (Ursus arctos): Consequences of human caused
fragmentation. Conservation Genetics 13(1): 153-164.
Tarique, M. (2018). Deforestation and environmental sustainability: a study of
interdependence. International Journal of Research in Commerce, Economics and
Management (IJRCM) 2(1): 93-99.
Treves, A. (2009) Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:
1350–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01729.x
van Manen, F.T. and Pelton, M.R. (1997). A GIS Model to predict black bear habitat use.
Journal of Forestry 95(8): 6-12.
Young, D.D. and Beecham, J.J. (1986). Black Bear Habitat Use at Priest Lake, Idaho. Int. Conf.
Bear Res. and Management 6: 73-80.
Zager, P. (1980). The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern
Montana. PhD Thesis. Missoula: University of Montana.
 19

Figure 1: Number of estimated bears in European territories

Source: Euronatur. Retrieved from https://www.euronatur.org/en/what-we-do/endangered-species/bear/fact-sheet-brown-bear/

 20

Figure 2: Distribution of areas inhabited by brown bears (blue) and potential habitat areas
(green)

Source: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig. Retrieved from:
https://www.idiv.de/news/news_single_view/news_article/plenty_of_ha.html
Note: The map of Europe shows areas currently inhabited by brown bears (blue); areas that are suitable habitat for bears according to the
new study, but which are currently not populated (green); and areas unsuitable as bear habitat (grey). Note that several potential bear
habitats are geographically isolated and unlikely to be naturally recolonised.
 21

Figure 3: Status of national scale efforts (in the form of management or action plans) to
manage human‐bear conflicts throughout bear ranges across the globe.

Source: Can et al. (2014). Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12117

 22

Figure 4: Romania's bear population (under/over) estimation in each region

Source: Popescu et al. (2016)

Figure 5: Correlation between hunting quotas and the difference between reported and
maximum realistic estimates

Source: Popescu et al. (2016)

 23

Figure 6: Forest Loss in Romania (2000-2014)

Sources: calculation by Greenpeace Romania; Corine Land Mapping Lab on the basis of Global Forest Change 2000–2014; data provided by
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, Hansen et al. 2014, adapted by Greenpeace Romania.
 24

Figure 7: Toolbox of human‐bear conflict management derived from management plans

Source: Can et al. (2014). Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12117

 25

Figure 8: Socio-Ecological System (SES) model of human-wildlife interactions

Source: Lischka et al. (2018, p. 82). Retrieved from:

 26

Table 1: Definitions of selected terms in the conceptual model of human-wildlife interactions.

Source: Lischka et al. (2018, p. 83).

1
https://rm.coe.int/168078e2ff
2
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/104
3
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/22/how-the-brown-bear-became-public-enemy-number-
one-in-rural-romania
4
http://www.hsi.org/world/europe/news/releases/2017/09/romania-reopens-wolf-bear-trophy-hunting-
090517.html
5
https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2017/08/15/romanian-bears-and-wolves-to-kill-or-not-to-kill-that-is-the-
question/
6
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-40845302/hungry-bears-scavenge-for-food-in-romanian-town
7
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/16/romanian-politician-calls-for-the-army-to-help-
control-bear-population
8
http://wwf.panda.org/?275110/Getting-the-numbers-right-on-brown-bears-in-Romania
9
https://www.vice.com/sv/article/vd84a4/romania-deforestation
10
https://www.dw.com/en/deforestation-in-the-carpathians/a-36999323
11
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/romania-breaks-up-alleged-25m-illegal-logging-ring
12
https://theecologist.org/2017/sep/12/wildlife-protection-groups-criticise-decision-reopen-trophy-hunting-
brown-bears-and
13
http://www.thejournal.ie/romania-to-kill-wolves-and-bears-after-attacks-3583072-Sep2017/
14
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/world/europe/bears-transylvania-romania.html
15
https://www.greenpeace.org/romania/ro/campanii/paduri/Activitati/illegal-logging-romania/
16
https://www.amnh.org/our-research/center-for-biodiversity-conservation/research-and-
conservation/biodiversity-exploration-and-monitoring/human-impact-on-black-bear-ecology
17
These educational strategies are already considered, for example, in plans to mitigate and reduce the number
of conflicts between humans and sloth bears in India, which include “field staff training for monitoring sloth
bear population, formulation of a Rapid Rescue Unit to manage conflict situations, and sloth bear education
programs in the high conflict villages” (Singh, Sonone & Dharaya, 2018, p. 338).
18
https://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-july/how-wolves-saved-the-foxes-mice-and-rivers-of-yellowstone-national-
park

View publication stats