Analysis of the institutional frame regarding the bear management in Romanian conditions

• Author: G. Predoiu - S. Ungurean
• Pages: 49-56

G. Predoiu - Department of Management of Forest and Wildlife Resources, Transilvania University of Braşov.

S. Ungurean - Department of Sociology-Philosophy, Transilvania University of Braşov.

---

Page 49

1. Introduction

In the last years, along with the intensification of the economic development and the diversification of the control of natural resources, including wildlife, the management of wolf and bear populations has been the subject of new pressures both economic as well as of other kind. Therefore, the bear represents for the game administrators an important income source (the hunt for bear trophies in Romania can amount to 1.5 - 2 mil. Euro each year) and, both wolf and bear are species of rich symbolic charge (power, agility, wildness, etc.) which leads to the fact that the species lie under other pressures both economic as well as of other kind (tourism, sensationalism, supplementary feeding, photographing and filming, etc.)

All of these lead to the accentuation of the impact of human activities on the populations of some species typical for valuable natural ecosystems. Romania is known as one of the countries with the most significant biodiversity at European level. Therefore, in Romania occur 5 of the 10 biogeoraphic regions identified in Europe: alpine, continental, steppe, Pannonic and Black Sea. Along with the high degree of ecologic condition diversity, the natural habitats of our country also accommodate significant populations of continent-wide endangered species. Hence, the wolf and bear are considered by the EU as priority species for conservation on continental level, and Romania hosts about 25% of the bear andPage 5030% of European wolf populations. Given the intensification of human activity and the diversification of the ways to exploit natural resources in Romania, a dramatic decrease of these populations on middle-term is expected.

In this context, our project is focusing on the important aspects which can contribute to the maintaining of the current populations and the improvement of conditions regarding the management of wolf and bear species given the current conditions in Romania. In this paper we will present data based on analysis of the information obtained from detailed interviews with the representatives of State Forest Offices, Agency for Environment Protection, local mayoralty, Sanitary Veterinary Agency, hunting associations, Territorial Inspectorate for Game and Forest Regime located in Brasov and Covasna counties.

2. The Methodological Perspective

In understanding the problematic posed by the bear populations we started from the triad of bear-state-society, in which each part is an intermediate or a tertius-gaudens in the relations of the other two parts concerned. In other words, by means of the bear we could be deciphering the state- society relationship. Using the same scheme of the triad we can find the position of the state in the relationships forming between the bear and communities and likewise observe the way in which the community acts regarding the relationship of the bear-institutions of the state.

3. Defining the Problem: Socializing Nature

There is a threat on the bear which has to do with a mechanism of socializing nature. This mechanism manifests as a penetration of the anthropic space on bear territory, or, in the words of a respondent, "we were the first to penetrate bear territory, it wasn't him who penetrated ours"

The ways to penetrate are many. The first way manifests itself as the desire to have maximal benefit by placing a dwelling in a natural frame, case in which we assist the occupying of the space by man and the elimination of any other pretender.

Another way is that of adventure, expressing itself as the industry of tourism. In this case we find repeated penetration of natural space by man by means of excursions. In this way the bears habits are disturbed and he finds himself forced to leave old paths he used to move on and thus he appears in new places, surprising man.

Another way to enter bear territory is by means of sheepherding. When local councils define their locations, they don't impose on the owners any sort of sanitary-veterinary hygienic conditions, hence making it possible for domestic animals to transport disease in the forest or pasture grounds, infecting resident animals, which keep the virus or parasite until the next year, reinfecting pastures and domestic animals living there. In this case we're talking of "two separate lines, which converge. meaning that almost all contagious and parasitic diseases which domestic animals produce, are also infecting wild animals, a good part of which, grosos modo around 150-200 being able to also infect humans, resulting in a sort of Bermuda Triangle, where it is not necessary for man to be at the top of the pyramid and where one finds this animal-human, wild - domestic animal disease transmission where the diseases are parasitic and also viral , like rabies for instance, trichinosis "

Finally, man penetrates bear territory searching for resources on which the bearPage 51detained monopoly, we're talking about strawberries, blackberries, raspberries but also water. One of the respondents brought into discussion the project of building micro-hydro-electric power stations in the Făgăraş Mountains, which could temporarily lead to water shortage for the bear, forcing him to search for water at either higher altitudes, in the alpine areas, or lower, in rural localities.

By intersecting an overlapping the social space with the once traditional territory of wild animals, the forest ceases to be a hiding place and a territory of safety. To summarize this aspect we will say that the bear no longer has the right to a distinct territory. His territory is used by...