Jadis, I was regularly published in the Readers’ Courier of World and received messages from the head of the column, but all this ceased after the journalist in question was replaced by a colleague. Perhaps he is quite put off by the fact that I am writing by hand on loose paper, which obliges the journalist, if he wishes to publish me, to type my letter. This is of course only a hypothesis …
Still, in this letter I would like to refer to the accident that occurred in the Pyrenees, where a hunter was seriously injured by a bear he had to kill in order to defend himself, according to the article in World. We do not yet know the exact context of this affair that already good minds gloss over the fact that we should not tolerate in our mountains a beast so ferocious that it defends its young when it believes them threatened … The question is rather to know, in case the presence of this bear located in this sector was known, if it is prudent to organize hunts without precaution and if the rules of caution have then been indeed respected.
But whatever the answers that the investigation will provide, we can already note the singular bad faith of the detractors of the bear, because if they take advantage of an isolated accident to dispute the presence of the bear, we never hears them when a hunter is injured by a wild boar or a deer during a hunt, which happens regularly. Ditto when accidents are caused by domestic animals (dogs, cows, horses), of which no one indeed questions the existence in number.
Statistics have shown that hunters are much more dangerous for their colleagues or other users of nature than any wild animal. And if some hunters see the bear as a pretext to settle their scores with nature protection associations, other hunters, more numerous than we think, associate the bear with a positive image of the mysterious mountain. and wild.
Designed to save the species, the reintroduction, which gives excellent results, since bears in the Pyrenees have gone from a few subjects to more than sixty, had also been initially proposed by certain inhabitants of the Pyrenees, among whom elected officials, supported by most of the mountain people, according to polls.
The breeders themselves are not all opposed to the bear and recognize that most of the damage to the herd, a small part of its mortality, mainly concerns those who apply prevention measures poorly or not at all: protection dogs, electric fences, hiring of shepherds …
The real problem actually lies in the only violent actions of a minority of opponents, who constantly relayed by elected officials and the media, claim to denounce the lack of consultation, while seeking to sabotage it through violence or boycott. There is, in fact, in particular by their virtual impunity, a denial of democracy.
Jean-Claude Courbis, Chambery
We want to say thanks to the writer of this write-up for this awesome content
“Readers’ words” – Does the danger come from the bear or from its opponents?