We acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the ‘Marin Drăcea’ National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry in carrying out the genetic census of Romania’s brown bear population. We consider this study to be a necessary step towards a better understanding of the species’ status and towards informing management decisions. However, these efforts must not stop here.
It is essential that these new data are translated into real solutions for communities affected by human–bear conflicts, so that people’s safety becomes a reality and the brown bear population has a viable long-term future. Romania already has a legislative framework that provides for prevention and intervention measures in the case of problem bears. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain regarding the extent to which these provisions are fully and effectively implemented on the ground.
In this context, we consider it necessary to carry out a transparent evaluation of how the existing prevention and intervention quotas have been used and what their impact has been, before making decisions about modifying them. Today’s political leaders must assess whether the current legislative mechanisms and institutional capacities are sufficient to protect the interests of people living close to bear habitats. At the same time, we expect political leaders to stop placing responsibility exclusively on hunters as a solution for reducing conflicts, as their interests differ from those of local communities.
If it is found that the current mechanisms are insufficient for managing problem bears, we support targeted and responsible adjustments to intervention quotas, strictly through the removal of those bears that generate real and recurrent risks. Such an approach would reduce damage to households and increase the safety of people who frequent areas known for the presence of human-habituated bears (for example, the Transfăgărășan Road or Lepșa), without jeopardising the national brown bear population.
We believe that any decision regarding the management of this species must be balanced and applied consistently, so as not to abandon people’s interests—such as safety and a decent standard of living—nor to lead to long-term negative effects on the brown bear population in the Romanian Carpathians. We maintain our position that sport hunting or trophy hunting of brown bears does not guarantee a reduction in the number of human–bear conflicts in rural areas. In our view, only responsible management—and where necessary, the removal of bears that generate problems within and around communities—can contribute to reducing conflicts between people and bears, provided that, in parallel, attractants within and near communities are reduced as much as possible.
There is no scientific evidence that the removal of large males as trophies has a positive effect on reducing conflicts; on the contrary, there is scientific evidence showing that the removal of large males destabilises bear populations.
We also consider it absolutely necessary, in the medium and long term, to eliminate from both legislation and practice all food sources for bears (waste, animal by-products, supplementary feeding for hunting purposes), other than those obtained directly from natural or biocultural ecosystems (forests, alpine areas, pastures, abandoned orchards). Implementing this measure prevents habituation (bears becoming accustomed to human presence and human-provided food), reduces their dependence on people, and can stop the artificial increase in the species’ reproduction rate.
We further encourage the specialists of the ‘Marin Drăcea’ National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry to publish the estimate of the bear population size in the form of a scientific article validated through international anonymous peer review. Such an approach would allow for a proper and objective assessment of the study—especially given that it is funded from public resources—and would strengthen trust in the results obtained.
We emphasise that the figures presented regarding the bear population represent only a starting point and cannot be compared with previous data, which limits the significance of the study and the way in which these data are used in decision-making and public policy.
For the coexistence between people and bears to be truly supported by best practices and efforts through this process, initiated by the present study, the methods must be replicable and transparent.
