On July 30, 2024 in Trentino it was KJ1 bear shot downa female brown bear, in execution of a Decree signed by the President of the Autonomous Province of Trento Maurizio Fugazzi. The killing took place in the woods above Padaro di Arco: KJ1 was located using a radio collar. The bear, who had wound a tourist Frenchwas considered dangerous according to the PACOBACE scale (Interregional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps), as also certified by ISPRA, but it has raised strong controversy especially among animal rights associations with strong opposing positions.
It is no wonder that the debate over the downing of KJ1 is so heated and polarized: it is extremely complex evaluate the opportunity of this intervention, because the presence and management of bears involves various stakeholders and has political, socio-economic, environmental, but also emotional repercussions.
The bear, after all, is one of the so-called “flag species”, that is, species that due to their appearance, behavior and ecological role are charismatic and able to attract the interest and emotion of the general public, a bit like the panda or the lion. Strong and sometimes contrasting emotions should not influence the technical judgment on a very complex and articulated issue such as the presence of bears in Trentino Alto Adige. The management of large carnivores such as bears, wolves or lynxes is a topic that naturalists and biologists from all over the world have been discussing for years now, in order to identify adequate solutions to the biodiversity conservation and, at the same time, to their coexistence with man.
Now KJ1, what happened: the reconstruction of the facts
Let’s start with the account of the salient events from the triggering incident to the shooting of the bear:
- The July 16th 2024 French tourist Vivien Triffaux, 43, is injured by a female brown bear accompanied by her cubs, encountered in the woods of Dro (TN). The man is admitted to the hospital in Trento and the analysis reveals some fragments of the bear’s tissues to perform genetic tests in order to trace the identity of the specimen;
- Between the July 17 and 22, 2024 the President of the Autonomous Province of Trento Maurizio Fugatti signs two demolition decrees, which are then suspended by the TAR of Trento.
- The July 24, 2024 The Provincial Administration reports that in an area of Alto Garda Trentino a female bear was captured and a radio collar was applied to her to monitor her movements. It could be the specimen that injured the French tourist if genetic analysis were to confirm it. The Plantigrade is 22 years old and is accompanied by three cubs.
- The July 26, 2024 The results of the genetic tests confirm the identity of the animal that injured the tourist: it is none other than Kj1, the radio-collared bear.
- The July 30, 2024 a further Decree of slaughter is prepared in light of the results of the genetic analyses and the opinion of the Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA); therefore the animal is immediately identified and slaughtered by Agents of the Trentino Forestry Corps.
Moreover, the Province of Trento had approved the Bill n. 11/XVII 2024 of 25 January 2024 according to which in case of reporting of problematic bears for 2024 and 2025 the number of bears that can be killed is a maximum of eight per year, of which no more than two adult females and no more than two adult males.
The arguments of those who are against the demolition
Those who are against the culling of bears argue that these animals were in their natural environment and should be protected, regardless of economic, tourist or utilitarian interests. The decision of the Province of Trento was seen by opponents as a unilateral action and contrary to the principles of nature conservation, taken without having adequately explored alternative solutions or sufficiently monitored the movements of the specimen on the territory for a sufficient period.
Furthermore, opponents criticize the failure to implement preventive measures and strategic actions foreseen by the Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps (PACOBACE), which aimed to prevent damage and manage confident bears, that is, those who get too close to man.
A further argument of the opponents concerns the fact that the bears present in these areas today are the result of a European project promoted by the Adamello Brenta Natural Park, the Autonomous Province of Trento and the National Institute for Wild Fauna (now ISPRA), aimed at safeguarding the last nucleus of this species in the Alps.
Consequently, the demolition is perceived by opponents as a defeat that It puts at risk all the work done to build a coexistence between man and beara goal that takes time to achieve. According to PACOBACE, three possible options are foreseen for highly problematic specimens: capture and release for the purpose of movement and/or radio-tagging, capture for permanent captivity and, only as a last resort, culling.
The arguments of those in favor of the demolition
Those who are in favor of culling the bear KJ1 argue that the animal was problematicsince it had already had dangerous interactions with humans in the past and had caused damage and incursions; given its dangerousness, it was difficult to adopt other solutions. The episode in which the bear injured a person is considered a sufficient justification for its destruction, in accordance with the protocols foreseen by the Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear in the Central-Eastern Alps (PACOBACE).
A further argument of those in favour is that the decision to reintroduce bears in a highly anthropized territory was an initial mistake, as this area is no longer compatible with the presence of such animals. The bear moved over an area of approximately 110 square kilometers, making it impossible to prevent dangerous encounters with the animal. Furthermore, the captivity of the bear at the Casteller Wildlife Center would not have been feasible, since the center was already occupied by other specimens and considered unsuitable for additional animals.
Finally, it is believed that the fate of a single specimen does not affect the fate of the entire bear populationso its killing will not have significant consequences for the species as a whole.
Brown bear protection: the regulatory framework
The brown bear (Bear) is a species at risk of extinction, so much so that it has been included in the Berne International Convention as a strictly protected species, in the Washington Convention as a species whose trade is regulated to avoid exploitation incompatible with their survival and in Community Directive “Habitats” as a species of particularly protected community interest.
The international regulatory framework requires Member States and therefore also Italy to ensure a satisfactory state of conservation to the brown bear populations present on the national territory and requires the Regions to implement actions of protection and monitoring of this speciesprohibits the capture, disturbance and killing of specimens. Exceptions to these prohibitions may however be granted to prevent serious damage or to ensure public safety provided that there are no alternative solutions. The exception must in any case be previously authorised on the basis of a technical assessment by ISPRA.
