“There are no grounds for the capture of M91” –

The Anti-Vivisection League does not give up and continues to fight against the killing of bears in Trentino. “The attempt by the Province of Trento to capture M91 and equip him with a radio collar continues. The young bear, about two years old, was involved in an encounter with a tourist above Molveno, on the Paganella plateau, in April. The tube trap, which had been activated specifically for him, however, captured another individual, a female bear, who was then radio collared. If the Province manages to equip M91 with a radio collar, there is a concrete risk that it will then proceed, as it has already done with M90 and KJ1, with the killing of what is little more than a teddy bear that has recently separated from its mother”, the note from LAV.

“For this reason and in the spirit of loyal collaboration between bodies, we promptly and preventively sent a detailed technical report to ISPRA – the words of Massimo Vitturi, head of LAV, Wild Animals – with which, documents in hand, we demonstrate that there is no reason why a positive opinion could be issued for the killing of M91”. In particular, with regard to the evaluation of the dangerousness of the bear, it is the Province itself that states that “there is no previous history of problems either of this specimen, or on the part of the parents”, an element that alone is already sufficient to cast doubt on its dangerousness, as Pacobace himself specifies where he states that “to define a bear as ‘problematic’ it is important to know the history of the subject and take into account any previous anomalous behavior”.

Furthermore, the “Human-Bear Encounters” sheet of the wildlife service of the Province definitively clarifies that the encounter between M91 and the hiker was characterized by two fundamental elements: the curiosity of the bear and the repeated provocations carried out by the man who, in an understandable situation of stress, at the sight of the bear ten meters away “ran away towards the valley”, then threw stones at it “also trying to scare the plantigrade with shouts and holding a fir branch”, or the complete opposite of what one should do in such cases. As well clarified in the manual “Man and Bear, Managing Encounters” of the Adamello Brenta Park, in the case of a close encounter with a bear “I must always avoid running away because the bear could instinctively be led to chase me, interpreting me, only at that point, as potential prey”. Even in the case of a false attack, “What you shouldn’t do is run away because the bear could then be stimulated to reinforce the threat by chasing you and/or physically interacting.”

In extreme synthesis, the document sent by LAV to ISPRA, which takes into consideration the same observations made by the Wildlife Service and the PAT regulations, the contents of the Pacobace and the manuals prepared by the researchers of the Adamello Brenta Park, highlights beyond any interpretation: the absence of previous “problematic” behaviors of the subject; the behaviors of the hiker that triggered, or at least fomented, the reaction of the bear; the reliability of the interpretation of the encounter as category 11 of the Pacobace, which excludes any possibility of capture or killing; the possibility of not carrying out any intervention on the bear pursuant to the same Pacobace. “We ask that the bear M91 be left free to live its life, attacking an animal that despite repeated provocations has responded only with the curiosity typical of a young person of its age has nothing to do with the protection of the safety of citizens, which can only be guaranteed through the scrupulous application of scientific indications”, concludes LAV.