Bear captured in Italy after killing Alpine jogger Andrea Papi
Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2023, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Italians were shocked by Andrea Papi's death in early April in the north-eastern region of Trentino-Alto Adige.
Once the bear was identified as a 17-year-old known as JJ4, authorities issued an order for it to be put down.
But the order for the she-bear to be shot on sight was later put on hold and JJ4 has been taken to a wildlife centre. Her fate is yet to be decided.
"We would have liked to kill the bear on the spot," provincial governor Maurizio Fugatti told a press conference, adding it would eventually be put down if a court agreed at a hearing next month.
Andrea Papi was fatally attacked while jogging above the town of Caldes on the slopes of Mt Peller in the Brenta Dolomites, prompting fear and anger in the region. He is the first Italian known to have been killed by a bear in recent years.
The animals are a protected species in Italy, and their population has been increasing in recent years after they were reintroduced to the region two decades ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309686
*********************************************
Fucking humans. I hate my species. Why kill a bear for being a bear?
100% on the animal's side. Always.
on edit: Female bear with three cubs. Might have had something to do with her attacking the jogger.
= new reply since forum marked as read
that one bear among dozens in the area is hunting you and your neighbors ? Instead of avoiding you like the rest?
In very practical terms, wildlife CANNOT be reintroduced into proximity to humans without protecting the lives of both. Support for it will vanish if it requires willingness in people to possibly feed...their children, for instance, to the cause instead of yes votes and donations of tax dollars.
It's unlikely that there's anywhere in a familiar environment that this bear could be safely relocated. Would confining him for life really be a preferred choice if you had to make it? Remembering that the animal keepers and other animals have to be kept safe also?
Btw, we have a friend in rural Florida who's accompanied on a half-mile walk from her little neighborhood through scrub woodland to the mailbox each morning by a bear. I've walked with them. It's nice. She's never tried to entice him closer than his chosen 20 feet or so. It works as long as neither of them eats the other.
Lacking facts to base such an attitude on, how could it be other than faith based?
I live in the real world with real people, not an ideological abstract.
Btw, I like to think I've also recreated in bear country, either or both kids -- we spent so much time in the wilderness, but will never know.
I'd love having you live in my neighborhood and be happy to drop by on my walks for coffee and a chat. (I'd be a little more restrained in what I said to protect a valued relationship.) But the day you said our other friend missing from our chat had had no right to try to use lethal force to protect herself from the bear that attacked and killed her? I'd have a problem.
And, yes, of course I'm assuming you wouldn't really react like that; but you did say it. I'm no ideologue -- everything has to work in the real world for most people, and bears, has to be workable for most or I won't support it.
To this day, I'm flabbergasted by those who imagined they had a right to choose, nearly 2 years ago now, to keep the minimum wage OTHER, REAL people live on at $7.25 because $12 wasn't the $15 they wanted. Was that even real to them? I think of those still trying to live on less often.
Our thoughts come closer together when I change the bear situation to that and think, "Where do they get off thinking that they deserve to be exempt?" But also worse, playing political "god" with the lives of others?
that can't be measured and proven, just a strong belief that doesn't require proof. Secular, religious, some other form of spirituality all variations.
Okay to the damage humans are doing, can't deny. But although nonhuman species differ from humans in their ability to wipe out species around the world, they're significant for their COMPLETE, species-wide indifference to the damage they do, simply not capable of caring. And in reality, animals are often able to wipe out whole species and destroying the ecosystems in their own regions, and do, but they can't be aware, can't feel guilt, can't care about other species. Some people do.
A most basic difference in our approaches, though, is that I don't see the animal world in terms of nonhuman animals versus human, but as creatures that are all what they are, all deserving of life. And I'm not misanthropic, zero inclination to define all humans by the worst of us and stop there. (Btw, how is that different from defining one race of people only by a minority of its lowest, most depraved members?)
So, nice conversation but mostly nonintersecting lines of thought on this one. Next time. Have a nice evening.
