Pastoral Husbandry in Ariège: Animal Vulnerability on Rangelands, Adaptations to Accompaniment Measures of the Brown Bear (Ursus artos) Reintroduction and Conservation Plan in French Pyrenees 2006-2009 and Farming System evolutions

3.1.5 What are then bear damages on pastoralism?

Bear damages are social (fear, psychological, hate and intolerance of others), economical and technical. The social situation of Ariège pastoralism today is the young fear for settlement and hence human abandonment. Phone or anonymous letters threatens farmers; some have moved elsewhere. For economic concerns, since the gain of the year is related to good summering, a bad summer season leads to loss of money according to farmers. This is understandable because less sold, less earned; in addition, more predation, more animal stress and less fattening^21(*) thus poor reproductive performances and sometimes lamb fattening or keeping for next summering. Also, more predation, more breeder presence in MSP then less work on the farm (fencing maintenance, mow), more animal gathering and more health problems at summer coming down. The highest problem due to predation is technical. When many sheep die due to predation this is harmful to the self-renewal of the flock because to replace them, breeder will buy ewe lamb that cannot produce instantly and that will be costly for their maintenance; some may even die before lambing. This is costly in terms of management because newcomers will much of the time gather in a sub-flock until they enjoy the new family's confidence. It is at the end a problem on animal behaviour (movement, grazing patterns, resting time).

3.1.6 How does ecology perceived in that bear polemic?

It appears here that neither the ministry of ecology through the regional direction of environment, nor the scientists involved in this project have considered ecology in his broad sense. This can be the reason why farmers are only talking of biodiversity and species as gain or loss of the bear plan. Yet it seems that bear reintroduction plan was for environmental concerns, even if environmental indicators among which ecological indicators used to communicate information about ecosystems and the impact human activity has on ecosystems to groups such as public or government policy makers are not found in the bear project documents. It is true that this is easier to think than to implement because it is difficult and often even impossible to characterize the functioning of a complex system, such as an eco-agrosystem, by means of direct measurements. The size of the system, the complexity of interactions involved, or the difficulty and cost of the measurements needed are often crippling (Giradin and al., 1999). But for those who have been living «in the respect of their environment», it is necessary to know what it is expected and what it is reproach to them? How do current agricultural practices affect the conservation value and extent of non-agricultural habitats and how can detrimental impacts be mitigated? How successful past action have been and what might yield best results? What are ecological interests? What are indicators (ecosystem and species diversity), scales and applicability? What is the role of biodiversity in maintaining specific ecosystem functions (e.g. biogeochemical cycles)? What are the development and monitoring process to determine whether problems are developing, whether any action is desirable or necessary? How to measure the need for and performance of public policies and programs? How to quantify ecosystem services and which components of the ecosystem are essential for providing valuable services? What are costs, benefits and distribution and cost-effectiveness? What are the relative benefits for biodiversity of the re-introduction of the brown bear vs. the continuation of traditional pastorism? What criteria should be used to determine when to intervene to deal with problematic bear? What are the ecological consequences of `wilding' as a long-term conservation strategy? Neither the operating mechanism of the bear project nor the up to date scientific knowledge can provide full answer to those question.

3.1.6.1 In this context does the bear an umbrella or just emblematic species?

An umbrella species is one that is considered endangered or threatened; large and requires a lot of habitat. His biology is well known; it is easily observed/observable or sampled; has large home ranges; is migratory and have a long lifespan (Cluff and Paquet, 2003). Then, by protecting this larger area, other species are protected as well. Simply put for a fifth-grader, picture an umbrella with several species standing underneath it.

Bears in general require a lot of forested land in order to prosper. So you can imagine that there are several species under the Pyrenean brown bear's umbrella. Hence, if you protect the Pyrenean brown bear, other species under its umbrella also will be protected; what are those species? What are the characteristics of their habitat and their functions on the ecosystem functioning? Thus, leaned on definition and Pyrenean context, the brown bear is not appropriated to be considered in the Pyrenean massif as an umbrella species even though its diet and migratory habits suggest that it may have a significant impact on plant community structure through fruit dispersal. In addition, umbrella species' management doesn't always work out as scientists think. For example, in California, a certain insect's umbrella species was doing OK, but the insect itself had gone down in numbers. What happened was that some development was allowed in the umbrella species' habitat, keeping in mind to protect the umbrella species. So it's often better all around to preserve land rather than a specific species^22(*). Lambeck R. (1996) thinks that it is difficult to justify concentrating on one species within a single ecosystem not knowing its role in ecosystem functioning because doubts still exist concerning the extent of protection given to the species under its 'umbrella' which is difficult to monitor and often assumed rather then proven. The single species based approach is often criticised due to the immense cost absorbed in the conservation.

* ²¹ The greater the feed intake, the greater weight gains can be expected. This means that cattle should be stimulated to graze as much as possible; something they will never do of their own accord. They graze better and more when they find what they like: soft, delicious grass and when they are given the opportunity to range any time during day and night. They graze badly when disturbed (FAO, 2002. Pastoralism in the new millennium. Animal Production and Health Papers N°150 96pp)

* ²² http://www.ecofloridamag.com/askeditor_umbrella_species.htm