Conclusion
Mountain Summer Pasture is not only symbolical in the
mountainous farm functioning but the lung (economic, sanitation, reproduction)
of the farm existence, which contributes to maintain a living rural tissue; it
is the shepherd territory identity. To the Arièges' breeders, pastoral
mobility is not simply a technique by which resources are appropriated; it is
the very source of success in the present agricultural context. Animals and men
gradually become used to their environment and the rhythm of life exercised
therein. Here guarding is in the logic of know-how adaptation to animal habits
and spontaneous behaviours, biophysical conditions of the environment, breeders
objectives and shepherd view point for the space maintenance, optimization and
maximization of the natural resource and in order to produce at low cost a
quality product. There is no absolute standard for choosing good range; what
makes the cattle of other herders prosper in some region may be detrimental to
theirs. Thus, the choice must always be made in accordance with what the
animals have become accustomed to. In addition to this, herders have an
intimate knowledge about regions familiar to them. Today, it is very difficult
to distinguish between know-how and knowledge because Arièges' breeders
and shepherds have agricultural training background but environmental
conditions compel them to only use their know-how for the practice of their
job. Hence introduce new data suppose that rehabilitation have been done up
stream. Also the way sheep farmers envisage the practices they implement in
reference to the idea they have of their work, depends on their field
experiment and by social interactions within local professional groups. In a
prospect of change in practices to make them more compatible with the
resolution of environmental questions, the transformation of knowledge and
know-how in local associations in relation with new expectations and
environmental conditions is necessary to be implemented.
In the economic context of pastoralism today, additional
charge is hardly appreciable. Since accompaniment measures provide only 50%
subsidy for the shepherd charge when all the measures are not used together and
80% when they are, near to 99% of farmers pro-bear investigated are just
opportunists because they were already using Patou and
«tight-guarding» practice. They have joined parks to their
functioning mode to have 80% compensation when taking shepherd. For all
farmers, accompaniment measures are applicable neither everywhere nor at
full-time, nor in all weathers; the pair shepherd-Patou reduces predation but
it should not be presented as a panacea for the problem of pastoralism. Nothing
has changed in farms and systems; even diversification is previous to bear
reintroduction. In order to make a progress in the cohabitation process,
authorities should come back to remove frustration and conflicts of interest
and put the price. We have to divide by 200 the number of sheep that summer to
know the number of shepherd, cabins, parks and Patou necessary for bear project
effectiveness. The system practiced today has strongly evolved adapting oneself
to socio-economical and technical changing. Environment brings about a certain
capacity of adaptation, but the devotion to allegation of a certain
professional "pride" is a stumbling block for the implementation of brown bear
plan subsidies. Farmers can practice husbandry in another way but this way will
come from them.
It has perhaps been thought that with the bear coming back,
breeders will shift from quantitative to qualitative reasoning. Does it worth
something in the present context where market price variation of inputs is the
opposite of that of meat? Some breeders have produced a labelled product but
price has very soon reached a ceiling price and they still remain economically
very precarious; earning much of the time less than the guaranteed minimum
wage. Today talks are somewhat unanimous among breeders: I would like that it
continues after me, I would like to assign but I do not advise my children to
settle. It appears few alternatives to present constraints. Today, some
breeders want to make their job known and conditions of its practice so that
all decision-making for their purpose should take into account the field
context. A number of them think they should first stabilise the farm and
maintain it at its present functioning status. For sheep breeders, cheese
dairy, cattle rearing, cereals (hard blow for the environment!) and abandon are
the only imaginable perspectives. They are ready to conceptual models with
local components and relationships; interviewing managers and observing success
of present operations and strongly contrast to plug-in models predicting system
behaviour.
Maybe reintroduction will be in a short run beneficial to
biodiversity and pastoralism but for the present, it is difficult to suggest
anything and only shepherds have gain something from it. The future of
pastoralism will depend heavily on political decisions made by national
governments. Enclosed pastures are unlikely to see any significant extension,
but conditions for existing pastoralists will become more difficult as both
farmers and the conservation lobby expropriates land. Work with pastoralists,
and a more sympathetic understanding of their production systems, could act
both to protect their life ways and enhance their capacity to produce on
marginal land.
| 
