9 hours ago
6
The hunt for a brown bear that bit a man on the elbow can resume, a Norwegian court has ruled, deepening anger among animal rights campaigners after officials shot the wrong bear.
The Norwegian environment agency issued a bear-culling order in late June in Jarfjord, near the border with Russia, after a female bear bit a man’s arm and left him needing stitches. The decision caused outrage after nature inspectors who were tracking her lost the trail and killed a male bear by mistake.
Animal rights groups sought to save the mother bear and her two cubs – which are also to be killed on the grounds they would starve without her – but on Tuesday, Oslo district court quashed a temporary injunction that a judge had granted them earlier this month.
“This is a wrong decision for animal welfare and biodiversity,” said Siri Martinsen, a vet and activist with the animal rights group Noah, which sought the injunction together with Our Predators Association. “This is just another example of Norway’s appalling predator policy.”
Brown bears in Norway are endangered but may be culled for a variety of reasons, including to keep people safe.
Campaigners argued the female bear was no more dangerous than other bears and that the risk of similar incidents was “minimal”. They said several aggravating factors were at play during the attack, such as her feeling her cubs were threatened, protecting a nearby animal carcass, and the presence of a dog the victim had with him.
“The bear in this case was behaving like a bear,” the campaigners argued in court.
The environment agency said it had fulfilled all the legal requirements to order a cull and did not need to prove that the animal was more likely than other bears to attack humans. “With its behaviour, the bear has already shown that it poses a risk to human life and health.”
The court ruled in favour of the agency and agreed with the portrayal of the bear as not being timid. It noted that the attack took place about 300 metres away from the victim’s home, in an area with hiking trails.
Europe’s appetite for killing big carnivores has increased in recent years, as farmers have had sheep eaten by wolves and several bear attacks on humans have fuelled rural fury at rules to protect wildlife. Far-right parties across the continent have campaigned to weaken green rules in the face of threats from wild animals.
The court hearing in Oslo revealed evidence that intensified anger among campaigners, who say environmental authorities painted an overly dangerous picture of the bear.
The initial attack had been widely reported as an unprovoked attack on a hiker, but a police report to the environment agency, reproduced in the court’s ruling on Tuesday, showed the victim had two hunting dogs when he first encountered the animal. He took one of the dogs home and returned with the other to follow the tracks he had spotted.
“The man who was injured was following the bear’s tracks on his own initiative with a hunting dog,” said Martinsen. “That is exactly what you should not do with a bear and her cubs when they’re small.”
She said the environment agency had failed to properly inform the public of the nature of the attack. The agency declined to comment on its characterisation of the attack.
Hilde Singsaas, the director of the environment agency, said in a statement: “We take note of the ruling, and we are now assessing the situation in the field to determine how we will follow up on the matter.”
According to the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, bears in Scandinavia injure one person a year on average, though the “vast majority” of attacks happen while hunting.
Our Predators Association said the case showed a reluctance from Norway’s nature management authorities to take care of wild animals. “All other countries that have far more predators than Norway are doing just fine. It is quite desperate to work against a wall of indifference and an entire system of basic disrespect for animals.”
