THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE DEATH OF JUAN CARRITO
- Enrico Pennazza
- Jan 30, 2023
- 5 min read
Updated: Feb 6, 2023
Ever since Ursa Amarena was seen with her 4 children in tow, the national press has always dedicated ample space to the event due to its rarity, but no one would ever have imagined that the apparently more delicate and weak puppy would have occupied an exceptional place in the hearts of the Abruzzese and of the whole of Italy for his raids among patisseries, chicken coops and villages of the Park, becoming to all intents and purposes a true celebrity, until his tragic death on 23 January 2023 due to a car crash near of the cemetery of Castel di Sangro.
The tragic end of a bear who was all too used to humans obviously raised many questions about the management of the road section which was the site of two other similar accidents. But the criticisms and social attacks, raised by a strong and shared emotional impulse, have also been raised against the driver of the car that killed Juan Carrito. In the light of what has emerged in the last few hours, what can we say with a clear mind about the tragic end of Amarena's son? What other questions does the question Juan Carrito ask us?
Let's be clear, the accident that led to JC's death cannot be justified only through a comprehensive explanation of the event. It would be reductive and inaccurate compared to the events that took place on that tragic evening last January 23, 2023. The case must always be separated and studied from other similar events that have occurred in past years, also due to the infinite variables involved which for the most part still need to be understood. This is why I don't want to point out the unfortunate people who ran over the young bear with the car, despite the doubts about the actual speed and driving of the car. Unfortunately a similar incident could happen to anyone and possibly go worse than it did with JC. (Each of us should put his hand on his conscience and admit that in some areas we have not respected the speed limits, even outside the Pnalm where a wild boar, a fox or other wild animals can lose their lives).
So what were the issues related to Carrito's accident and death? Clearly the road section was not made safe, despite the fact that in the past months some associations have invested 150 thousand euros for the raising of networks that have covered a stretch of about 700 meters (yes, the costs are very high). But are these the only problems that led to JC's death? In my opinion not.
The Juan Carrito problem also arose from the inability to treat a wild animal, like a wild animal. The Park has always dissuaded anyone, photographers, tourists and locals, from not accustoming the Amarena puppies to the presence of man, with unfortunately poor results. The habit of close contact may have generated in the character of a bear that lack of fear which has generated a slow but constant and inexorable approach to anthropic activities, further strengthened by the easy availability of food where it was left purposely by some, or not closed in special anti-bear containers in areas where tourism is highly sought after. We should also add that Italy is the European country where there is the greatest concentration of motor vehicles per hundred inhabitants. This makes the death statistics of cyclists and pedestrians in our beautiful country, but also of wild animals, perfectly readable. Statistics that clearly tell us that we have a very big problem with the roads. If we also add the fact that these, in the most sensitive points of a very complex naturalistic ecosystem, are not managed correctly for the crossing of the fauna, we can understand very well what happened to Juan Carrito and unfortunately foresee that other bears, as well as other fauna and people will be involved in other similar events.
A confident bear, in addition to being a danger to the population (although there is no eloquent and well-proven case) puts his own life in danger precisely because, frequenting anthropic places, he has a greater chance of being involved in road accidents which are the Third most important cause of death from a statistical point of view. Attention, this does not necessarily mean that all road accidents have occurred with confident Bears, but simply that a confidant who frequents anthropic areas (and therefore also roads and highways for moving around) can run a greater risk of impact.
Does the Park have its responsibility in all of this?
There are those who say that the Park adopts deterrent methods that could cause harm to the bears themselves. That dissuasion using rubber shotguns can generate such a reaction in the animal as to endanger both people and the bears themselves who, in the attempt to escape in a state of nervousness and emotional overexcitation, may injure themselves or enter dangerous situations such as crossing a road at the wrong time and place. You understand well how JC's event can be read from many points of view, which bring to light shortcomings and problems that are difficult to manage both from an economic and administrative point of view, having in any case a strong problem of a cultural nature. And finding an immediate solution becomes very difficult if not impossible at present.
However Juan Carrito once again presents us with a further challenge. In a beautiful interview with AMOLIVENEWS Corradino Guacci, president of the Italian society for the history of fauna, goes beyond common feeling, the most obvious emotions that still deserve serious criticism in the face of the possibility of extinction of an entire species. The question he asks us all is whether it is right to consider the freedom of a bear as a priority, in the possibility of being able to have a gene bank useful for the conservation of the species.
Juan Carrito died as a free Bear, not from human schemes, not from the dependence he had on man, but as an animal that could travel anywhere in the Park and outside it, and yet we must ask ourselves: Can we consider the possibility that a male bear and a female bear live in an enclosure to procreate and increase the small number of an endangered species? Can we imagine that their genetic makeup can positively influence the number of births and therefore the possibility of growth of a species? Can we therefore justify the sacrifice of a few for the welfare and salvation of the many? Let me know what you think...
Below I leave you the link of the video interview
Comments