Thursday, August 4the judge in the chambers of the administrative court of Toulouse upheld the conclusion of the association One Voice by suspendingDecree 22 June In 2022, the prefect of Ariège authorized, upon request of the group PAstoral d’Ustou Col d’Escots, Simple and non-lethal bear scare brown (Ursus arctos) in the mountain meadow from Col d’Escots in Ustou to prevent damage to the herd in the summer of 2022.
Grip on the basis of article L. 521–1 out of administrative judicial rules,summary judge may suspend the execution of administrative decisionsencourage when urgency justifies it and there is doubt
serious about its legitimacy. To ensure that the condition related to urgency has been satisfied, summary judge yes remarkable valuable that ” the the risk that the implementationare measures fear yesdoes not lead to repulsion Bear’s I’meadow from Ustouis a component of its natural habitat, and therefore to remove it from part of its natural range not zero and threats already ready made on this mountain meadow on the 25th July 2022. The judge said he had ” Pick in considerationinside balance the interests involved, the sheriff’s call stress and the psychological suffering lived via herder and shepherd in the summer fieldface the bear’s predation”,But there isHowever is considered ” that the stakes involved in the conservation of species make it a significant priority measures necessary for this conservation, when good even attack species maybe appear Pwas important”.
OFFERI sum up a review observed that pastoral group of Ustou Col d’EscotsIf you took measures to protect the herd such as guarded by two shepherd dogs and the nocturnal gathering of animals in an electrified park, “did not equip herself with the dogs of protection, measurement appears but most advertisedFit ” according to the judge. Which explicitly refutes the county’s argument citing the fact that the presence ofe the guard dogs took the risk cause conflict with other mountain users (presence of electric mountain bikes, unleashed dogs, no one Iknow what to wear near a flock, etc.), as has happened in recent summer grassland seasons. The judge noted that ” Associations the Pyrenean Pastoral suggestions, according to the Brown Bear Action Plan 2018–2028, donate techniques for breeders and shepherds to best adapt to chiwith the herd and different Usee mountain such as presenceand of hikers or other tourists and that direction board make it possible to notify tourists of the presence of flocks and guard dogs to warning on copperbehavior to apply accordingly ».
Judge then estimated that average shot afterward omitted, by controversial decree, ofhe prescribes 4° of the L thing. 411–2 of the codes of environment, where to submit the enactment by managing violations prohibit damage protected species, in particular via “ intentionally disturb », within the conditions of that there is no other satisfactory solution it seems that, under investigation, could make
born “a serious doubtfor its legitimacy”. Judges in the chambers also consider “which the authorities have not proved, by invoking losses on herds below 2%, and in the absence of exact data, it is possible quantify this ratio over the predation area, where the mountain grasslands are mentioned, that the damage caused by the bear is “ importanceS» in the meaning and to the application of the terms
ub) of 4° I of the L clause. 411–2 of the environment codesthat’s another condition for the enactment of bans harming protected species”.
The collective establishment of the administrative court of Toulouse resenter cancellation request of the decree from 22 June 2022 will thoroughly examine its legality. But we will retain this position for the time being of administrative justice: ” If actual or implied predation of bears in domestic herds inevitably creates stress and psychological distress for herders and herdsmen on mountain pastures, the ancients part concerned with the conservation of a species considered “severely endangered” in mainland France (…) and the conservation status of the species has so far not regained its favorable character, which requires The measures necessary for this conservation must be given considerable priority, even though the damage to the species may be negligible”.
The full decision is available here: http://toulouse.tribunal-administratif.fr/content/download/192118/1827693/version/1/file/2203904%20anonymis%C3%A9e.pdf