“The Death of a Bear”

Resumen

Scholarly works have proposed that human-carnivore coexistence is a multi-faceted issue that requires an in-depth understanding of the diverse attitudes and perspectives of the communities living with large carnivores (Glikman, et al. 2019), as well of the social, economic and interpersonal dimension of conflicts (Ciucci, Boitani 2005; Linnell, Cretois 2020; Salvatori, et al. 2020). However, as of now, the debate over the coexistence of large carnivores (LCs) and extensive grazing systems has become so highly polarized, to the extent of preventing different actors from seeking alternative interpretations and actions. In trying to identify the social context and the circumstances surrounding the killing of a bear, this research assesses the production and reproduction of different discourses by multiple actors, on Human/LCs coexistence and how these have come to permeate an entire society’s understanding of people-nature relations (Descola, Pálsson 1996; Igoe, et al. 2010). It also argues that the presumed ontological supremacy and universality of nature, which underlies the emerging discourse on rewilding is further contributing to reinforcing well-established mechanisms of power and knowledge and a kind of relativism, which neglects local epistemologies and pastoralists’ perceptions of landscape. Overall, research findings suggest that any significant advance in facilitating coexistence between extensive grazing systems and LCs requires a comprehensive examination of the ontologies of those who work within, and ultimately shape rangelands. Such a scrutiny, in turn, can empirically inform and promote a genuine power shift towards inclusive LCs management and conservation (Ciucci, Boitani 2009).