Forest Agency reacts: The Bear Murder Decision Has Malformed

The Central Director of the Institute for Forestry and Hunting, through a reaction, has said that the decision made to eliminate the bear in Prizren has been misinterpreted, and that the purpose of the decision has been made to conform to the responsibility and legal competencies that the Inspectorate generally has and the Djutia sector in particular.

The reaction made by this director says that the decision has been made in order to protect people's lives, and that the brown bear has caused damage to the extent of the risk of human life as temporarily damaging animals and thus has been allowed to eliminate it.

Full response:

“Linked to Kosovo's Central Intelligence Directorship of Forestry and Hunting-Pythetorial Agent Ref, DQIPG, 174/19 of the date, 03.05.2019, which by some authorities in the Institute, representatives of different media and portals has been wrongly interpreted by not addressing the verdict correctly, particularly the purpose of the decision which has been taken on the framework and legal competencies that the Inspector in general has and the sector of Djurdia in particular.

The presumption has been made referred to the legal basis stemming from the Law on Agricultural Inction No. 03 L-029 Article 12 paragraphs, 3 and 4 under which the Insecurate has handled the announcement of the Directorate for Agriculture, Forest and Rural Development of the Prizren municipality, promoted to the Central Director of the Instigation for Forestry and Hunting ( DQIPGJ) with Ref, 157/19 date, 23.04.20Nument signed by 5 members of the municipality, confirmed by the directorate. DBZHR, Mr. Egzon Elshani, after associating with the complaint report, requests at various institutions even in police, damage photos and at the end have asked: quote” Comission presented all the findings and went to the scene, requires the Kosovo Forest Agency, the Federation of Hunters and the Department of Forestry nearby, The MBPHR, which is to issue a decision to take measures against these two damaging bears. There's a bear danger for students and residents of Pouscan village, as well as for Prizren citizens walking on foot in Pasha Qehem.” The end of the quote.

We've also received email from the Directorate of Park-Sharry with 17.04.2019 quoting a piece of email: “taking into account that the damage to the cattle and areas where the bear is appearing in the vicinity of Pousk village is located outside the territory of the PK Sharri, which is the competence of the Prizren and APK municipality, I present the request for the APK Inspectorate to do inspection and damage assessment, the risk of the wall bear which is jeopardising and the local residents of the upper village as well recommended for the short-term problem of the cix>

The inspectors have conducted a date of 25,04,2019 at the Sharri National Park Directorate, at the Municipal Directorate in Prizren, meeting with village residents “Pousca” and with the head of this village, where they have conspired with the record that there is a high degree of risk for wealth, animals and people from damaging Ariu. By date, 26.04.2019 at a meeting at the police substation in the village of “Sreck”, K. Prizren, where according to statements by the commander of this substation, Lieutenant Xhemajil Aslan, the situation in the village is alarming, police officials have faced Bear directly, and that the security situation is high in risk of what is written has also announced the Kosovo Police chain of command.

The inspector has also considered the possibility of institutions such as AUV, which is equipped with inmobile rifles, has trained and competent (selfish) officials to neutralise, but we have received signed confirmation in the process that this activity cannot be carried out.

Based on these assessments and legal responsibilities from the Law on Agricultural Inspection, No, 03 L-029 Article, 9 we made our decision based on Article, 9 paragraph, 9.4. And 9.5, Article. 58.1 paragraph, (k) Law on Hunting No, 02/L-53. When an animal causes widespread damage, risks people's lives or their property, it declares temporarily damaging animals and allows its prey at certain times (the animal that poses danger to people and citizens).

The Decision DQIPG with Ref, 174/19 of the date, I declare 03/05/2019 Wall Bear as an individual who has caused damage to the extent of the risk of human life as temporarily damaging animals, allowing for its own elimination. There are, of course, various reactions among the official working in the RKS Institutions, even as advisers who have not been spared by all sorts of labels, insulting state officials that they are illiterate with an excuse to use the term Individual, which, according to him, applies only to people and is certainly offended. We don't want to offend even those who are unable to know that this term applies to plants (civil animals) that make up the population, but let it remain in their consciences, since the use of the term individual is also an adequate term, in this case another professional definition, of eliminating the individual who is causing harm and danger.

The decision of the Inspectorate with or without purpose has not been interpreted directly by some written and electronic media, since the elimination of the wild animal, Ariu is allowed only in the event of an attempt to attack on the family economy and in the event of the conclusion that the animal would risk people's lives by at all costs avoiding its pursuit in its permanent habitat. These findings are clarified on page 4 of this decision.

He believes that all those who, with or without justice, with or without authority, with or with, without credit information have been involved in opposing this decision will have to calculate for a few moments that in those houses and villages are their children and to experience little closer to the fear, anxiety, and traumas that may befall them. He did not believe that anyone with a sound mind could contest a decision made by the competent RKS body, which is the Hunting Inspector, that it allows the killing of the animal to protect human life and only in an attempt to attack on the family economy. Thus, it is specified in the decision, specifying legal grounds.

Analyse for just one moment as after all these risk assessments of these institutions there would be hypothetically an attack on a bear against a child, an old man or citizen of any age group, where there would be reason for the existence of institutions to take quick and fair action in addition to the demands of citizens who claim their lives are in danger and that this is proven by all other acts.

The inspector has considered that the situation is emergency and not only the Inspectorate, but also the Prizren municipality, the police, MMPH, residents, as well as state prosecutor at the basic prosecution in Prizren, therefore emergency action leaves no room for meetings and consultations, not even for expert engagement situations after the Agricultural Institution Act No. 03 L-029 Article, 9 paragraph, 2 forces the inspector that in case he estimates direct risk to the life and health of humans of animal life or broad-size wealth, and when in public interest the inspector orders measures even with the chip to avoid the effects of the time factor.

We have also analysed the MMPH Commission recommendation, which does not provide no solution for the residents of this village but even runs them around. The MBPHR allegedly is competent to compensate for the damage even against Article, 10 of the UA, 122009, damage from wild animals and wildlife quoted “If the government or the relevant ministry has temporarily or always stopped hunting wild animals, then it is responsible for the damage done and compensation of the damage.” The end of the quote.

This recommendation was not even signed by the Director DBZHR-Prince, sir. Elshani as part of this commission and at some point it is specified that the decision The CHIPG will complain.

Most legitimate to complain, but we don't understand how the emergency situation is described on one side, to demand commitment of the APK's Inspector as competent on the other to be given by the EC Agency for Environmental Protection statement that this is the competence of their institution, and that the compensation of damage to owners should be made, MBPZHR.

The statements even amount to the degree of threats that we will sue all those who kill Ari and forget about how to deal with the lives of people who are endangered, but also about the lives of other animals that farmers have or do we owe them, or how the Park Directorate's action can be justified, which we are now informing them that they had a small bear bear (babe) by keeping it out of line and with these actions may have caused Ari's reaction to (parent retribution). You believe that even these actions will be part of the investigation that has to be carried out to deal with the cause of these consequences, but making people's lives priority.

In this response, we challenge the Forestry Department's findings that the decision of the Forestry and Hunting Inspectorate is not based on applicable legislation, as this department under the mandate and legal responsibilities has the drafting of policies, rather than granting legal opinions, much less interpretations of the Inspeciret decisions. The entire legal basis is specified in the decision, as well as judicial advice on the application of this decision.

The Decision The DQIPG, aimed at preventing the causing of the other consequences and not preventing, nor does it interfere with any other activity that could prevent the elimination of the animal, rather providing conditions for experts, commissions or institutions to take other actions by trying to complete the execution of the assassination, but after having previously secured the lives of citizens and the wealth of the village of Pousc”.