A topic currently unsettling public attention is the unrestricted roaming of brown bears in Latvia, the losses they cause to farmers and beekeepers, and the potential danger to people who encounter these predators.

In order to reach some conclusions, I have grouped my thoughts and considerations into the following blocks:

- Losses or gains, and the objective
- Legal regulation and state funding
- The ABC of human behaviour when encountering a bear
- State responsibility
- Public education and training
- Impact on farmers' and beekeepers' production costs
- Hunting (to be or not to be)

So far, the responsible state agencies have not clearly defined why an increase in the bear population is necessary in Latvia. The mass media routinely present it as self-evident that the influx and breeding of brown bears in Latvia is mandated by Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and that this is set in stone, on a par with the Code of Hammurabi - so that the public has no choice but to accept and live with this fact, citing as an example how, in Estonia, people have apparently learned to live alongside brown bears, whose numbers there are said to be considerably higher than ours. What goes unmentioned is that bear hunting is permitted in Estonia, and that state support is provided elsewhere too, to look after residents' safety and protect their property.

Nor is there any obvious benefit in terms of regulating populations of other game species. As bear numbers grow, additional pressure will build up in managing the game species typical of Latvia (elk, young ungulates, roe deer and others). Residents, and local authorities too, will face additional costs. Property insurance and the fencing of inhabited areas and agricultural land will inevitably drive up production costs and prices, which will ultimately be felt in people's wallets and will most likely fuel public discontent.

Dangerous, stressful situations will arise when people encounter bears. Those who survive such encounters will need psychological help. This applies especially to low-income families, for whom the only source of extra income in autumn is gathering berries and mushrooms to sell, in order to get some small relief for the family budget.

At present, no specific responsibility has been established among state institutions, and no state budget spending has been earmarked to support and implement this project. At the same time, farmers and beekeepers are being advised to insure their property, to put up electric fencing around their apiaries, and so on, without taking into account that most of our rural homesteads have no fences at all, and that these residents' financial situation is far from comfortable enough to bear additional costs simply to accommodate the plans of those introducing the brown bear population to Latvia - plans that create additional dangerous situations for the public. Meanwhile, those who introduced the bears, and the state itself, take no responsibility for the consequences, including the change this forces on people's way of life in the countryside, in towns and in more densely populated areas. It is claimed that residents must simply learn to live with this situation, while the state assumes no obligations and no concern for public safety whatsoever.