Polarized Public Opinion on Bear Management: Extreme Calls for Extermination Surge Amid Rising Encounters

In recent years, bear sightings have surged across Japan, leading to a serious increase in human casualties. This situation has caused public opinion regarding bear management to become highly polarized. Particularly, extreme views such as “exterminate the bears quickly” have spread online, and it has come to light that local governments are receiving numerous inquiries reflecting this sentiment.

According to a report by Livedoor News, the Akita Prefectural Government has received a significant number of calls demanding the swift extermination of bears, alongside calls to “not kill bears.” Furthermore, inquiries to the Aomori Prefectural Government show that opinions favoring extermination account for 60% of calls, compared to 40% against killing, indicating a clear majority for the former. Both prefectural governments are openly expressing their dismay, stating that these calls from “extremists” are disrupting their operations.

In response to this report, various opinions have circulated on social media (formerly Twitter). Regarding the 60% figure for “exterminate them” in Aomori Prefecture, some users expressed agreement, commenting, “So the ‘don’t kill bears’ faction was indeed outnumbered...” On the other hand, some questioned the reporting style, asking, “Is it appropriate to phrase it as ‘60% for extermination’?”

While acknowledging that “culling may be unavoidable if they harm people,” many voices criticized the simplistic call for extermination. Comments such as “To say ‘let’s exterminate an entire species for our own convenience!’ (and, moreover, expecting others to do it)” were prominent. Some also pointed out human ego, stating, “Neither too many nor too few is good. ‘Exterminate them’ is going too far; if that’s the case, perhaps humans are the ones who are unnecessary.”

Furthermore, some users pointed out a commonality between the two extreme viewpoints, remarking, “It's clear that the people making these complaints, whether ‘don’t kill bears’ or ‘kill (exterminate) bears,’ are all individuals with extremely polarized ideologies.” There were also calls for a more realistic approach, with comments like, “I don’t think you need to call every time, whether it’s ‘don’t kill’ or ‘exterminate’,” and “Ultimately, if they come down to human settlements, culling is the only option.”

Among the reactions, some sarcastic posts about the origin of the “exterminate them” opinion, such as “a call from salmon” or “a tanuki’s doing,” highlighted the complexity of the issue and the emotional aspects of public opinion.

While local authorities aim for “coexistence,” they are exhausted by the sheer volume of phone calls that disrupt their daily work. Meanwhile, some politicians from the Japan Innovation Party (Ishin) have voiced opinions like “all unmanaged bears should be culled,” suggesting a divergence of views even within the administration.

The bear issue encapsulates complex and deeply rooted challenges, balancing human safety with wildlife protection. What is needed is not emotional confrontation, but rather calm, scientifically-backed discussions and a multifaceted approach tailored to the specific circumstances of each region.

The Context

Japan has seen a significant increase in bear sightings and attacks in recent years, particularly outside their traditional habitats. This rise is attributed to several factors, including a decline in natural food sources in the mountains, an aging population and depopulation in rural areas leading to abandoned land that bears can venture into, and a general increase in bear populations in some regions. While most Japanese people value wildlife, the escalating threat to human life and property has sparked a heated debate between those who advocate for aggressive culling or even extermination to protect human safety, and those who prioritize wildlife conservation and advocate for coexistence through non-lethal deterrents and habitat management. The article highlights how this debate has intensified to the point of disrupting local government operations, reflecting a broader societal challenge in managing human-wildlife conflict.