Memoire Online - Pastoral Husbandry in Ariège: Animal Vulnerability on Rangelands, Adaptations to Accompaniment Measures of the Brown Bear (Ursus artos) Reintroduction and Conservation Plan in French Pyrenees 2006-2009 and Farming System evolutions

Pastoral Husbandry in Ariège: Animal Vulnerability on Rangelands, Adaptations to Accompaniment Measures of the Brown Bear (Ursus artos) Reintroduction and Conservation Plan in French Pyrenees 2006-2009 and Farming System evolutions.

Thesis prepared under the direction of :

HEMPTINNE Jean-Louis

Presented on: 27/06/2008

Masters of the internship :

TERRIEUX Agnès

BESCHE-COMMENGE Bruno

Les nouvelles exigences de société en matière d'environnementale ont conduit l'homme à mettre sous forme de réserves de biodiversité les espaces à faibles intérêts économiques. La structure sociale de l'Ariège offre une certaine capacité de résistance à de brusques changements politiques ; le cheptel y a pris l'habitude de quitter la ferme pour l'estive en début juin pour redescendre en fin septembre. Les exploitations individuelles ont des effectifs réduits, les perspectives et alternatives économiques faibles et une économie précaire. L'estivage est leur fer de lance, non seulement comme une tradition, mais en raison de son fort intérêt économique, sanitaire, stratégique et technique. La main-d'oeuvre, les conditions de travail et l'économie sont les principaux facteurs expliquant la résistance au changement. Le système peut s'adapter à une nouvelle donnée technique, mais l'attachement à une certaine fierté professionnelle est un obstacle ; élever autrement doit venir des éleveurs eux-mêmes. Faire le meilleur usage de l'herbe au pâturage, produire de beaux agneaux et réduire l'alimentation en bergerie est un critère d'excellence technique. Avec l'ours, les éleveurs se demandent quels projets ruraux et choix de société veulent les décideurs ; ils sont pessimistes sur leur avenir car la vie et la dynamique humaine ici sont fortement dépendantes de l'élevage ; ils ne savent pas si ces critères sont pris en compte dans l'ensauvagement.

Dans le contexte économique actuel du pastoralisme, les charges supplémentaires ne sont pas acceptables. Puisque les mesures d'accompagnement ne fournissent que 50% de subvention pour les charges du berger lorsqu'elles ne sont pas toutes utilisées et 80% dans le cas contraire, près de 99% d'éleveurs pro-ours enquêtés ne sont que des opportunistes ; ils faisaient déjà garde serrée avec un Patou. Avec le parc ils bénéficient de 80% de subvention lors de l'embauche de berger. Pour tous les agriculteurs, le mesures d'accompagnement ne sont applicables ni partout, ni à plein temps, ni par tous les temps ; la paire berger-Patou réduit la prédation, mais ne devrait pas être présentée comme une panacée. Faire un progrès dans le processus de cohabitation signifie revenir en arrière, enlever la frustration et les conflits d'intérêts et mettre le prix. Il faut diviser par 200 le nombre de moutons qui estivent pour avoir le nombre de bergers, cabanes, parcs et Patou nécessaire pour une protection efficace du troupeau.

Mots-clés : Pastoralisme, système d'élevage, Estive, Ours, Biodiversité, Préservation, Environnement, Développement Durable.

New social requirements for environmental concerns lead human to put into reserve of biodiversity space of low economic interest. Historically, national governments are often hostile to pastoralists. In Arièges's Mountain Summer Pasture, social structure brings a certain resistance to sudden political changes. Here, livestock usually and it has become naturally leave the farm area for summer pastures in early to mid June returning again from mid September to early October. Individual holdings are of low flock, weak perspectives and alternatives, economic precariousness. Summer farming is the spearhead of the system not only as a tradition but due to its economic, sanitation, feedstuff constitution importance. Workforce, working conditions and economy are the most important factors explaining the resistance to change in this production system. The system practiced brings about a certain capacity of adaptation, but the devotion to allegation of a certain professional "pride" is a stumbling block for the implementation of bear subsidies. Farmers can practice husbandry in another way but this way will come from them. Make the best possible use of grass on rangeland to feed its flock and produce beautiful lambs minimizing trough feeding is a criterion of technical excellence. With bear project, breeders want to know what future, rural projects, and societal choices decision-makers recommend for Pyrenees. They are pessimistic on their future because life and human dynamics in Ariège are now strongly dependent to pastoralism and they do not know if these constitutive criteria of sustainable development have been taken into consideration in the «wilding» approach.

In the economic context of pastoralism today, additional charges are hardly appreciable. Since accompaniment measures provide only 50% subsidy for the shepherd's charge when all the measures are not used and 80% when they are, near to 99% of farmers for pastoral cohabitation investigated are just opportunists; they were already using Patou and «tight-guarding» practice. They have joined parks to their functioning mode to have 80% compensation when taking shepherd. For all farmers, accompaniment measures are applicable neither everywhere nor at full-time, nor in all weathers; the pair shepherd-Patou reduces predation but it should not be presented as panacea. In order to make a progress in the cohabitation process, authorities should come back, remove frustration and conflicts of interest and put the price. We have to divide by 200 the number of sheep that summer to know the number of shepherds, cabins, parks and Patou necessary for effective herd protection.

Keywords : Pastoralism, stocking system, Mountain Summer Pasture, Bear, Biodiversity, Preservation, Environment, Sustainable Development.

Diagrams figures and tables	Pages
Diagram 1:	A
Diagram 2:	A
Diagram 3:	C
Diagram 4:	23

Figure 1:	b

Table 1:	d

Acknowledgments

This work resulted from numerous literatures research, discussions with resource persons, and succession of semi-directive interviews. The idea has also raised from my knowledge on pastoral husbandry practice and accompaniment measures of the bear plan 2006-2009. So I am taking here the opportunity to thank:

The French government to have provided to me an ideological framework through its bear plan.

Madam TERRIEUX Agnès and Mister HEMPTINNE Jean-Louis for their efforts to the supervision of this work.

Gentlemen GARDE Laurent and LASSEUR Jacques for their advices for literature research.

Mister BESCHE-COMMENGE Bruno for his reception, sympathy, supervision and implication in the organisation and progress of interviews.

Madam BONIFACE Magali and Gentlemen LACUBE Philippe, CARRIERE Claude and RALU Olivier for their implication to the organisation of interviews.

Special thanks to all the Managers, Breeders and Shepherds who answer to my numerous questions and with whom I spent a marvellous time.

Introduction

During the years 70 to 90, the number of farms, animal per flock, fodder intensification, and development of cropping out of the growing period has increased significantly. During the Years 80, French market of meat opens again and low price importations strongly affected animal husbandry. Following the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in 1992, geographic specialisation and increasing of animal per flock has been intensified. Between 1988 and 2000, animal industries have interred a process of lowering the number of farms (loss of 62% sheep breeders and 1/3 wet nurse ewes) and increasing importantly the number of animal per flock (Lasseur and Garde, 2007). In central Pyrenees zone, flock management modifications have been organised in accordance with many tendencies: improvement of reproduction performances, abandon of mixity in the farms, lowering of working power, introduction of meat breeds, products specialisation and selling period's restriction (Gibon, 1996).

In Ariège mountain zone, due to today called «natural handicap» (elevation, slope, geomorphology, snowpack, soil type, humidity, etc.), rearing of livestock using transhumant production systems has been and is still the main land use and livelihood. This is probably the most efficient way of exploiting these seasonal pastures economically. Summer pasture farming has been and is still an integrated element of Ariège's inhabitant agriculture; that is first and foremost with regard to production of meat from cows and sheep. Mountain Summer Pasture (MSP) farming was regulated in the laws from time immemorial. According to the old pastoral law, if a farmer did not herd his cows and sheep to the summer pasture, he could be reported for illegal grazing "grass robbery" and pay for a levy. It is on the summer farm pastures that the multitude of traditions of small scale dairy processing has survived. Summer farming in Ariège also has long traditions in tourism and recreational opportunities for the thousands of visitors who spend countless hours each year in the tranquillity and open spaces of grasslands (B. Besche-Commenge, 2008).

Mountain pasture environments are highly diversified, thus in these areas livestock graze on a patchwork of vegetation of highly varying quality. It is therefore essential to determine the right time to move livestock to suitable specific sites throughout the summer. Because of the threat of high energy consumption activities on environment, relations between agriculture and environment are usually tackled from the angle of seeking to limit the negative effects of farming practices, in particular as regards the spreading of pollutants. In French Mediterranean region, it is mainly positive aspects of farming activities that are focused on, such as maintaining the biodiversity of rangelands through grazing. Environmental issues on these areas and agricultural strategies are now focused on preserving biodiversity (Clergue and al., 2005; Gibon, 1997).

Biodiversity loss is an issue with complex social, economic, cultural, and ecological dimensions. Dealing with it requires complex solutions. Although this is a global developing policy options to manage the crisis will require a proper understanding of why and how biodiversity is changing, and the integration of knowledge from many different disciplines. This is a difficult task, and for the moment, successful examples of fully integrated research are rare. Biodiversity loss can affect ecosystem functions and services. Individual ecosystem functions generally show a positive asymptotic relationship with increasing biodiversity, suggesting that some species are redundant. However, ecosystems are managed and conserved for multiple functions, which may require greater biodiversity (Hector & Bagchi, 2007).

The purpose of this work is not to answer questions about sustainability of bear reintroduction or to take any position about bear polemic but to underline what have been doing in terms of pastoralism and what can be the stumbling block for the implementation of brown bear plan subsidies. To inter into this topic I have choosen to keep in mind these questions: Up to now, pastoralism is on unstable equilibrium and fragile economies; how will the new data enhance this status? What are the damages of traditional pastoralism in terms of biodiversity value and value expected for the «modern» pastoralism? What are the additional functions of mountainous ecosystems with new data and procedures?

Chapter 1: General presentation of the study

1.1 Context

In order to render more comprehensive the results of this study, I will present in the following paragraphs, the natural milieu of Ariège, the stocking system, its role and objectives, production's means, social, technical and spatial considerations and, finally, the brown bear predation context.

1.1.1 The natural milieu of Ariège

In the south west of Europe, Pyrenees are a border massif between France and Spain. The centre of this chain corresponds to the mountainous part of the three French departments (Hautes-Pyrénées, Haute-Garonne and Ariège). Vegetation of atlantico-mountain type on a great part, takes much Mediterranean characteristics on the oriental fringe of Ariège. Grasslands, beech trees and fir-trees forest on mountainside north, pines on mountainside south, heaths, and alpine grass are successive in accordance with altitude. Rich soils of bottom valleys and mountainsides well exposed have give rise to intensive agriculture while huge grassland of mountain summer pasture were exploited by migrating pastoralism. Like much of the massifs, Pyrenees' one is characterised by large natural conditions diversity, economic, socio-cultural and demographic heritage (Buffière and Gibon, 1996).

1.1.1.1 A collective management of resources

More than 50% of pastoral units (PU) are collectively managed through: pastoral grouping (PG), collective land tenure (CLT) and syndicates. Thus, for the 19,000 LLU^1(*) (12,000 bovines, 40,000 ovine, 1,000 equines) grazing 75,000 hectares during three to five months of the year, 900 breeders (near to 40% of all the farmers in Ariège), 40 shepherds, 191 PU and 66 PG are concerned (GIS-Pyrenees, 2008).

1.1.1.2 A recognised patrimonial interest

In addition to their technical and economical interest, mountain summer pastures (MSP) represent an important environmental, landscaped and architectural patrimony. Almost all altitude's pastureland of the territory, checked off during inventories on natural patrimony (NZEIFF^2(*), IZBC^3(*), etc.), with high ecologic interests, receive 90% (16,500 LLU) of the Ariège's migrating livestock (GIS-Pyrenees, 2008).

1.1.2 Role and objectives of the stocking system

1.1.2.1 Some definitions

Pastoralism, the use of extensive grazing in rangelands for livestock production, is one of the key production systems in the world's inhospitable lands (Lasseur and Garde, 2007). It is a quite original stocking system that exists only by a close relationship and respect between people, land and herds. It is also closely dependent on climatic variations. It represents an irreplaceable form, thrifty in fossil energy, for the development and management of natural milieu. According to FAO (2002), pastoralism is not a relic, but a modern activity that takes place in a context of current economies. It has a socioeconomic function while maintaining a form of activity in difficult regions and contributing to productions. A rangeland is first a place where the herd can move relatively freely, even without any constraint other than the distance required to drink (animals can be totally free inside a large sector, pens or not).

Is considered as pastoral (according to statistic definition of farm), a farm using collective pasturelands (generally equivalent to transhumance and utilisation of MSP); if not, animal density is less than 2 (sum of LLU/ha UAA^4(*)), and the portion of Always with Grass Area (AGA) less productive should reach 50% of UAA, and farm will have one of the following trends: breastfeeding or dairy cow, or the two, sheep and goats or multicropping-husbandry or intensive cultivation-grazing livestock (Eychenne, 2003b and 2006).

Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.» (Convention on Biological Diversity «CBD»). It is known that there are limited data on spatial distribution on biodiversity, limited resources and time to acquire sufficient data. Thus, it is necessary to make priorities with the data available or with easy acquirable data. So, different surrogates for biodiversity have been used/proposed to provide a short-cut for the identification of important areas for conservation of biodiversity^5(*).

Ecosystem: Concept defined by Tansley in 1935, for him it must "take into account biotic factors and particularly human". A grazing activity can destroy an ecosystem, but it favours in the same time the emergence of a new ecosystem (grazed ecosystem), which most often be maintained by human intervention against harmful plants or various predators. Of course, unlike Tansley, the ecosystem has often been caught in a spirit strictly naturalist (Hubert, 2002 & 2004) actually, the ecosystem should be seen by a reading topocentric and non-geometric.

1.1.2.2 Role and objectives of pastoralism

Stock farming contributes to territories' dynamics by maintaining through grazing, opened environment integrated in a mosaic, associating cultivated and forest areas. This contribution must be conciliated with a dynamics of stock farms allowing this activity to maintain its coherences, and his sustainability as stocking system (Lasseur and Garde, 2007). The rangelands exploited by pastoralists often cannot be used by conventional agriculture. These lands offer few other options than migrating husbandry for their efficient and sustainable utilisation. Nonetheless, throughout much of its long history, its reputation has been unflattering, its practitioners marginalised by sedentary cultivators and urban dwellers (Roger Blench, 2001). In some sectors of the Ariège's mountain zone, this is the unique way to valorise land.

Migrating husbandry leans on a group of variable itineraries, according to the year, as the result of spatial and temporal distribution of diversified and most often spontaneous forage resources. Production activity is managed by the interaction between, Man, herd and territory; its complexity is the result of the existence and interaction of different goals between the manager (stock breeder, herdsman), vegetation and animals (Landais and Balent, 1995; Hubert and al., 1993). Transhumance in Ariège involves relocation of livestock (cows, sheep, and horses) to high mountains for summer months, not only because farms in the lowland are too small to support the herd all year round, but, also to manure plots, to maintain fences, to constitute fodder stocks, to allow sanitary process of plots and pens or cowsheds, and finally, to enable stock breeder to «rest». Their mountain period starts in late May and early June, and ends in early October. Until the 1970s transhumance concerned mainly dairy cows, and cheese-making was important activity. In some regions up until this century, nearly all family members decamped to higher mountains with their cows, living in rudimentary cabins made with stones. That system, which evolved during the middle age, lasted into the 20th century, but broke down under pressure from industrialization with concomitant depopulation of countryside (B. Besche-Commenge, 2008; Fédération pastorale de l'Ariège, 2007). Many authors have mentioned the importance of pastoralism in the nature conservation, production of specific biodiversity spaces, maintenance of herbaceous environment and opened landscapes (aesthetic), prevention of natural hazards, management of soil and effluents, cultural patrimony preservation, rural migration limitation, multifunctionality and positive externalities (Castro & al., 2004; Huyghe and Lemaire, 2002; Hervieu, 2002; Lasseur and Garde, 2007; Janet C., 2007; Hubert, 2002; Léger 1999).

1.1.3 Rangeland valorisation by grazing livestock: challenges and difficulties around the pasturelands

The article "The Tragedy of the Commons", written by Garret Hardin in 1968, provided a theoretical framework in a speech already experienced by politicians, academics and actors of development. This theory stresses in a Malthusian manner, economical irrationality of pastoralism. This is considered as a struggle for resources and environmental pillage. Argument is that there is no interest for a farmer to limit the growth of its herd on common pasturelands where other farmers could do in his place. Many countries have policies of sedentarisation that derive as much from political considerations as a concern for the welfare of those they wish to settle. However, national governments are often hostile to pastoralists.

1.1.3.1 Biophysical threats to pastoral land

Pastoralists recognize the need to balance productivity increases and station performance with natural resource condition. This involves knowledge of pasture types, understanding stock distribution and grazing patterns, managing stocking rates based on land capability and pasture production, and knowing the stocking thresholds before damage occurs. Pastoralists work with variable weather on a day-to-day basis. However, climate change is likely to pose a long-term challenge for the pastoral sector (Robertson, 2002). Hence, the pastoral resources are heterogeneous and dispersed in space (fragmented), related to the seasons (temporary), different now and then (variables) liable to irregular climate (unpredictable). Globally, net productivity of rangelands is low; populations of animals and plants they can support are unpredictable. These biophysical factors affect the spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability of resources. Access to different «grazable» ecosystems in the same region allows consumption of resources between complementary ecological habitats and is therefore vital to ensure continued livestock's productivity (Nori, 2006; Garde, 2007).

1.1.3.2 Stock farming, biodiversity, product's quality and ecosystem services

Despite the absence of absolute scientific justification, the biodiversity preservation has become a major concern of society (Bornard and al., 2004). Management of biodiversity is a major issue for farms. It is increasingly regarded not only as a result of the plots' management, but also vis-à-vis of the services it provides to the husbandry activity (Clergue and al., 2005): quality of products, nutritive value of fodder, grasslands adaptability utilisation, etc. Its preservation is now explicitly taken into account in attribution of the new Agro-Environmental Grazier Subsidy (AEGS 2). In grazier systems, more and more works are examining the services rendered to the livestock by biodiversity, both at the level of the plot than that of whole farm (Swift and al., 2004). The grazing action of herbivorous on the structure and biodiversity of the grassland is mostly linked to their consumption. By selecting species most palatable, animals exert different defoliation's pressure on species, which may threaten the survival of some. However, they also restrict the development of very competitive species for light and nutrients, allowing the coexistence of a greater number of species. By their trampling, they also give a structure to plant communities by creating openings that can be settled by new species. Finally, they play a role in seed scattering of certain species (Fischer and al., 1996).

Norwegian lambs are normally slaughtered directly after having been gathered from unimproved mountain pastures and the meat is therefore considered almost as an organic product. Many consumers also believe that lambs from certain areas are superior to other types of lambs' meat. In the mountains sheep and lambs consume a variety of grasses, herbs, and browse. As snow melts during summer, fresh, nutritive, and non-contaminated pasture becomes available. Lambs in the mountains may walk long distances and body conformation might be different from those of lambs confined to paddocks in the lowlands. It is not known if the factors mentioned affect meat quality and flavour. Experiments undertaken in Australia, Iceland, Greece, Italy, New Zealand, and UK have documented small, but significant effects of pasture type and supplementation on quality, including flavour of lambs' meat (T. Adnoy and al., 2005). The nature of fodder could intervene directly on product's quality through molecules present in aromatic plants (terpenes, sesquiterpenes), found in cheese (Viallon and al. 1999).

It is important to protect the natural assets in the pastoral rangelands in order to maintain key ecosystem services, such as soil and vegetation health, habitat provision, water capture and filtration, carbon sequestration, landscapes... Inadequate protection of these ecosystem services will not support productive pastoralism (Robertson, 2002).

1.1.3.3 Social impact on grazing behaviour of herbivorous

Herbivorous are characterized inter alia by their gregariousness, which is one of major reason for their domestication. In domestic ungulates social grouping strongly influences grazing behaviour. Social relationships within a group influence individual strategies for dietary choices, exploitation of feeding sites and spatial distribution on rangeland. Group living gives the young animals social models, first his dam then his peers and the other members of the group, which help to learn adequate food preferences and aversions. This social facilitation is more efficient than individual learning by trial and error. Group living is also thought to be advantageous for individual animals because they can use the feeding sites discovered by the other members of the group. Arnold and Dudzinski (1978) quoted by Dumont & Boissy (1999), reported that herds sheep and cattle are divided into several sub-units in low food availability conditions. Group living among herbivorous is an effective strategy against predation. (Jarman (1974); quoted by Dumont & Boissy, 1999).On the other hand, Foraging in group can force individuals to abandon a feeding site they estimate to be of good quality simply because all other group members leave this site. Also increased feeding competition will occur in a group due to the faster decrease in food availability, the low-ranking animals being the more affected. The spatial movements of the group involve "leadership" relations, the initiation of movement being usually the fact of the same animals (Sato, 1982).

1.1.3.4 Herdsman expertise, animal physiology and behaviour, topography and plant physiology for pastoral area utilisation

Because a diet is slowly constituted on rangeland, it is crucial to foresee a longer grazing time. This is 6 to 8h on meadow or good grassland; it reaches 8 to 12 h on rangelands and mountain pastures. This time varies according to season, weather conditions, type of milieu, animals' status. This time is divided into intake sequences even more many that the milieu is poor and the animal have to change frequently place where he can stabilize. On a hot summer days, the grazing time is shifted to the night-time and rumination to the day. Food requirements of animals fluctuate according to their physiological state. When vegetation's type of a park is known, hence shift of the grass shoot characterised, spreading of production and keeping up capacity, farmer decides seasons of use, load, levels of development and intensity of grazing. Adjustment of these animals and plants components is known as grazing calendar. This calendar can be considered as series of sequences, and sequence as series of parks. On rangeland in general, choices are guided by plant morphology: cows prefer leaf than stalks, young green organs than old, hardened, lignified or even yellow organs. Herds' movement with its dual logic, that of shepherd and that of animal behaviour, is a powerful differentiating factor of MSP sectors (Garde and al., 2005; Garde and al., 2007).

Herd guarding and herd watch are most often confused. But the function of the first is to take care of herd's feeding, and that of the second, herd's protection. The guard requires the competence of the shepherd; watch does not require particular expertise. There is no guarding practice, but a variety of ways to guide animals based on criteria such as type of resource available, forms of relief, ability of animals to explore more or less a bush-wooded milieu; visibility between sheep and shepherd and dog's one on the herd, physiological state of animals, animal initiation, objectives of animal body condition score expected by the stock breeder, respect of constraints related to other users... (Meuret, 1995; Garde and al., 2005; Garde and al., 2007).

1.1.3.5 Social and economic threats to pastoral land

Rangelands are currently undergoing rapid change affecting many pastoralists and local communities. Lack of a permanent population in pastoral areas often results in a reduced number of services being made available to pastoralists. Some pastoral landholdings are not of an adequate size and do not have adequate carrying capacity or infrastructure required for a profitable enterprise. Recent macro-economic evolution, development of secondary residences, and new forms of individual land tenure make difficult the use of rangeland areas for farmers (Anonymous, 2007b). Major problem that concerns all pastoral groups is linked to their land property rights and the growing influence of non-pastoral groups and of external interest on resources (Nori, 2006; Garde, 2007). Fragmentation of ownership renders difficult land access. Multi-annual grazing conventions and verbal agreements between farmers and owners do not guarantee farm's sustainability necessary to install expensive fencing and pastoral equipments (Anonymous, 2007a). Moreover, relations with other users (hunters, hikers, motorcycles...) are sometimes very adversarial relationships generating vandalism acts (fence destructions, robberies...).

1.1.4 Production's means, operating mode, products, social, technical and spatial considerations

The main floral component of rangelands, grass, exists to be grazed, and over time co-adapts to both intensity and quality of grazing. Agro-ecological conditions and pastoral resources characteristics are variable and unforeseeable. This is determinant in the constitution of socio-economic means of support of pastoral communities. Long-term evolutionary history of a grassland ecosystem as well as history of last few centuries is therefore essential to understanding its response both to management and to new pressures on it. Traditional pastoralists broadly accept pasture and rainfall as a given and adapt their social and herding systems to take best advantage of them.

Among the 5 major herbivorous' producing areas of France, Midi Pyrenees is at the top with 856,000 sheep, 1.4 million cattle, 37,930 horses. For the year 2000, grazing livestock of Pyrenean massif were constituted by 60% of farms (more than 6,000 pastoral^6(*) farms) and total forage area more than 80% individual Useful Agricultural Area (UAA). Concerning pastoralism, 575,000 ha (one-third of the massif's area) were used for collective and individual MSP. In cow farming, the use of Gasconne breed, the local rustic breed, is predominant in most cases; the herds are conducted in purebred. Herds are generally crossed naturally with scarce usage of Artificial Insemination (AI). Some herds do not include bull, as was in the past common in flocks' region. In some cases, mating is held only during summering in a collective herd with bull. Reproductive timing oppose calving beginning in the spring (calving in March or April), classical in the region, to early calving (calving from early January to February 15^th). A first objective is to locate mating period at time when grass' growth allows cows to put weight after winter, which has often drawn on their body condition score, which will improve fertility. It is also to obtain enough early calving to send all animals in MSP in June.

MSP condition the mountain farms' functioning because they provide the whole diet during at least three months of the year. Depending to different criteria, many sub-systems as well as many products are mentioned in the mountain stock farms. «Broutard» remains the main management and selling mode of young animals. This is in respect of different needs: save resources, reduce work loads... Because of "economy and autonomy'', herds' management in the years 70 was based on the maximum use of environmental assets. Concerning guarding, basically, there are tight guard (also called "stick planted") to keep the flock together on favourable relief (concave or flat) based on sheepdogs. Open-weave guarding consists to leave more deployment's space to the herd so that it constitutes a complete diet on a more difficult milieu due to its overgrown status, its irregular relief, and its poor grass recovery. For example, it is the most appropriate guarding system in late summer. At last, dropped-headed guarding consists to guide the flock; give the "bias", then let it unroll its grazing network on an area that animals are familiar (Garde and al., 2005. Garde and al., 2007).

It is evident that if you ask to an Ariège's inhabitant and farmer what are your production means? You will understand; they are: The beasts, MSP, pastoral group, pastoral land association, me and machinery. This underlines the mixture of individual and collective management system for each farmer, and its relation or dependence to MSP. In fact, Ariège's pastoral system is distinguished by its socioeconomic and cultural link to MSP. Ariège's MSP grades from 1,200 to near to 3,200m altitude and cover about 140,000ha, most often of poor quality. They are pastureland with relatively limited level of equipments and technical management modalities, compared to the Alps and Massif Central for example. Management of intermediate zone^7(*) is today, scarcer and more difficult because of invasion by shrubs. However, due to individual management techniques, which favour early ascension and late coming down, it is not astonishing to see that livestock lives farm areas early May and come down again at the first snows. Nevertheless, in general, ascension for summering is current from May 20^th to June 15^th and coming down from October 1^st to 30^th, respectively for cattle and sheep. The two Ariège's valleys Couserans and Haute Ariège correspond to mountain zones highly affected by Agricultural abandonment. Here, the principal orientation of farms is livestock breastfeeding, bovine or ovine, extensively gathered. In summary, according to the Ariège pastoral federation (2007), pastoralism in 2003-2004 was: 57 pastoral land associations (24,000ha; 53,000 landholders; 55,000 plots), 75 pastoral group (280 pastoral units; 124,000ha; 853 transhumant breeders (387 cow, 270 sheep, 185 horses and 11 goats keepers with 17,325; 50,681; 1,976 and 158 animal respectively); 50 herdsmen, 23 missions for transport by helicopter (30 tons of Goods), 11 transports by packsaddle (5 tons).

1.1.4.1 Study of farming systems

Reasoned management and exploitation of genetic resources in their natural environment often dictates to exceed the only framework of species and to take into account the context /... / within environmental or agricultural systems. It is in that sense that Lasseur (2008^8(*)) consider the local technique culture, and its declination particular in terms of livestock (local stocking system) as a "filter" that led farmers to interpret changes in production conditions defined in a macro economic level. This interpretation helps to define new practices that these farmers will be willing to implement. Pasture to be understood and used for environmental management must be considered in spatial and temporal scales unusual for agriculture and animal husbandry disciplines (B. Besche-Commenge, 2008; Balent and al., 1998). Many farms in Ariège are pastoral farms. Pastoralism is an original production which is guided by the interaction between men, herd and territory, its complexity results from the interaction and existence of different management objectives between: "Manager" (shepherd, breeder, rural community which regulates the form of land use communal and private); vegetation and animals (Landais and Balent, 1995).

1.1.4.2 Study of grazing system

In the mountains, too many rocks, small ridges, cliffs interrupt pasturelands, sheep are scattered because that make them find the herbs they prefer. On these small ledges, it seems that nothing grows whereas very palatable grasses here are abundant. We can no longer see them all, and it is at that time they benefit! (Discussion1; 7&8, May 2008). Technically, there is a distance between shepherd and animal that "allows" animal to stop. So if shepherd addresses to the flock, all the daytime the message: go ahead! There will be trampling without true consumption but it runs out. In addition, animal on rangeland ruminates as soon as his belly is full and cannot consume more than its consumption capacity. For Agreil & al (2004) a sheep is correctly fed on grassland when mixes grass and ligneous in his diet; that is a sheep able to «organise his time with serenity». Worried/restless sheep because of feeling of insecurity from predation for example and that interrupt frequently his meal in order to verify the absence of predator are not well fed. Not well in nutritional point of view because they will concentrate on species easy to cut off. Not well also in ecological management point of view because there will be thus imbalance grazing impact. In summary, a restless herd will confine oneself in cleared zones with over-grazing. Converse, a calm herd will easily scatter, animal consuming a large range of plants.

1.1.5 The brown bear predation context

The marginal lands that have previously been the province of pastoralists are increasingly coming into focus as reserves of biodiversity. Their very inaccessibility has permitted the survival of species eliminated in high-density agricultural areas. Consequently, there is pressure on governments to declare large regions protected areas, both because of pressure from conservation lobby and potential income from tourism. Uncertainties about pastoral land tenure have made it difficult for pastoralists to lodge effective land claims. In pre-modern era, predation on pastoral herds was a major concern of virtually all pastoralists and a constant demand on herding labour. Expansion of agriculture and spread of modern weapons in the early twentieth century have largely eliminated predators in whole ecosystems. However, external changes are affecting views of predation and thus attitudes towards the wholesale elimination of predators. Many species, such as wolves, bears and snow-leopards, are now seen as endangered and therefore as the object of conservation efforts rather than as a nuisance to be eliminated (Göbel 1997).

1.1.5.1 General considerations

The brown bear's reintroduction in the French Pyrenees (1996 and 2006) changes the perception of a stock farming generally favourable to the environment. The place wished to assign to this stock farm in the protection of natural areas is subject to very contrasting positions and the presence of bear creates changes in farming practices that could disapprove the contribution of stock farming to the management of «natural» areas. Scientists involved are well aware that losses on herds may be much important. But on the field, it is noticed that the tendency is to consider that it is rather exceptionally. Implicitly, it is as if there was an objective "to clear of" the predator, putting forward stray dogs, and to question the practices of farmers, even his good faith. Predation's risk hangs over the flock day and night, throughout the presence on MSP. Issues of indirect losses and even more those of animals not found are crucial (Garde, 2001). In relation to Garde's works (2006), if the bear is really just the scapegoat for other difficulties of the sheep industry, it is a waste of time to work on the protection of herds; and if at the reverse, the bear is a new technical issue requiring major adaptation's efforts to farmers and shepherds, it is a waste of time trying to explain the opposition of farmers by historical, psychological and even mythical considerations. In early 1990, the last bear of Central Pyrenees disappears. Only 7 to 8 individuals remain in the western nucleus. Pyrenean brown bear population is 14 to 18 individuals in 2005. This is insufficient to save the species and a new strengthening program is implemented, 5 bears are released in central Pyrenees in 2006. The brown bear is not only an emblematic species, but an umbrella or flagship species which will provide many economical (through tourism) and ecological (preservation of biodiversity) outcomes (FERRUS, 2007; Ministry of ecology, 2006).

1.1.5.2 Brown bear ecology

Brown bears can be found in many habitats, from the fringes of deserts to high mountain forests and ice fields. In Europe, the brown bear is mostly found in mountain woodlands, in Siberia it occurs primarily in forests while in North America they prefer tundra, alpine meadows and coastlines. The species' main requirements are areas with dense cover in which they can shelter by day.

1.1.5.3 Social Structure

Although mostly solitary, bears sometimes aggregate in large numbers at important food sources and form family foraging groups. In these cases, a dominance hierarchy involving aggression is established. While it is large adult males that are the highest-ranking, the most aggressive individuals are females that have young.

1.1.5.4 Life Cycle

Young born bears are vulnerable, being blind, naked and weighing only 340 to 680 grams. Cubs grow quickly, reaching 25kg by 6 months, and continue lactating for 18 to 30 months while eating a variety of foods. Cubs usually remain with the mother until the third or fourth year of their life. In the wild, the brown bears can reach 20 to 30 years of age.

1.1.5.5 Breeding

Sometimes males may fight over females, and once they have won, they tend to guard them for 1 to 3 weeks. Brown bears mate from May to July, and a gestation of 180 to 266 days follows, with births occurring from January to March, usually while the female is still in hibernation. She generally lays down two to three offspring and breeds again 2 to 4 years later.

1.1.5.6 Diet

Brown bears are omnivorous, and their diet varies with the season: from grass and shoots in the spring to berries and apples in the summer, nuts and plums in autumn. All year round they eat roots, insects, mammals, reptiles, and of course, honey and livestock.

1.1.5.7 Human - Animal Conflict

Bears are sometimes known to attack livestock and water pipes, raid orchards, attack rubbish bins and on occasion storehouses of food. People are naturally scared of these large predators and the first reaction is to attack or shoot them. However, attacks on humans do not appear to be a result of predatory behaviour, but rather a result of the bear defending itself, its cubs or a carcass against humans. The presence of a wounded bear is the most dangerous situation (Ministry of ecology, 2006; WWF & FERRUS, 2008^9(*)).

1.1.5.8 The dynamics' expansion of the bear on the areas of stock farm

If territories occupied by wolves are precisely the same as those valued by mountain and Mediterranean pastoral farm stocking, especially sheep (Garde, 2002), those occupied by bears should be much extended because of their diets and their living areas.

1.1.5.9 Spread out of damage

The predation on livestock has direct and indirect damage to the farm and increases the workload of the shepherd or the stockbreeder. Thus, the presence of the bear is supposed to disapprove pastoralism sustainability and the presence of herds in the mountain. The whole issue related to predation on livestock gives rise to an acute social crisis (MAUZ, 2002) related to technical difficulties as well as denial strategies of the role of predators in these difficulties carried out by its defenders (Garde, 2000). Despite significant efforts of ranchers to defend themselves against the arrival of predators, classical protection systems have many limitations, and cannot constitute a sustainable solution. Predation constraints, in addition to weak income in livestock rearing, discourage the establishment of young farmers (Anonymous, 2007a).

1.2 Problem

Currents economical and technical arguments of pastoral farming, representation that pastoral breeders have to their know-how and MSP, do not offer a security for pastoral cohabitation. Therefore, further to the vulnerability of grazing animals related to bear's predation in a stocking system with an unsteady and fragile equilibrium, anxiety for the future causes a negative consideration of the predator and threatens its survival.

1.2.1 Research question

The use made of Ariège mountain summer pasture is it compatible with the accompaniments measures of the brown bear reintroduction plan in the French Pyrenees?

1.2.2 Hypothesis

1. The presence of brown bear induces reorganizations of the farming system non profitable to the pastoral farm.

3. The farms' diversification is a response to their sensitivity and an alternative parameter.

1.2.3 Objectives

The objective of this work is to know and understand the logic of the Ariège "land system", to analyze the system from what is being done and said with a zootechnical point of view and to analyze how the brown bear accompaniment measures play in relation to all this. This will enable to check if any modification without taking into account these historical, socio-technical and topographical data is of or not zoohygienical nature and harmful for the sustainability of the system? At last, this work aims to present the Ariège's pastoral farming alternatives and perspectives in this particular context.

Diagram 2: Values that delimit the space of good practices (Lasseur and al., 2007)

Chapter 2: Field and data collection

2.1 Field

2.1.1 Ariège-Pyrenees

Long, the slogan of the department has been «Land Courage». The wild nature of Ariège in central Pyrenees has influenced his inhabitants. For hikers and tourists, the department offers a wide variety of landscapes, flora and fauna very rich. Ariège is a department rather rural with many villages and hamlets and small towns.

2.1.2 ASPAP

The association for the protection of Ariège-pyrenees patrimony was created in January 12^th 2006, in relation to the brown bear reintroduction plan 2006-2009. After its creation, the association has rapidly become the spokesperson of the breeders against the reintroduction (at least 90% of the breeders in Ariège). Because 2006 were the launching year of the plan, she knew a crowded agenda: March 10^th, public display at Toulouse, April 1^st, first release, April 28^th, 2^nd release, May 4^th, temporary release suspension, May 6^th, public display at Luchon, May 13^th, public display at Bagnères de Bigorre and Arbas. Since the interruption of the release process, the association is assessing the plan and its damages to pastoralism, informing its subscribers (up to 2,000 members) how to behave in various situations.

2.1.3 Farm, men and flock in mountain zone

Pastoralism is a production system whereby man, animal and the territory interact. This is a complex eco-agrosystem where traditional know-how, economic, technical and socio-political concerns are jointly called to (see diagrams 1& 2 opposite).

2.2 Data collection

2.2.1 A bibliographic approach to define the status of the topic

Documentation on pastoral farming system is as difficult to find, as the system is complex to manage. Much of the time, the system as presented is with the same technique than 500 to 600 years ago. Concerning pastoralism in Pyrenees, archives show that in the years 1400 to 1500, picking up animals where only at home in the evening. They show, however, what to avoid in this system: shepherds invaded had right legally to grab livestock until the payment of a penalty. It remains between 1500 and 1900 in a «escabots» system, no herds, less than 150 animals per shepherd. Is a form of grazing, both fragmented but covering the entire territory, very old (over half a millennium), which has truly "created" eco-agrosystem that are the Pyrenees mountains and the richness of their vegetation up to high altitude. Introduce changes, by other ways to keep the beast

would in fact destroy the way this environment has established and maintained (...) and even that environment (B. Besche-Commenge, 2008).

2.2.2 Field surveys

Comprehensive approaches of practices developed in socio-anthropology believe that the meaning of these practices is not a priori given and unambiguous. Collection of information directly or through surveys on the physical realization of a practice does not lead to identify the meaning of things. But it is possible to get the sense, through the analysis of what farmers say. This meaning can be inferred from the descriptions of farmers because in them, "they do not tell the truth of things, but the truth of their relationship to things" (Darré, 1999). Thus, in order to characterize the meaning of diversity and transformation of farmers' practices, it is important to identify concepts in their movement and not isolate the concepts of a farmer in his social position (...).

In order to have diversified points of view, alternatives to constraints and production perspectives, I interviewed breeders of plateau, mountain, High Mountain, hillside, for and against pastoral cohabitation with the preference of sheep farming which is more sensible to predation. Even though in the real situation, more than 90% of breeders are against to cohabitation, I interviewed 7 breeders against the cohabitation, 6 breeders in favour, 2 shepherds and 2 managers of pastoral group. I used the semi-directive conversation's method for information collection.

2.2.3 Structures and systems analysis

We thought that the legal status of the farm might have a certain influence on production systems and thus lesser the vulnerability of herds. We then collected information about farming, stocking, reproduction and grazing systems. In order to have broad spectrum of situations, we investigated in scattered sample breeders both pro-bear, opponents, those whose flock have been predated and those not yet (see figure 1 opposite).

Chapter 3: Results and discussion

3.1 Results

3.1.1 General characteristics of pastoral husbandry in Ariège

In Ariège, pastoral husbandry is the combination of individual and collective practices, collective practices being the decision-making rule. This is in accordance with the work of Darré (1999), who stipulates that in the field of socio-anthropology, practices are seen as social, constructed. Thus, a local professional group^10(*) (LPG), develops a set of references directing how each member of this group sees reality and considers its actions. Here, because of the «natural handicap^11(*)», breeders keep small seize flocks and have diversified farms. They practise free ranging and mating, less investments, transhumance^12(*) for the production of «Broutard» and «light/unfinished lambs». Because of winter and its snow layer they must constitute reserves for at least three moths for trough feeding. Contrary to the ancestral tradition whereby individual management were the rule, 100 beasts in the flock of the same breeder an exception, today the exception has been multiplied by 10 and collective management the rule. Nevertheless, beasts are still free ranging either in parks near the farm or in quarters of the intermediary zone or MSP. The activity is under the control of breeder's syndicate, pastoral group, pastoral land association (PLA), pastoral federation, county council and council. Even if for agronomists and animal scientists, pastoralism set of references are non-standard, the result of this production system is satisfactory considering the ratio output/input. Anyway, if the system were not sustainable it would have not been affected as many people and civilization all over this «economic world». Here, the way people organize their agricultural work on a daily basis takes into account the characteristics of climate. The local knowledge on climate and its variations in time and space, and forecasting techniques are essential elements for survival for these breeders. The freedom value refers to economical, technical and sanitary logic. In short, in this "free" husbandry the fundamentals of the zoohygiène seem to be respected.

In summary, pastoral farms in Ariège have farmers or farm leaders of 45 to 60 years old, much of them ignore if there will be a succession by their progeniture even if they would like to, they breed local breeds (Tarascon and Castillon for sheep, Gascon for cattle and pigs, Merens for horses). They keep less animal per herd (150 to 500 sheep, 50 to 150 cattle) because, even if there is abundant grass in MSP, they should take into account the carrying capacity of their farm and their forage autonomy level. They practice a collective management system on MSP and or on Intermediary Zone (IZ) which dictate the practices on the individual farm. They are in a situation of economic precariousness (their income built up of 50 to 80% subsidies) and human abandonment (less than 15% succession certitude) and are diversified. Husbandry activity alternates between the farm head quarter, IZ and MSP with a free ranging and mating, influenced by the PG rules^13(*). For autumn lambing, lambs are weaned after two months of suckling and sold as «light lambs» or «finished lambs» for hillside farmers; for spring lambing, lambs wean oneself naturally and are sold as «Broutard» at the MSP coming down (see the opposite diagram 3). Farmers recognise manure, animal work, lambs, calve, wool, landscape and biodiversity as the products of their activity. In that system; we noted 0,95-1 lamb weaned per ewe per year and 1 calf per cow per year, 100-120% prolificacy, age at first lambing 15-18 months for ewes and 3 years for cows; reform age 6 years for ewes and more than 13 years for cows, as the reproduction performances. These performances are good compared to inputs and the ratio output/input of other production systems. In short, it can be considered as advantage of this system: quality of products, yield/profit (even if fecundity and prolificacy are weak or poor), easily settlement of farm, and environmental qualities of practices. In other hand, weaknesses of the system are: fragility and instability (no flexibility, no alternatives^14(*) or less), much more time at/of work.

3.1.2 Farming system typology

Before the surveys, I thought about geographic situation and predation status as the principal diversifying factors. While doing surveys I realised that the origin of breeder, legal status of farm, the number of activities and products and presence of PLA were other potential factors to diversification. Finally surveys revealed that wherever your farm is located, whatever legal status your farm is, whatever you are stranger or neo-rural or not, the environment and its collective management system^15(*) will rapidly change your thought. However, presence of PLA and numbers of farm activities/products were the only factors of diversification. Predation status settles pastoral cohabitation behaviours.

3.1.2.1 Production systems according to animal mobility

Animal itinerary during a production's year have give rise to a number of sub systems. We noted that for farmers without either intermediary zone or PLA near their exploitation, movement was: farm-MSP-farm. This strengthens their opposition to cohabitation and reduces their production alternatives and perspectives. In addition to this, non-diversification was enforced by the marital status of farmer, quotas and the number of farmers in the village. For farmers with IZ and/or PLA, movement was: farm-IZ-MSP-IZ-farm, with IZ providing up to ¼ of the total grazing time of the year. This relatively gives right to a certain level of alternatives and perspectives even if mountain lands are much of the time not suitable for mechanization. Then distinction is made between farms without both IZ and PLA, farms without IZ but with PLA, farms with IZ and without PLA and, farms with IZ and PLA.

3.1.2.2 Production systems according to geographic localisation of the farm

Because of different slopping context of plateau, hillside and mountain, there were relatively more mechanized plots in hillside and plateau farms than in mountain farm. This gives right to diversified products («finished lambs», beef) and productions (fat liver, pork butcher's shop) for the farm. Then I distinguished hillside farms from plateau farms and mountain farms (with High Mountain, mountain and Low Mountain as sub variations).

3.1.2.3 Productions systems according to diversification

Up to 99% of farms of Ariège's mountain zone are diversified^16(*). This is due to the extreme economic precariousness and the fragile equilibrium of these farms^17(*). In addition to other biophysic constraints, administrative constraint is one that is often neglected. Because of quotas, which give right to AEGS, some farms cannot keep many species especially sheep farms. Generally, we have noticed sheep farms keeping cattle, pigs and horses; doing country gîte, forest activities, agro-tourism activities and salaried employee.

3.1.3 Mountain Summer Pasture what is?

The answer of this question is neither a sentence nor a short nor medium length film but a feature film which puts on stage many actors in the midst of which the beasts (livestock and dogs). In the whole Pyrenean chain, MSP is a culture, a tradition/custom (transhumance feast); is the jewel or the representation of a professional identity. Mountain summer pasture is also a period of the year (from June to September) during which herdsmen are in activity, transports by helicopter and by packsaddle enterprises are service providers to farms. It's in addition a geographic milieu (mountain (at least 1200m) to High Mountain (up to 3200m) with special environmental conditions (flora and fauna). It's further more a phase in the production's cycle, which consists of sanitation system (the only possible in the year), alimentation process (cheapest, richer and special), and constitution of feedstuffs, fencing, fence and diverse maintenances. Because we are talking of land anyway, it's a national, communal/council or private property where breeders have rights to send their livestock free or with variable charges for admission. For some farmers, it's first and foremost the holidays^18(*) for beast and their «resting» or relaxation period. For others, MSP is neither only the extension of their farm nor a place of temporal grazing but, a field or plot of their farm which respects the encircling grazing model of the system. In summary, MSP is all that at the same time; it's all one in the midst of which there is a certain wealth (and I will even say a wealth full stop), movement, life but especially life loss for certain beasts, disturbances of a functioning, frustration, anxiety and fear^19(*). Breeders seem to define MSP with unanimous talks yet, when you look deeper into considerations, you see contradictions. For all, MSP is obligatory because it's economical, enables feeding autonomy and to make a product: «Broutard». The number of users is decreasing because breeders are not too many now and some are in retirement. Some contradictions like we can stop summering because of bear and predation, to make «Broutard», animal should be «quiet», with bear we lose some portion of the mountain and the beasts come down in poor body condition, in the mountain animal have one's way... are some talks of bear opponents totally opposite to that of pro-bear.

3.1.4 How does bear intervenes in a rural and professional milieu?

Bear psychosis in rural milieu is not only present in the midst of those whose livestock are attacked by the wild animal. Because husbandry activity and precisely pastoralism creates opened environments and marvellous landscapes, support many families, much more professional and non-professional groups are engaged in this situation either by media effects, by actual experiences or by conflict of interest.

We have examined the talks of those closely concerned by bear problem and it appears that to support their position in relation to bear, farmers use more non technical (custom, patrimony, frustration...) than technical (mortality, reproduction, sanitation...) arguments. In each position, farmers clamour for biodiversity, animal body condition, animal health and loss and their future (see opposite table 1). Whatever the position, the reason is more socio-economical than environmental. Even if the management of a territory cannot be satisfied by simple commercial regulation mechanisms (Beuret, 1998), the actual conflict for and with the bear is due to authorities who have neglected that decision-making follows two rationalities: substantive rationality (intelligence motivated by self-interest for the optimization) and procedural rationality (systemic intelligence). In fact, consideration of the definition of functions and competencies, delimitation of the system and consideration modes is essential to avoid lack of understanding. In this work, it appears that for breeders, to produce is the fundamental function not groundskeeper and well tend the beasts the moral imperative not to work the land. Likewise, rights of use (not always free of charge) and property rights provide a greater legitimacy than that of the predator. At last, a good job with a certain life and products' quality in addition to free will and independence^20(*) are higher consideration modes. Hence, reconciliation supposes to have agreement on an equivalent principle enabling to compare each others point of views, which will, may be serves as common higher principle. In the specific case, territorial agreement between agriculture and community put on stage actors using different legitimacy principles of their acts on professional future and biodiversity questions. For the two non-commercial products, biodiversity produces interactions between «supplyers» and «demanders» and between «supplyers» on one side and «demanders» on other side.

In order to check evolutions of either bear project or pastoralism it is necessary to answer these questions: How breeders integrate bear presence in their stocking system? Are there any evolutions? Accompaniment measures do they induce evolution of practices or remunerate what breeders have been doing since? Knowing the opponents on this field of patrimony and territory, we can also search for the answer of the following questions: What are the common higher principles here? Can agreement be set on a basis of consensual choice of one of these principles or by the means of arbitration clause? Considering that for professional future, summering custom, feeding autonomy, animal «quietness» and body condition, frustration and economic precariousness are concerns; that biodiversity is only species related for the actors, we suggest:

· Information process to teach actors what is biodiversity in the most liberal sense of the word and why and how to preserve it, what services we benefit from it in return?

- Professional convention or convention of qualification to fix socio-technical norms

· Conception of the assessment method to maximize the internal and external coherence of conventions.

If we can draw the scenarios, which lead to a decision-making of those, engaged in the bear polemic, it is more difficult to differentiate between true justification and conflict of interest. Nevertheless, bear have at the same time divided and joined Pyrenean all over the massif. Generally, it is thought that pastoralism have on one side breeders and on other side shepherds, but this study has reveal that between breeders and shepherds were a special group known as breeder-shepherds. Special because of the look they have on cohabitation and the reasons of their choices. Examining the interviews done for this work, breeder-shepherds are more prompt to be pro-bear than to be opponents and shepherds are closer to the position of their employers (PG). This does not signifies that a breeder, a breeder-shepherd and a shepherd will always work with those of the same point of view even if he is willing to so do. Because in the whole Pyrenean massif, more than 90% of farmers are opponents and the bear not present everywhere, the scenarios of relationship between breeders, shepherd-breeders, shepherds and Pastoral Groups according to each one position are as follow (see diagram 4 below).

Diagram 4: Scenarios of relations between breeders, breeder-shepherds, shepherds and PGsIn this work it has appear a very similar situation like that of the wolf in the Alps as mentioned by Benhammou and Salvador (2003) whereby positions within each group are not monolithic; there are no in one side farmers against cohabitation with predator and in other side ecologists taking bear as the supreme symbol of biodiversity. Some farmers and farming related activity professionals are struggling to enhance the breeders' situation establishing a partnership with actors of environment. Breeders should take note that predator problem will amplify in Pyrenees and that there should be reaction right now without shutting oneself up in radical speech and technically unproductive in practice. However, technical solutions are brought without real field assistance and answer on the polemic of social frustration. The ministry of agriculture is almost absent and even hesitant to put effort into tricky questions. The authorities' communication in the bear topic in Pyrenees shows more a communication strategy problem than voluntary opacity.

3.1.5 What are then bear damages on pastoralism?

Bear damages are social (fear, psychological, hate and intolerance of others), economical and technical. The social situation of Ariège pastoralism today is the young fear for settlement and hence human abandonment. Phone or anonymous letters threatens farmers; some have moved elsewhere. For economic concerns, since the gain of the year is related to good summering, a bad summer season leads to loss of money according to farmers. This is understandable because less sold, less earned; in addition, more predation, more animal stress and less fattening^21(*) thus poor reproductive performances and sometimes lamb fattening or keeping for next summering. Also, more predation, more breeder presence in MSP then less work on the farm (fencing maintenance, mow), more animal gathering and more health problems at summer coming down. The highest problem due to predation is technical. When many sheep die due to predation this is harmful to the self-renewal of the flock because to replace them, breeder will buy ewe lamb that cannot produce instantly and that will be costly for their maintenance; some may even die before lambing. This is costly in terms of management because newcomers will much of the time gather in a sub-flock until they enjoy the new family's confidence. It is at the end a problem on animal behaviour (movement, grazing patterns, resting time).

3.1.6 How does ecology perceived in that bear polemic?

It appears here that neither the ministry of ecology through the regional direction of environment, nor the scientists involved in this project have considered ecology in his broad sense. This can be the reason why farmers are only talking of biodiversity and species as gain or loss of the bear plan. Yet it seems that bear reintroduction plan was for environmental concerns, even if environmental indicators among which ecological indicators used to communicate information about ecosystems and the impact human activity has on ecosystems to groups such as public or government policy makers are not found in the bear project documents. It is true that this is easier to think than to implement because it is difficult and often even impossible to characterize the functioning of a complex system, such as an eco-agrosystem, by means of direct measurements. The size of the system, the complexity of interactions involved, or the difficulty and cost of the measurements needed are often crippling (Giradin and al., 1999). But for those who have been living «in the respect of their environment», it is necessary to know what it is expected and what it is reproach to them? How do current agricultural practices affect the conservation value and extent of non-agricultural habitats and how can detrimental impacts be mitigated? How successful past action have been and what might yield best results? What are ecological interests? What are indicators (ecosystem and species diversity), scales and applicability? What is the role of biodiversity in maintaining specific ecosystem functions (e.g. biogeochemical cycles)? What are the development and monitoring process to determine whether problems are developing, whether any action is desirable or necessary? How to measure the need for and performance of public policies and programs? How to quantify ecosystem services and which components of the ecosystem are essential for providing valuable services? What are costs, benefits and distribution and cost-effectiveness? What are the relative benefits for biodiversity of the re-introduction of the brown bear vs. the continuation of traditional pastorism? What criteria should be used to determine when to intervene to deal with problematic bear? What are the ecological consequences of `wilding' as a long-term conservation strategy? Neither the operating mechanism of the bear project nor the up to date scientific knowledge can provide full answer to those question.

3.1.6.1 In this context does the bear an umbrella or just emblematic species?

An umbrella species is one that is considered endangered or threatened; large and requires a lot of habitat. His biology is well known; it is easily observed/observable or sampled; has large home ranges; is migratory and have a long lifespan (Cluff and Paquet, 2003). Then, by protecting this larger area, other species are protected as well. Simply put for a fifth-grader, picture an umbrella with several species standing underneath it.

Bears in general require a lot of forested land in order to prosper. So you can imagine that there are several species under the Pyrenean brown bear's umbrella. Hence, if you protect the Pyrenean brown bear, other species under its umbrella also will be protected; what are those species? What are the characteristics of their habitat and their functions on the ecosystem functioning? Thus, leaned on definition and Pyrenean context, the brown bear is not appropriated to be considered in the Pyrenean massif as an umbrella species even though its diet and migratory habits suggest that it may have a significant impact on plant community structure through fruit dispersal. In addition, umbrella species' management doesn't always work out as scientists think. For example, in California, a certain insect's umbrella species was doing OK, but the insect itself had gone down in numbers. What happened was that some development was allowed in the umbrella species' habitat, keeping in mind to protect the umbrella species. So it's often better all around to preserve land rather than a specific species^22(*). Lambeck R. (1996) thinks that it is difficult to justify concentrating on one species within a single ecosystem not knowing its role in ecosystem functioning because doubts still exist concerning the extent of protection given to the species under its 'umbrella' which is difficult to monitor and often assumed rather then proven. The single species based approach is often criticised due to the immense cost absorbed in the conservation.

3.1.7 What is the brown bear re-introduction cost?

For 2006, the global budget of the bear project was 2.26 millions euros with 580,000€ for compensations and subsidies to breeders (Ministry of ecology, 2006). Was this amount sufficient? What is known is that in 2007, 79 damages reports have been done, recognising 350 over 361 damages due to bear among which: 295 for sheep, 25 for cattle, 9 for horses, 23 for beehives and 2 for other animals (ASPAP, 2008). If we consider that only in Ariège 346,000ha are concerned by pastoralism and that to protect animal and beehives four wires are necessary even if only one wire and two are used to control horses and cattle respectively. What are the benefits of the project and their positive externalities on the long run compare to what pastoralism produces today? How to share these? What is the cost of farmers training to do other thing than husbandry or to raise animal differently? What is the cost of that social restructuring? Because the answer of these questions cannot be found somewhere, these are field of work to go ahead in this project in the future.

Conclusion

Mountain Summer Pasture is not only symbolical in the mountainous farm functioning but the lung (economic, sanitation, reproduction) of the farm existence, which contributes to maintain a living rural tissue; it is the shepherd territory identity. To the Arièges' breeders, pastoral mobility is not simply a technique by which resources are appropriated; it is the very source of success in the present agricultural context. Animals and men gradually become used to their environment and the rhythm of life exercised therein. Here guarding is in the logic of know-how adaptation to animal habits and spontaneous behaviours, biophysical conditions of the environment, breeders objectives and shepherd view point for the space maintenance, optimization and maximization of the natural resource and in order to produce at low cost a quality product. There is no absolute standard for choosing good range; what makes the cattle of other herders prosper in some region may be detrimental to theirs. Thus, the choice must always be made in accordance with what the animals have become accustomed to. In addition to this, herders have an intimate knowledge about regions familiar to them. Today, it is very difficult to distinguish between know-how and knowledge because Arièges' breeders and shepherds have agricultural training background but environmental conditions compel them to only use their know-how for the practice of their job. Hence introduce new data suppose that rehabilitation have been done up stream. Also the way sheep farmers envisage the practices they implement in reference to the idea they have of their work, depends on their field experiment and by social interactions within local professional groups. In a prospect of change in practices to make them more compatible with the resolution of environmental questions, the transformation of knowledge and know-how in local associations in relation with new expectations and environmental conditions is necessary to be implemented.

In the economic context of pastoralism today, additional charge is hardly appreciable. Since accompaniment measures provide only 50% subsidy for the shepherd charge when all the measures are not used together and 80% when they are, near to 99% of farmers pro-bear investigated are just opportunists because they were already using Patou and «tight-guarding» practice. They have joined parks to their functioning mode to have 80% compensation when taking shepherd. For all farmers, accompaniment measures are applicable neither everywhere nor at full-time, nor in all weathers; the pair shepherd-Patou reduces predation but it should not be presented as a panacea for the problem of pastoralism. Nothing has changed in farms and systems; even diversification is previous to bear reintroduction. In order to make a progress in the cohabitation process, authorities should come back to remove frustration and conflicts of interest and put the price. We have to divide by 200 the number of sheep that summer to know the number of shepherd, cabins, parks and Patou necessary for bear project effectiveness. The system practiced today has strongly evolved adapting oneself to socio-economical and technical changing. Environment brings about a certain capacity of adaptation, but the devotion to allegation of a certain professional "pride" is a stumbling block for the implementation of brown bear plan subsidies. Farmers can practice husbandry in another way but this way will come from them.

It has perhaps been thought that with the bear coming back, breeders will shift from quantitative to qualitative reasoning. Does it worth something in the present context where market price variation of inputs is the opposite of that of meat? Some breeders have produced a labelled product but price has very soon reached a ceiling price and they still remain economically very precarious; earning much of the time less than the guaranteed minimum wage. Today talks are somewhat unanimous among breeders: I would like that it continues after me, I would like to assign but I do not advise my children to settle. It appears few alternatives to present constraints. Today, some breeders want to make their job known and conditions of its practice so that all decision-making for their purpose should take into account the field context. A number of them think they should first stabilise the farm and maintain it at its present functioning status. For sheep breeders, cheese dairy, cattle rearing, cereals (hard blow for the environment!) and abandon are the only imaginable perspectives. They are ready to conceptual models with local components and relationships; interviewing managers and observing success of present operations and strongly contrast to plug-in models predicting system behaviour.

Maybe reintroduction will be in a short run beneficial to biodiversity and pastoralism but for the present, it is difficult to suggest anything and only shepherds have gain something from it. The future of pastoralism will depend heavily on political decisions made by national governments. Enclosed pastures are unlikely to see any significant extension, but conditions for existing pastoralists will become more difficult as both farmers and the conservation lobby expropriates land. Work with pastoralists, and a more sympathetic understanding of their production systems, could act both to protect their life ways and enhance their capacity to produce on marginal land.

Références Bibliographiques

Agreil C., Meuret M., Vincent M., 2004. GRENOUILLE : une méthode pour gérer les ressources alimentaires pour des ovins sur milieux embroussaillés. Fourrages, 180, p467-481.

Ådnøy T., Haug A., Sørheim O., Thomassen M.S., Varszegi Z. and Eik L.O., 2005. Grazing on mountain pastures-does it affects meat quality in lambs? Livestock Production Science Volume 94, Issues 1-2, Pages 25-31.

Anonyme, 2007a. Le manifeste pour le maintien de la biodiversité en zone d'élevage.

BALENT Gérard, ALARD Didier, BLANFORT Vincent, GIBON Annick, 1998. Activités de pâturage, paysages et biodiversité. Annales de zootechnie, 47, 419-429.

Balent, G., Alard, D., Blanfort, V. & Gibon, A., 1998. Activités de pâturage, paysage et biodiversité. Annales de Zootechnie 47, 419-429.

BENHAMMOU Farid & SALVADOR Olivier, 2003. Le loup (Canis lupis) dans les Pyrénées (1998-2003) : Cas d'école pour anticiper le retour des prédateurs sauvages dans les territoires ruraux marginaux. Sud-Ouest Européen, 16, 85-93.

BEURET Jean-Eude, 1998. Agriculture et qualité de l'espace rural: Coordination, Convention, Médiation. L'analyse d'une offre et d'une demande de qualité d'un bien non-marchand et des formes de coordinations mises en oeuvre par les agents (à partir d'un cas en Bretagne Centrale). Thèse de Doctorat, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agronomie de Rennes, 407pp.

BLENCH Roger, 2001. «You can't go home again» Pastoralism in the new millennium. FAO (2002) Animal Production and Health Papers N°150 96pp.

Bornard, A., Bassignana, M., Bernard-Brunet, C., Labonne, S., Cozic, P., 2004. La diversité végétale des alpages des Alpes internes françaises et italiennes. Influence du milieu et des pratiques. Fourrages 178, 153-170.

Buffière D., Gibon A., 1996. Le pastoralisme en Pyrénées centrales : une introduction commune aux textes d'Annick Gibon et de Didier Buffière. in : Pastoralisme et foncier : impact du régime foncier sur la gestion de l'espace pastoral et la conduite des troupeaux en régions arides et semi-arides. Actes du séminaire international du réseau Parcours. 4. Séminaire sur le Pastoralisme et Foncier, Gabès (Tunisia). CIHEAM-IAMM, p. 67-68, no. 32.

Castro M., Castro J.F. & Gómez Sal, A., 2004. L'utilisation du territoire par les petits ruminants dans la région de montagne de Trás-os-Montes, au Portugal. in: L'évolution des systèmes de production ovine et caprine: Avenir des systèmes extensifs face aux changements de la société Séminaire du Sous-Réseau Systèmes de Production du Réseau Coopératif Interrégional FAO-CIHEAM de Recherche et Développement sur les Ovins et les Caprins, Alghero (Italy), 4-6 April 2002.

Clergue, B., Amiaud, B., Pervanchon, F., Lasserre-Joulin, F. & Plantureux, S., 2005. Biodiversity functions and assessment in agricultural area. Agronomy for sustainable development 25, 1-15.

Cluff, D., and P. Paquet. 2003. Large carnivores as umbrellas for reserve design and selection in the

north. Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life - Proceedings Summary of the 2003.

Cugno D., 2002. Modification des pratiques pastorales et mesures de protection contre les prédations des canidés sur les alpages à ovins. Fourrages 170, 105-122.

Darré, J.P., 1999. La production de connaissances pour l'action. Arguments contre le racisme de l'intelligence. Co-Editions Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. INRA, Paris. 242 pp.

DUMONT B. & BOISSY A., 1999. Relations sociales et comportement alimentaire au pâturage INRA Productions Animales, 12 (1), 3-10.

Duru, M., Gibon, A., Langlet, A. & al., 1997. « Recherches sur les problèmes pastoraux pyrénéesn », in Molenat G., et Jarrigue R., (coords), utilisation par les ruminants des pâturages d'altitude en parcours méditerranéens, Versailles, INRA publications, pp 231-255.

EYCHENNE-NIGGEL Corinne, 2003a. Trente ans de relance pastorale en Ariège : Le temps de la maturité. Les enseignements de l'enquête pastorale 1999 et du recensement agricole 2000. Sud-Ouest Européen, 16, 5-13.

EYCHENNE Corinne, 2003b. Les éleveurs et l'estive, un regard sur l'action collective. Le cas de la « montagne » ariégeoise. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse le Mirail, Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique de Toulouse-Auzeville, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'agronomie de Toulouse-INPT, 360pp + Annexes.

EYCHENNE Corinne, 2006. Hommes et troupeaux montagne. La question pastorale en Ariège Harmattan, 314pp.

Fédération Pastorale de l'Ariège, 2007. Pastoralisme en Ariège. Document de travail 15pp.

GARDE Laurent, 2001 - Incidence technique de la prédation sur les systèmes pastoraux à la lumière de la situation dans différents pays européens, Rencontre européenne des éleveurs victimes de la prédation, Nice, 8 septembre 2001, p. 39-45

GARDE Laurent, 2002. Loup et forêt méditerranéenne, quelles questions pour l'élevage et la gestion de l'espace ? Forêt Méditerranéenne, XXIII, 1, 2002-a, pp. 45-52.

GARDE Laurent, BATAILLE Jean-François ISSERT Paul, 2006. Les exploitations ovines face au risque d'arrivée du loup dans le Parc Naturel Régional du Verdon. Etude CERPAM - Institut d'Elevage 2005.

Garde L., Bacha S., Bataille J.F., Gouty A.L., 2007. Les éleveurs résidents en zone à loup : perceptions et stratégies. In Loup Elevage, s'ouvrir à la complexité. Cerpam, Manosque.180-191.

Gibon A., 1996. Mutations des systèmes d'élevage et utilisation des espaces pastoraux privés et collectifs dans les Pyrénées centrales. in : Pastoralisme et foncier : impact du régime foncier sur la gestion de l'espace pastoral et la conduite des troupeaux en régions arides et semi-arides. Actes du séminaire international du réseau Parcours. 4. Séminaire sur le Pastoralisme et Foncier, Gabès (Tunisia). CIHEAM-IAMM, p. 69-80, no. 32.

GIBON Annick, 1997. Mutations des systèmes d'élevage et utilisation des espaces pastoraux privés et collectifs dans les Pyrénées centrales. in : Pastoralisme et foncier : impact du régime foncier sur la gestion de l'espace pastoral et la conduite des troupeaux en régions arides et semi-arides. Actes du séminaire international du réseau Parcours. 4. Séminaire sur le Pastoralisme et Foncier, Gabès (Tunisie), 17-19 Octobre 1996.

Gibon A., 1999. Etudier la diversité des exploitations agricoles pour appréhender les transformations locales de l'utilisation de l'espace : l'exemple d'une vallée du versant Nord des Pyrénées Centrales. in : Systèmes d'élevage et gestion de l'espace en montagnes et collines méditerranéennes. CIHEAM-IAMZ, p. 197-215, no. 27.

Girardin, P., Bockstaller, C. & Van der Werf, H. (1999). "Indicators: Tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of farming systems". Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 13: 6-21.

HECTOR Andy & BAGCHI Robert, 2007. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448, 188-190.

Hervieu B., 2002. La multifonctionnalité : un cadre conceptuel pour une nouvelle organisation de la recherche sur les herbages et systèmes d'élevage. Fourrages 171, 219-226.

Hubert, B., 2002. Sustainable development; think forward and act now. Agricultures and sustainable development; the stakes of knowledge and research attitudes. INRA faced with Sustainable Development: Landmarks for the Johannesburg Conference, les dossiers de l'environnement de l'INRA, vol. 22. INRA-Editions, Paris.

Hubert B., 2004. Pour une écologie de l'action, Arguments, Paris, 430 p. isbn 2-909109-29-1.

HUBERT B., GIRARD N., LASSEUR J., BELLON S.1993. Les systèmes d'élevage ovin préalpins, derrière les pratiques, des conceptions modélisables. Pratiques d'élevage extensif, INRA Programme Agrotech, 1993, p 351-385.

Huyghes G., Lemaire G., 2002. Le congrès de la Fédération Européenne des Herbages de la Rochelle. Ses objectifs et son organisation. Fourrages 171, 211-217.

Janet C., 2007. Biodiversité : entre perplexité et complexité (faits, débats et controverses à propos de la diversité biologique). Mieux comprendre l'actualité - notes de synthèse. INRA. SAE2, 12 p., http//www.inra.fr/Internet/ departements/ESR/ comprendre/

Lambeck R. (1996). Focal Species: A Multi Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation. Conservation Biology 11(4): 849 56.

Lasseur J. 2001: Pratiques d'élevage et gestion de l'espace: la caractérisation des systèmes d'élevage locaux. Mémoire d'ingénieur diplomé par l'état. E.N.S.A.M. 75p + annexes.

LASSEUR Jacques, 2002. Caractériser les pratiques d'élevage à l'échelle locale pour comprendre les transformations d'usage du territoire.

Lasseur J., 2007. La réorganisation des activités d'élevage en Vésubie-Roya. In Loup Elevage, s'ouvrir à la complexité. Cerpam, Manosque.192-201.

LASSEUR Jacques et GARDE Laurent, 2007. Conséquences de la présence du loup sur les réorganisations des activités en élevage ovin pastoral. 6ème séminaire du sous réseau système de production, Ponte de Lima 15-17 novembre.

Landais, E. et Balent, G., 1995. Introduction à l'étude des systèmes d'élevage extensif. Dans: Pratiques d'Elevage Extensif. Identifier, Modéliser Évaluer, Landais, E. (éd.).INRA, Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement, No.27, pp.13-35.

LARSEN Frank Wugt & RAHBEK Carsten, 2007. Making short-cuts for the selection of priority areas for conservation. From flagship species to indicator taxa 18pp. [on line] [2008/05/21] < URL: http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=187696.

Léger F., 1999. Valoriser les territoires pastoraux : une voie d'avenir pour les systèmes d'élevage ovins-viande du sud de la France. In : `Les systèmes de production ovines et caprines : organisation de l'élevage et rôle des structures de développement. Options méditerranéennes, série A, 38', p157-161.

Leguen, R., Sigwald, A., 1999. Le métier d'éleveur face à la politique de protection de la biodiversité. Economie rurale 249, 41-48.

MAUZ Isabelle, 2002 - L'arrivée des loups dans les Alpes françaises et la transformation des rapports au sauvage. Le Monde alpin et rhodanien, 1er- 3e trimestre 2002, Le fait du loup, p. 199-213

Meuret, M., 1995. Les règles de l'art. Garder des troupeaux au pâturage. Dans: Pratiques d'Elevage Extensif. Identifier, Modéliser, Évaluer, Landais, E. (éd). INRA, Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et le Développement, No.27, pp.199-216.

Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable, 2006. Plan de restauration et de conservation de l'ours brun dans les Pyrénées françaises 2006-2009, 148pp + annexes.

Robertson, G.A., 2002. Global influences on rangelands of Australia. Proceedings of the twelfth Biennial Australian Rangeland Society Conference. Australian Rangeland Society, Perth, pp.

Sato, S., 1982. Leadership during actual grazing in a small herd of cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 8, 53-65.

SCHAREIKA Nikolaus, 2003. Know to move, move to know. Ecological knowledge and herd movement strategies among the wodaabe of South-Eastern Niger. 72pp.

Viallon, C., Verdier-Metz I., Denoyer C., Pradel P., Coulon J.B., Berdagué J.L., 1999. Desorbed terpenes ans sesquiterpenes from forages and cheeses. Dairy Res, 66, 319-326.

* ⁷ Formerly meadow to mow or pasturelands of close season for individual grazing and now gathering of various private landholders for collective grazing, it permit the extension of summering period

* ¹¹ This is today concept because in the past, when agriculture were still traditional, plain and plateau lands were less fertile than mountain one and because of machinery and fertilizers mountain are today set to be handicapped (B. Besche-Commenge, 2008. personal communication).

* ¹² It is a constraint by definition however we are totally free and have free will to manage this constraint besides we manage it perfectly but the bear presence is a permanent and unpredictable constraint. (Madeleine Maylin, 2006. public display at Arbas).

* ¹³ When there is not ram on the MSP two mating periods targeted spring and autumn; when the ram is on the MSP then mating period is from May to October and even December.

* ¹⁴ This is contrary to the results of the work of Duru and al. (1979) for who the only positive point of Pyrenean pastoralism were its great adaptability to external constraints thanks to varieties of productions types and speculations.

* ¹⁵ This is here considered as the only suitable way to well keep the beast and the sustainable way to do it.

* ¹⁶ This is in accordance with the conclusion made by Eychenne (2003a) through the analysis of the evolution of the agriculture of the last 30 years (Agreste, RA 2000) for who in great difficulty, agriculture can only survive thanks to subsidies and development of multi-activity.

* ¹⁷ Here, we are of course on equilibriums, but most fragile equilibriums which can fall over rapidly; for a health or epidemic problem all can capsize (discussion 1; May 15^th 2006)

* ¹⁸ We sends the beasts there up so that they should take their holidays not to put them in prison because when they are not disturbed or under stress, is there they profit; they put weight because there up, there is a special flora and only the beasts know where they can find it (Discussion 6, May 2008).

* ¹⁹ MSP, is also bear; that thing presence have being imposed to us by those who think that animal husbandry in mountain region works like music's paper. At MSP season approach, we do not last thinking of how will be the results at the beasts coming down? (Discussion 1&3, May 2008).

* ²⁰ Independence: A claimed autonomy vis-à-vis natural and human local environment, but a subordination accepted vis-à-vis professional partners; value of which modernisation have restrict the decision power of farmer and that does not apply oneself to the same things (Beuret, 1998).

* ²¹ The greater the feed intake, the greater weight gains can be expected. This means that cattle should be stimulated to graze as much as possible; something they will never do of their own accord. They graze better and more when they find what they like: soft, delicious grass and when they are given the opportunity to range any time during day and night. They graze badly when disturbed (FAO, 2002. Pastoralism in the new millennium. Animal Production and Health Papers N°150 96pp)