The Right Jurisdiction?

A court of law in Macedonia has convicted a bear of stealing honey from a beekeeper's hives. Since the bear was of an endangered species, it goes free and the Government will pay for the damages instead. I think it is a silly ruling. That bear is a wild animal, it should not be subject to human jurisdiction. If you convict a bear of stealing the honey, you can also make the argument that it is not the beekeeper's honey anyway, but that he is stealing it too - from the bees. In that case, the beekeeper should also be convicted. Since the beekeeper is a human and thus not member of an endangered species, he would have to pay damages himself. Of course, not all humans make the same logical thinking as I, as a dog, do. Maybe there is some logic behind this judgement that I just do not understand?