As for bears, we have them back home in eastern europe, in fact vastly overpopulated given the area available and their territoriality. Practically no attacks on cyclists, hikers etc (yes like 1 every year or two something minor, more people die from ticks and tripping over stones and roots). If you make any noise while in the forest, they will notice you from far and avoid you.
That said, we don't have grizzly or polar bears, those are a bit different and majestic beasts.
As for general discussion, your point doesn't make much sense. We could wipe out just types of mosquitoes responsible for super-deadly diseases like malaria and dengue (and few others) and keep the annoying but otherwise harmless suckers still around. In my subjective opinion we wouldn't even notice the transition (at least not in the bad sense).
My impression is that malaria was wiped out in the rich world by methods that we now deny to Africa, like DDT.
I also believe malaria is a human only disease, so if you cure all sick humans fast enough, the disease dies out, and you're left with mosquitos that only suck blood and are annoying.
I suspect the problem with malaria drugs is not producing them at a factory, but getting them reliably into all sick patients in places where there aren't even doctors or roads.
Anyway, you claim this is a real solution: Is anyone actually ready to do this for real? If not, it's not a real alternative to the gene drive.
So no, unfortunately, curing all the humans will not wipe out malaria. The only real solution is to drive the mosquito vector to extinction, everything else is a temporary half-measure.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/ma...
The purpose of this is to stop the current giant disaster of 1000+ people a day dying from malaria.
I can't help thinking that if this was affecting American middle class neighborhoods where environmentalists live, the mosquitos would be wiped out quicker than plastic straws.