VetBooks.

ir
 Large Carnivore Conservation
and Management
VetBooks.ir

Large carnivores include iconic species such as bears, wolves and big cats. Their
habitats are increasingly being shared with humans, and there is a growing
number of examples of human-carnivore coexistence as well as conflict. Next
to population dynamics of large carnivores, there are considerable attitude shifts
towards these species worldwide, with multiple implications.
This book argues and demonstrates why human dimensions of relationships
to large carnivores are crucial for their successful conservation and management.
It provides an overview of theoretical and methodological perspectives,
heterogeneity in stakeholder perceptions and behaviour as well as developments
in decision making, stakeholder involvement, policy and governance informed
by human dimensions of large carnivore conservation and management. The
scope is international, with detailed examples and case studies from Europe,
North and South America, Central and South Asia, as well as debates of the
challenges faced by urbanization, agricultural expansion, national parks and
protected areas. The main species covered include bears, wolves, lynx and
leopards.
The book provides a novel perspective for advanced students, researchers
and professionals in ecology and conservation, wildlife management, human-
wildlife interactions, environmental education and environmental social science.

Tasos Hovardas is the Human Dimensions Expert of CALLISTO – Wildlife

and Nature Conservation Society, and through CALLISTO, he is providing
consultancy services to the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and
Large Carnivores. Tasos acts as Editor-in-Chief of Society & Natural Resources
(2017–2020), together with Prof. Linda Prokopy (2017–2020). He is an
Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (2017–
2020) and a member of the Research in Science & Technology Education
Group at the University of Cyprus.
 Earthscan Studies in Natural Resource Management
VetBooks.ir

Soil and Soil Fertility Management Research in Sub-Saharan Africa

Fifty years of shifting visions and chequered achievements
Henk Mutsaers, Danny Coyne, Stefan Hauser, Jeroen Huising,
Alpha Kamara, Generose Nziguheba, Pieter Pypers, Godfrey Taulya,
Piet van Asten and Bernard Vanlauwe

Environmental Justice and Land Use Conflict

The governance of mineral and gas resource development
Amanda Kennedy

Food, Energy and Water Sustainability

Emergent Governance Strategies
Edited by Laura M. Pereira, Catlin McElroy, Alexandra Littaye and
Alexandra M. Girard

Global Resource Scarcity

Catalyst for conflict or cooperation?
Edited by Marcelle C. Dawson, Christopher Rosin and Navé Wald

Socio-Ecological Resilience to Climate Change in a

Fragile Ecosystem
The Case of the Lake Chilwa Basin, Malawi
Edited by Sosten Chiotha,Tembo Chanyenga, Joseph Nagoli, Patrick
Likongwe and Daniel Jamu

Southern African Landscapes and Environmental Change

Edited by Peter Holmes and John Boardman

Large Carnivore Conservation and Management

Human Dimensions
Edited by Tasos Hovardas

For more information on books in the Earthscan Studies in Natural Resource

Management series, please visit the series page on the Routledge website:
www.routledge.com/books/series/ECNRM/
 Large Carnivore Conservation
and Management
VetBooks.ir

Human Dimensions

Edited by
Tasos Hovardas
 First published 2018
by Routledge
VetBooks.ir

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 selection and editorial matter, Tasos Hovardas; individual chapters,
the contributors
The right of Tasos Hovardas to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hovardas, Tasos, editor.
Title: Large carnivore conservation and management : human dimensions /
edited by Tasos Hovardas.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2018. |
Series: Earthscan studies in natural resource management | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018001463 | ISBN 9781138039995 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781315175454 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Carnivora—Conservation. | Predatory animals—
Conservation. | Wildlife conservation. | Conservation biology. |
Human-animal relationships.
Classification: LCC QL737.C2 L33587 2018 | DDC 599.7—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018001463
ISBN: 978-1-138-03999-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-17545-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 Contents
VetBooks.ir

List of contributorsviii
Prefacexvi

PART I
Theoretical and methodological perspectives1

  1 Addressing human dimensions in large carnivore

conservation and management: insights from
environmental social science and social psychology 3
TASOS HOVARDAS

  2 Research amidst the contentious issue of wolf

presence: exploration of reference frames and
social, cultural, and political dimensions 19
ANNELIE SJÖLANDER-LINDQVIST, ANNA BENDZ, SERENA CINQUE,
AND CAMILLA SANDSTRÖM

  3 Socio-political illegal acts as a challenge for wolf

conservation and management: implications for
legitimizing traditional hunting practices 37
MARI POHJA-MYKRÄ

  4 Situated, reflexive research in practice: applying

feminist methodology to a study of human-bear conflict 58
CATHERINE JAMPEL

  5 A methodology for stakeholder analysis, consultation

and engagement in large carnivore conservation and
management 79
TASOS HOVARDAS
 vi  Contents
PART II
Heterogeneity in perceptions of and behaviour
towards large carnivores97
VetBooks.ir

  6 A community divided: local perspectives on the

reintroduction of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) to the UK 99
STEVEN LIPSCOMBE, CHRIS WHITE, ADAM EAGLE AND
ERWIN VAN MAANEN

  7 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores:

insights from Sanjay Gandhi National Park,
Mumbai, and Ladakh 132
SUNETRO GHOSAL

  8 Considering wolves as active agents in understanding

stakeholder perceptions and developing management
strategies 147
NICOLAS LESCUREUX, LAURENT GARDE, AND MICHEL MEURET

  9 Attitudes towards large carnivore species in the West

Carpathians: shifts in public perception and media
content after the return of the wolf and the bear 168
MIROSLAV KUTAL, PETR KOVAŘÍK, LEONA KUTALOVÁ, MICHAL
BOJDA, AND MARTINA DUŠKOVÁ

10 Rural-urban heterogeneity in attitudes towards large

carnivores in Sweden, 1976–2014 190
GÖRAN ERICSSON, CAMILLA SANDSTRÖM AND SHAWN J. RILEY

11 Challenging the false dichotomy of Us vs. Them:

Heterogeneity in stakeholder identities regarding
carnivores 206
MICHELLE L. LUTE AND MEREDITH L. GORE

PART III
Decision-making, stakeholder involvement, and policy
in large carnivore conservation and management225

12 Inappropriate consideration of animal interests in

predator management: towards a comprehensive
moral code 227
FRANCISCO J. SANTIAGO-ÁVILA, WILLIAM S. LYNN, AND
ADRIAN TREVES
 Contents vii
13 Science, society, and snow leopards: bridging the
divides through collaborations and best practice
convergence 252
VetBooks.ir

CHARUDUTT MISHRA, JUSTINE SHANTI ALEXANDER, YASH

VEER BHATNAGAR, ÖRJAN JOHANSSON, KOUSTUBH SHARMA,
KULBHUSHANSINGH R. SURYAWANSHI, MUHAMMAD ALI NAWAZ,
AND GUSTAF SAMELIUS

14 Between politics and management: governing large

carnivores in Fennoscandia 269
CAMILLA SANDSTRÖM, ANNELIE SJÖLANDER-LINDQVIST, JANI
PELLIKKA, JUHA HIEDANPÄÄ, OLVE KRANGE, AND KETIL SKOGEN

15 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management of a

large carnivore: managing brown bears across national
and regional borders in Europe 291
VINCENZO PENTERIANI, DJURO HUBER, KLEMEN JERINA, MIHA
KROFEL, JOSÉ VICENTE LÓPEZ-BAO, ANDRÉS ORDIZ, ALEJANDRA
ZARZO-ARIAS, AND FREDRIK DALERUM

16 Good practice in large carnivore conservation and

management: insights from the EU Platform on
Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores 314
TASOS HOVARDAS AND KATRINA MARSDEN

Index338
 Contributors
VetBooks.ir

Justine Shanti Alexander works to protect wildlife and wild spaces in

high altitude areas of Asia. She works for the Snow Leopard Trust as their
Regional Ecologist and is involved in research, conservation and capacity
building initiatives supporting national teams in China and Mongolia.
Anna Bendz is a Researcher and Senior Lecturer at the department of Politi-
cal Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Apart from wolf policy and
opinion, her research interests concern drinking water risk management and
welfare policy/welfare public opinion.
Yash Veer Bhatnagar has been involved in snow leopard research and conser-
vation for nearly 25 years and assists governments and conservation organi-
zations in creating and implementing snow leopard conservation plans. He
is a senior scientist at the Snow Leopard Trust and the Nature Conservation
Foundation.
Michal Bojda has worked as a field biologist and educator with Friends of
the Earth Czech Republic since 2008. He focuses on field monitoring of
large carnivores, educational programmes about large carnivores for schools
and communication with different stakeholders such as farmers and hunters.
Serena Cinque has a PhD in public administration at the University of Goth-
enburg, Sweden. Her research interests focus on implementation of political
decisions in natural resource management particularly regarding the exercise
of administrative discretion by regulatory agencies.
Fredrik Dalerum is a Research Fellow at the Research Unit of Biodiversity,
University of Oviedo, Spain. He is also affiliated with University of Preto-
ria (South Africa) and Stockholm University (Sweden). He is a terrestrial
ecologist who focuses his research on the biology and conservation of mam-
malian carnivores, functional aspects of biodiversity and general issues of
conservation and environmental sustainability.
Martina Dušková works as a Czech-English translator. She has been partici-
pating in the large carnivore monitoring programme in the West Carpathi-
ans since 2014.
 Contributors ix
Adam Eagle is a lawyer and an associate at the international law firm Clifford
Chance LLP. He has provided legal advice to numerous wildlife conserva-
tion charities, specifically in the areas of species reintroductions and interna-
VetBooks.ir

tional treaties on wildlife conservation. He has acted as project manager on

a number of rewilding projects, and has a specific interest in landscape scale
ecosystem restoration.
Göran Ericsson is the chaired professor in Wildlife Ecology in the Depart-
ment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies at the Swedish Univer-
sity of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) in Umeå. He earned a PhD from SLU,
and B.S and M.S. degrees from Uppsala University, Sweden. In 2001–2002,
he was a Senior Fulbright Fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
(USA). He is one of the European forerunners of research and teaching in
Human Dimensions of Wildlife Conservation.
Laurent Garde has a PhD in Ecology and a Master’s degree in Human Sci-
ences. He is Deputy Director of the CERPAM (Centre d’Etudes et de
Realisations pastorales Alpes Méditerranée), the Agency for studies, support
and advisory to grazing livestock breeders in Provence and the Southern
Alps. Since 2004, he is member of the French National Wolf Group of
experts. His personal work focuses on the direct and indirect impacts of
predation and related constraints on livestock grazing systems, mostly in
Mediterranean and Alpine areas.
Sunetro Ghosal researches human-large carnivore relationships to help miti-
gate conflicts. He teaches courses on environment and development at St.
Xavier’s Autonomous College, Mumbai, and Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, Ås (Aas), and is currently serving as editor of Stawa and Ladakh
Studies.
Meredith L. Gore is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fisheries &
Wildlife at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan, USA) and
Jefferson Science Fellow with the US Department of State. She is a con-
servation social scientist whose interdisciplinary research explores relation-
ships between human behavior and the environment. Most recently, she has
helped lead development of the interdisciplinary framework, conservation
criminology, for understanding environmental risks. She is a MSU Global
Research Fellow and Past President of the Society for Conservation Biol-
ogy’s Social Science Working Group.
Juha Hiedanpää acts as Research Professor at the Natural Resources Institute
Finland (Luke). He is an environmental economist, environmental policy
scientist and a specialist of wildlife and forest biodiversity policy and govern-
ance issues.
Tasos Hovardas is the Human Dimensions Expert of CALLISTO – Wildlife
and Nature Conservation Society, and through CALLISTO, he is providing
consultancy services to the EU Platform on Coexistence between People
 x  Contributors
and large Carnivores. Tasos acts as Editor-in-Chief of Society & Natural
Resources (2017–2020), together with Prof. Linda Prokopy (2017–2020). He
is an Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching
VetBooks.ir

(2017–2020) and a member of the Research in Science & Technology Edu-

cation Group at the University of Cyprus.
Djuro Huber is Professor emeritus at the Biology Department of the Veterinary
Faculty in Zagreb. Since 1981, he has studied brown bears in Croatia. In 1996,
he started a multidisciplinary project on large carnivores in Croatia, which also
included wolves and lynxes. He is member of several national and international
organizations like International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
Species Survival Commisions (SSCs) for Bears, Canids and Veterinary Med-
icine; International Association for Bear Research and Management; Large
Carnivore Initiative for Europe and Wildlife Disease Association.
Catherine Jampel is a PhD candidate in the Graduate School of Geography
at Clark University (Worcester, Massachusetts, USA). Her master’s degree is
in Geography and Women’s Studies, from The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity (State College, Pennsylvania, USA). Her bachelor’s degree is in History
and Literature from Harvard College (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA).
Klemen Jerina is a wildlife researcher working mainly on applied issues of
ecology and management of ungulates and large carnivores in south-central
Europe. He is Professor of Wildlife Ecology at the Forestry Department of
University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.
Örjan Johansson is a scientist at the Snow Leopard Trust and Swedish Uni-
versity of Agricultural Sciences. He works mainly with snow leopard ecol-
ogy and behaviour. His skills include capture and collaring of animals using
safe, ethical and efficient methods.
Petr Kovařík works as a zoologist and ecologist at Palacký University in Olo-
mouc and in Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic. He
focuses mainly on ecology and ornithology, but is also passionate about
other wildlife topics including carnivores, bats and insects.
Olve Krange, PhD, is a Sociologist at the Norwegian Institute for Nature
Research – NINA. Together with Ketil Skogen, he has studied the conflicts
over large carnivore management in Norway for almost two decades. They
have worked together on several studies of large carnivore management.
Miha Krofel is wildlife researcher and Assistant Professor at University of
Ljubljana in Slovenia. His research focus is on large carnivore ecology, man-
agement and conservation in Eurasia and Africa, and to a lesser degree on
ungulates, lizards, and scavenger communities. He dedicates most of his
studies on bears to improve understanding of their basic ecology and effects
of bear management measures, especially regarding brown bears in Dinaric
Mountains and the Alps.
 Contributors xi
Miroslav Kutal has coordinated activities of Friends of the Earth Czech
Republic in the field of large carnivore conservation and monitoring since
2002. Since 2015, he has also worked at Mendel University in Brno, focus-
VetBooks.ir

ing his research on the ecology of the grey wolf and the Eurasian lynx as
they are recolonizing Central Europe, and the transfer of scientific results
to practical conservation measures. He is a member of the Large Carnivore
Initiative for Europe, IUCN/SSC specialist group.
Leona Kutalová worked as a coordinator of volunteers participating in field
monitoring of large carnivores with Friends of the Earth Czech Republic.
She has concentrated on investigating attitudes of people towards large car-
nivores in the West Carpathians as part of her studies at Palacký University
Olomouc.
Nicolas Lescureux has a PhD in Ethnoecology and has been Researcher at
the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) since 2014. For over
15 years, he has been studying the impacts of large carnivores on human
knowledge, perceptions and practices as well as the impacts of human prac-
tices – notably livestock breeding and hunting – on large carnivore ecology
and behaviour in several countries (France, Kyrgyzstan, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Poland, Bulgaria, Brazil).
Steven Lipscombe currently works in conservation for the North Pennines
AONB Partnership while pursuing independent ecology projects; he has
also worked all over the world on independent eco-based farming and build-
ing schemes. He recently earned a Masters degree in conservation ecology
from Newcastle University, converting from a career as an industrial and
research chemist.
José Vicente López-Bao is a Research Fellow at the Research Unit in Bio-
diversity (UO-CSIC-PA), Oviedo University, Spain. His research interests
include large carnivore conservation and management in human-dominated
landscapes.
Michelle L. Lute is the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner for WildEarth
Guardians, working to promote human-wildlife coexistence throughout the
American West. She is an interdisciplinary conservation scientist and animal
ethologist whose work has spanned issues from water to wolves, on public
and private lands, from Madagascar to Michigan.
William S. Lynn is a research scientist in the George Perkins Marsh Insti-
tute at Clark University (Worcester, Massachusetts, USA), a research fellow
at New Knowledge Organization, and former Director of the Masters in
Animals and Public Policy (MAPP) program at Tufts University. The focus
of his work is the ethics and politics of sustainability, with a special eye for
human-animal relations. Schooled in ethics, geography and political theory,
his interdisciplinary approach examines why and how we ought to care for
nature and society.
 xii  Contributors
Katrina Marsden works for adelphi, a leading environmental think tank and
public policy consultancy, as Senior Project Manager responsible for the
field of biodiversity and nature conservation. Her professional focus over
VetBooks.ir

the last 12 years has been on the analysis of the effects of a range of policies,
especially land use and nature, on biodiversity and the involvement of differ-
ent stakeholders in policy making. She originally studied Earth Sciences and
Environmental Change and Management at Oxford University.
Michel Meuret has a PhD in Animal Ecology Sciences and is Research Direc-
tor at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) since
2005, which concentrates on grazing practices and animal feeding behaviour
at pasture. Most of his research has been conducted with herders and their
family farmers, focusing on herding practices on rangeland. Since 2016, he
has been the Coordinator of the research network COADAPHT, focusing
on co-adaptation processes between predators (e.g., wolves), humans and
other animals, to better anticipate human-predator conflicts.
Charudutt Mishra serves as the Science and Conservation Director of the
Snow Leopard Trust and Executive Director of Snow Leopard Network, and
is Senior Scientist at the Nature Conservation Foundation. He is involved
in multi-disciplinary research, conservation, and policy initiatives in snow
leopard landscapes of High Asia.
Muhammad Ali Nawaz is a wildlife ecologist involved in research, conserva-
tion and policy issues related to large carnivores in Pakistan for two decades.
He is based at Quaid-i-Azam University and leads the Pakistan Program of
the Snow Leopard Trust.
Andrés Ordiz has worked in the last 20 years mostly in Spain and Scandina-
via, where he is a researcher with the Scandinavian Brown Bear Research
Project (SBBRP, since 2004) and the Scandinavian Wolf Research Project
(SKANDULV, since 2014). His main motivation is that scientific research is
the base for conservation-oriented management of large carnivores. Main
topics of his research are behavioral reactions of brown bears to human
activities and interactions between apex predators (bears and wolves).
Jani Pellikka, PhD, works as Senior Research Scientist at the Natural Resources
Institute Finland (Luke), as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Hel-
sinki and as an entrepreneur. He focuses on human-wildlife-related knowl-
edge production, wildlife-related nature wellbeing, wildlife management,
governance and large carnivore conflicts at his academic activities.
Vincenzo Penteriani is a permanent researcher at the Spanish Council of
Scientific Research (CSIC, Pyrenean Institute of Ecology). He is currently
working on brown bears in the Cantabrian Mountains (northwestern Spain;
www.cantabrianbrownbear.org). His professional interests include brown
bear ecology and behaviour in human-modified landscapes, large carnivore
attacks on humans and animal visual communication.
 Contributors xiii
Mari Pohja-Mykrä is an ecologist specializing in biodiversity research with
a PhD in Environmental Science. She has over 15 years’ experience in
human-wildlife conflicts and wildlife management, and she is working as
VetBooks.ir

a Senior Researcher at the Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki, Fin-

land. Her particular research interests are in interdisciplinary approaches in
conservation conflicts, human dimensions of natural resource and wildlife
conflicts, and human-environment interactions.
Shawn J. Riley is the Parrish Storrs Lovejoy Professor of Wildlife Manage-
ment in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State Uni-
versity (East Lansing, Michigan, USA), and a scientist in the Partnership for
Ecosystem Research and Management, a long-term collaboration between
MSU and wildlife agencies in Michigan. He earned a PhD from Cornell
University (Ithaca, New York, USA), and B.S. and M.S. degrees from Mon-
tana State University (Bozeman, Montana, USA). In 2009–2010, he was a
Senior Fulbright Fellow at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science
in Umeå. Shawn is coauthor of the The Wildlife Society-Johns Hopkins
book, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management.
Gustaf Samelius is the Assistant Director of Science at the Snow Leop-
ard Trust and is working on research and community-based conservation
of snow leopards and mountain ecosystems in Central Asia. His interests
include both applied and theoretical conservation biology.
Camilla Sandström is Professor in Political Science at Umeå University, Swe-
den. Her research focuses on environmental politics and policy, in particular
new modes of governance such as co-management and public-private part-
nerships. She has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and has recently
co-edited two books published by Routledge: Indigenous Rights in Modern
Landscapes: Nordic Conservation Regimes in Global Context, and Forest Govern-
ance and Management Across Time: Developing a New Forest Social Contract.
Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila holds Masters’ degrees in environmental public
policy as well as environmental management (MPP/MEM) from Duke Uni-
versity (Durham, North Carolina, USA), after which he worked in environ-
mental projects for international organizations such as the Inter-American
Development Bank and World Bank. As a PhD student at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison (USA), his research has revolved around the inte-
gration and application of environmental and animal ethics to coexistence
with wildlife, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of lethal and non-lethal
methods to prevent conflicts with large carnivores. His main objective is to
reform wildlife management by embedding in it the much needed acknowl-
edgement of moral standing for individual nonhuman animals.
Koustubh Sharma is based in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where he manages the
International Snow Leopard Secretariat of GSLEP, an inter-governmental
conservation effort involving all snow leopard range countries. He studies
 xiv  Contributors
snow leopards and is a Senior Scientist at the Snow Leopard Trust and
Nature Conservation Foundation.
VetBooks.ir

Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist is Associate Professor in Social Anthropology,

Lecturer in Human Ecology and Researcher at the Gothenburg Research
Institute and School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Her research concerns conflicting values in natural resource management,
including the limits and possibilities of deliberative measures, the analysis
of local identity, science and politics in environmental contests and the link
between place attachment, landscape dynamics and resource management.
Ketil Skogen, PhD, is a Sociologist at the Norwegian Institute for Nature
Research – NINA. He has studied the conflicts over wolves and wolf man-
agement in Norway for almost two decades, with a particular view to situat-
ing the controversies within societal power structures and processes of social
and cultural change in rural areas.
Kulbhushansingh R. Suryawanshi serves as the Program Director of the
Snow Leopard Trust in India and Scientist at Nature Conservation Founda-
tion. He works on research and conservation of wildlife in the high altitude
regions of the Himalaya and other Central Asian mountains.
Adrian Treves earned his PhD at Harvard University (Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, USA) in 1997 and is now a Professor of Environmental Studies at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA), and founder of the Carnivore
Coexistence Lab. His research focuses on agroecosystems where crop and
livestock production overlap carnivore habitat. He and his students work to
understand and manage the balance between human needs and carnivore
conservation. With his students, he investigates conservation and ecology of
large carnivores, as well as the attitudes and behaviors of the people who live
alongside those carnivores.
Erwin van Maanen (BSc Hons, MSc) is a landscape and conservation ecolo-
gist with a track record in advocating and promoting the new conservation
science of rewilding in many parts of the world. He is particularly keen to
advance the endeavor of safeguarding and restoring large-scale ecosystems
with more of the original trophic interactions, including more ecological
balance through the key interactions between mammalian herbivores and
carnivores. He is current chairman of the Rewilding Foundation and a
member of the recently established IUCN Rewilding Taskforce.
Chris White is an environmental economist at the US-based multinational
engineering firm AECOM. His role is to provide specialist economic input
and modelling into a wide range of sustainable development, environmental
policy and climate change projects. His primary area of work focuses on
ecosystem services, in particular working with businesses and governments
to account for their environmental impacts, quantifying environmental
 Contributors xv
values in monetary terms and assessing the use of market-based instruments
in public policy.
VetBooks.ir

Alejandra Zarzo-Arias is mainly interested in the ecology and conservation

biology of large carnivores. Her PhD research is focusing on the small and
endangered Cantabrian brown bear population, as an example of a large
carnivore in human-modified landscapes. Principally, she is studying bear
behaviour and habitat requirements, potential expansion range in Asturias
and temporal patterns of bear damages.
 Preface
VetBooks.ir

An ancient Greek myth portrays Zeus taking the form of Goddess Artemis to
seduce Callisto, companion of the goddess. Callisto, her name meaning “the most
beautiful one”, was left pregnant by Zeus and she was expelled from Artemis after
having broken the followers’ vow of chastity. Callisto wandered in the woods
to give birth to her child, Arcas. Goddess Hera, the jealous wife of Zeus, took
revenge by transforming Callisto into a bear and separating her from her child.

Figure 0.1 Callisto turning into a bear.

(image created by Iordanis Stylidis, Associate Professor at the University of Thessaly, Department of
Architecture)
 Preface xvii
Since mother and son could not have remained together, Zeus sent Hermes
to take Arcas to Maia, Hermes’ mother, to raise the son of Callisto. The years
passed, and as young Arcas was hunting in the woods, his mother come across
VetBooks.ir

him and rushed to take him in her arms. Arcas did not recognise his mother
and was about to kill her with his spear. To avoid this matricide, Zeus moved
Callisto and Arcas in the sky and turned them into star constellations: Ursa
Major (Callisto) and Ursa Minor (Arcas).
There are various versions of the myth and there are many more myths and
narratives all around the world, where bears and wolves and other large car-
nivores are featured. All these mythologies depict a transient world of humans
and nonhumans, a transient world of agency. Imagine the scene: Callisto turn-
ing into a bear (Figure 0.1), capturing the permeability between the human
and nonhuman, the moment of exchange.
The present volume is devoted to current versions of a narrative that has
initiated many years ago. Our wish was to engage in the discussion which takes
human dimensions as a necessary component of large carnivore conservation
and management, and to bring this discussion forward, with an aim to shed
light on theoretical and methodological perspectives, heterogeneity in percep-
tions and challenges for decision-making and stakeholder involvement.
We are indebted to all who have contributed to this volume, either directly
or indirectly, providing their position and concern. We hope that they will find
an interesting story to tell further among the lines that follow.
Tasos Hovardas
Editor
CALLISTO – Wildlife and Nature Conservation Society,
Human Dimensions Expert
Society & Natural Resources, Editor-in-Chief (2017–2020)
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Editorial
Board Member (2017–2020)
Research in Science and Technology Education Group,
University of Cyprus
 Part I
VetBooks.ir

Theoretical and
methodological
perspectives
 1 Addressing human
dimensions in large
VetBooks.ir

carnivore conservation
and management
Insights from environmental social
science and social psychology
Tasos Hovardas

Introduction
The need to incorporate human dimensions in large carnivore conservation
and management has long been acknowledged. Next to trends of population
dynamics of large carnivore species worldwide, we can observe noticeable
changes in attitudes towards these species (e.g., Ericsson et al., in this volume;
Kutal et al., in this volume). In a very coarse and broad trajectory, we may
distinguish a first period of research aiming at the examination of stakeholder
attitudes towards large carnivores, and a subsequent period concentrating on
stakeholder analysis, consultation, and engagement (e.g., Mishra et al., in this
volume; Sandström et al., in this volume). All these records reflect the various
initiatives taken at international, national, or regional and local levels in reac-
tion to dynamics in large carnivore populations. These have stimulated social
science research using quantitative, qualitative (see Jampel, in this volume),
and mixed methods, have unravelled an increasing heterogeneity of stakeholder
positions, and have highlighted implications for large carnivore conservation
and management. Although the local context and stakeholder synthesis has
always been decisive (see Ghosal, in this volume; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.,
in this volume), some incidents and outcomes appear again and again, which
indicates that they do not surface due to local circumstances only. Our inten-
tion in this chapter is to shed light on several aspects of that kind by taking into
account insights from environmental social science and social psychology.
One first point to underline is that stakeholder perceptions are not formed
just by their interaction with large carnivores, but by stakeholder interaction,
as well. In this regard, tension and conflict among stakeholder groups as well as
agreement and collaboration, whenever this may be possible, are anticipated to
shape their positions. Stakeholder groups are constantly addressing one another
formally or informally and at different venues: Stakeholder interaction is pro-
moted through an interplay of arguments, where each stakeholder group is
engaged in offensive (i.e., attempting to attack a point presented by another
 4  Tasos Hovardas
stakeholder group) and defensive acts (i.e., intending to support its own argu-
mentation against counter-arguments) (Davies and Harré, 1990). In this con-
ceptualization, which we will call discursive positioning, discursive practices
VetBooks.ir

gain their meaning in the confrontation of social actors in antagonistic camps,

where rival speech acts enable one’s own positioning (see Hovardas, 2017, for
a detailed theoretical and methodological approach to discursive positioning).
Although discursive positioning may prove quite important in investigating
stakeholder interaction, it has not received proper attention in social research
targeting large carnivore issues.
Discursive positioning may be detected across many topics in large carnivore
conservation and management, which address ongoing or future developments
(e.g., Lipscombe et al., in this volume). Lethal control is such a topic (e.g., Lute
and Gore, in this volume). It may be favoured in order to keep a large carnivore
population within a range but also for legitimizing local knowledge and prac-
tices (e.g., Pohja-Mykrä, in this volume) and re-establishing a symbolic border
between human settlements and wildlife, which large carnivores are assumed
to have overridden (e.g., Lescureux et al., in this volume). However, lethal
methods will not be readily endorsed by all engaged actors, for instance, due
to ethical consideration of non-human animals (e.g., Santiago-Ávila et al., in
this volume), but also because they may not be more effective than non-lethal
methods in damage prevention (Treves et al., 2016). Moreover, human-caused
mortality may have a substantial impact on population dynamics of large carni-
vore species. For instance, lethal control of wolf populations is usually equated
to just removing individuals, but the consequences of that option may expand
well beyond having a numerical effect. This may be due to a complex interplay
among population, reproduction, and dispersal indices, e.g., when probability
of finding mates is impacted at low densities during the dispersal phase, giving
rise to an Allee effect (Hurford et al., 2006). Density-dependent mechanisms
for brown bear populations (e.g., sexually selected infanticide or female repro-
ductive suppression) may also initiate non-linear effects and may not allow for
simple extrapolation of current trends to predict future population trajectories
(Cano et al., 2016). This complexity may expand to transboundary issues of
large carnivore conservation and management (e.g., see Bischof et al., 2016; see
also Penteriani et al., in this volume).
There have been numerous episodes in large carnivore conservation and
management which have set new challenges for environmental social science
and social psychology. In most cases, it is acknowledged that natural data alone
cannot suffice for decision making. This makes interdisciplinary perspectives
indispensable. Examining how natural and social data may give rise to new
place-based mappings is a demanding task. The problem here is not just to
merge two different types of data and present their overlap, but to investigate
how different inputs may produce new meanings and elicit new motivations
and practices. All this novel information and knowledge is expected to fuel and
refuel discursive positioning of stakeholders, which is increasingly transferred
to inclusionary schemes for consultation and engagement (e.g., Hovardas, in
 Addressing human dimensions 5
this volume; Hovardas and Marsden, in this volume). The experience avail-
able, in this regard, indicates that stakeholders need to recognize and respect
other positions in order to be respected and recognized in the first place. And
VetBooks.ir

they have to do so, while disagreement and tension will most probably remain.
Stakeholders need to interact in disagreement and explore possible points of
convergence. They need to come to terms even if total consensus will never
be achievable (e.g., Jacobsen and Linnell, 2016). In the following sections,
we will concentrate on theoretical and methodological approaches to exam-
ine stakeholder perceptions and how these may inform their positioning and
interaction.

“Risk” vs. “danger”

Damage caused to livestock has been an ongoing source of tension among
stakeholder groups in large carnivore conservation and management. A closely
associated topic is fear of large carnivores (e.g., Johansson et al., 2016), which
may also relate to fear for human safety (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki, 2014).
When approaching stakeholder interaction on this matter from the vantage
point of discursive positioning, we can observe how pro-carnivore groups have
attempted to compare these emotions and fear with actual records of damage
caused to livestock or attacks to humans. In the first case, claims for damage
show that large carnivore numbers do not always correlate with damage caused
(e.g., Bautista et al., 2017). In the latter case, comparisons of various types of
threats to human safety indicate that actual attacks and threat stemming from
large carnivores is almost absent (Hoffmann et al., 2017). The main point here
is that local people may be taken to overestimate livestock loss or danger for
human safety based on actual incidents. Therefore, local complaints are often
dismissed by pro-carnivore groups as overreaction.
To take this discussion one step further, we need to concentrate on risk
theory and how several important concepts have been elaborated upon within
this theoretical frame. A crucial contribution of risk theory has been the defi-
nition of “risk” as opposed to “danger” (e.g., Luhmann, 1990; Beck, 1997).
The main difference here is if actors are capable of anticipating the sequence of
events that may expose them to a threat and if they can act proactively to con-
front that threat. If such an anticipation is possible and can be attempted, then
actors are said to take a “risk” (i.e., take an informed decision after weighting
the possibility of suffering any harm as compared to any benefit that may be
derived). Therefore, taking action within the frame of risk perception rests
upon a risk calculus given by a balance between perceived costs and benefits
(e.g., Rasborg, 2012). However, if actors do not have the means to prepare
themselves for the threat and can only deal with it retroactively – namely, if
they can respond only after they have been harmed – then they are exposed to
a “danger”.
How can we apply this distinction of risk theory between “risk” and “danger”
in large carnivore conservation and management? For many local producers in
 6  Tasos Hovardas
regions with large carnivores, the call for coexistence equates with a call for
accepting a risk of damage caused by large carnivores. Such a tolerance has
been frequently reported and has also been incorporated in formal agreements
VetBooks.ir

(see Hovardas, in this volume; Hovardas and Marsden, in this volume). Dam-
age prevention methods like the use of electric fences and livestock guarding
dogs may assist in achieving this balance. However, since no damage preven-
tion method can provide absolute safety, some probability of damage remains.
Indeed, some local people, who would not be ready to accept a compromise
of this kind, will still perceive exposure to damage or threat by large carnivores
as a “danger” and not a “risk”. For these local residents, illegal killing may
be an eligible alternative (Rauset et al., 2016; see also Pohja-Mykrä, in this
volume). Independent of the intent behind their introduction in stakeholder
argumentation and counter-argumentation, actual records point towards this
non-dismissible chance of damage to livestock or the possibility of attack to
humans, no matter how unlikely it may be. These instances will always provide
a justification for local people who would never accept the “risk” of coexisting
with large carnivores.
Although compensation cannot guarantee easement of conflict (e.g.,
Fernández-Gil et al., 2016), there are suggestions to link compensation systems
to damage prevention methods and consider the latter as a prerequisite for the
former (see for instance Bautista et al., 2017). One problem among many in
this direction is to align compensation systems with the real loss encountered
by local producers, which does not really equate with the monetary equivalent
of depredated livestock or other damage. For instance, livestock cannot be
treated in the same the way non-living assets are usually compensated, since
producers will build on their current stock to schedule their future investment
and production. This means that livestock cannot be conceptualized in a static
fashion but needs to be approached within the dynamics inherent in their
nature and one’s farming holding. In addition, there may be collateral damage,
which is often not accounted for; for example, accumulative loss in the case
of pregnant livestock and milk production, not to mention workload devoted
for putting the damaged asset in place or restoring any part of the damage after
it has occurred. What is more, many different socio-cultural characteristics of
rural areas that are explicitly or implicitly linked to large carnivore conservation
and management, such as pluriactivity (e.g., Giourga and Loumou, 2006), may
remain unnoticed or be ignored. These additional aspects add to the reluctance
of local people to accept an involuntary exposure to the threat of large carni-
vores and may also apply to instances such as illegal killing that are still observed
(Tosi et al., 2015).
A substantial change in compensation of damage caused by large carnivores
has been introduced with conservation performance payments in Sweden (Pers-
son et al., 2015; Skonhoft, 2017; see also Hovardas and Marsden, in this vol-
ume). In contrast to ex-post compensation, where a fixed payment follows after
a damage has been documented, ex-ante compensation rewards reproduction
of large carnivores (e.g., wolverines in Sweden). Such an ex-ante compensation
 Addressing human dimensions 7
system with conservation performance payments has been in place in the Sámi
reindeer herding area in Sweden since 1996, where there is a considerable
likelihood of reindeer loss due to vulnerability of reindeer to large carnivore
VetBooks.ir

attacks (reindeer are rarely confined in corrals) and dependence of large carni-
vores on reindeer as a main feeding source (especially during the winter). The
monetary amount paid for each individual animal (SEK = 200,000; around
20,000 Euros or 23,000 USD) has been set to balance total estimated livestock
damage caused by the animal in its lifetime. Payments are first directed to Sámi
villages, and then each village is responsible for their allocation to individual
reindeer herders or any other exploitation of the reward, e.g., if it will be
invested for community expenses. This ex-ante compensation scheme triggers
an incentive structure that re-organizes the risk calculus for reindeer herders so
as to allow them to respond truly proactively. In that regard, it turns “danger”
into a “risk”: Since beneficiaries have been rewarded a monetary sum for suc-
cessful wolverine reproductions, they need to take additional action to protect
their livestock and retain as much of the benefit as possible. Indeed, it has been
underlined that conservation performance payments may provide more incen-
tives for an optimal uptake of damage prevention methods (Zabel et al., 2011).
Overall, there are multiple indications that ex-ante compensation may be more
effective than ex-post compensation (Skonhoft, 2017).

Polyphasic representational fields

Cognitive polyphasia has been developed as a concept within the theory of
social representations (Moscovici, 1961/2008)1 to describe a state where dif-
ferent forms of knowledge, rationality, reasoning, or practice (e.g., scientific
vs. non-scientific; expert vs. lay) may be voiced or performed by the same
social group to address a certain social object and this will lead to what has
been termed “polyphasic representational fields” (Jovchelovitch, 2008). Cog-
nitive polyphasia has been often used as a term to describe a “state” of social
representations; namely, a state of heterogeneity, drawing upon different and
at times inconsistent or even contradictory modes of reasoning and acting.
However, cognitive polyphasia has always implied a type of agency enacted by
groups who resort to this multiplicity of forms of knowledge, reasoning, and
practice. This means that apart from being a state denoting representational
fields of diverse forms of reasoning and practice, cognitive polyphasia should
also be seen as a process – and indeed, as a discursive one, since it would give
social groups new opportunities for discursive positioning. Polyphasic repre-
sentational fields are multivalent, meaning that they may allow for integrat-
ing or addressing a multiplicity of dimensions of social objects, or even for
creating new dimensions of these objects, which would highlight a productive
character for cognitive polyphasia. Since social groups with similar or dissimi-
lar perspectives and representations of social objects may position themselves
towards each other, cognitive polyphasia, inter-group relations, and dynamics
of social representations need to be jointly observed (e.g., Jovchelovitch, 2008;
 8  Tasos Hovardas
Marková, 2008; see also Batel et al., 2016). Cognitive polyphasia can be seen as
the result of ongoing inter-group interaction, which drives dynamics of social
representations.
VetBooks.ir

Cognitive polyphasia is exemplified when social groups attempt to: (1) appro-
priate different types of knowledge or modes of thinking and acting, (2) stra-
tegically re-interpret them, and (3) integrate them in their argumentation in
order to serve their own ends (e.g., Wagner, 2007). The social representation
of a social object for a social group is configured according to what Bauer
and Gaskell (2008) have termed the “project” of the group, meaning a central
demand, quest, or mission to be pursued by group members. Aspects that may
promote this project are highly likely to be elaborated upon by social groups
and adapted to strengthen their argumentation lines. For instance, adopting
some elements of the dominant environmentalist discourse2 or recognizing the
normative character of environmental law may be a prerequisite for local peo-
ple before they voice their concern or formulate an alternative position (e.g.,
Krange and Skogen, 2007; Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2012; Mauro and Castro,
2012). In a similar vein, there were instances where large carnivores were pre-
sented by local people to threaten local biodiversity, redirecting a keyword
of the environmentalist discourse against wolves and bears (López-Facal and
Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2009; Von Essen, 2017). In addition, hunters and rural
breeders have been reported to claim selected connotations of the terms “ecol-
ogy” and “ecological”, since they believed that their relationship with nature
is truly authentic, especially when compared to some environmental non-
governmental organizations which were criticized as “bureaucratic” and
detached from the local context (e.g., Hovardas, 2005; Theodorakea, 2014).
Previous research in Greek protected areas has revealed how the wolf-
reintroduction narrative, voiced by local interviewees, may present the same
elements over different regions (Hovardas, 2010a, 2012, 2015, Hovardas and
Korfiatis, 2008). The wolf-reintroduction narrative can provide an exemplary
case of how a polyphasic representational field can be established along certain
themata (e.g., overarching sets of concepts arranged in bipolar pairs; see Liu,
2004) with reference to which local residents represent the wolf and which they
also employ to position themselves against environmental non-governmental
organizations. According the wolf-reintroduction narrative, so-called “ecolo-
gists” (meaning members of environmental non-governmental organizations)
were supposed to breed wolves in captivity and then release them secretly in
the wild. To substantiate their claims, interviewees referred to instances when
environmental organizations released large carnivores after recovery from
injury or instances of relocation of “problem” animals, even if these referred
to species other than the wolf. Interviewees also claimed that the supposed
hybridization of wolves induced a significant alteration in wolf appearance and
behaviour: They highlighted that hybrid wolves revealed intermediate charac-
teristics between wild wolves and dogs. Moreover, they said that these hybrid
wolves presented unexpected high levels of tolerance towards human presence,
which had not been observed in past. This behavioural characteristic made
 Addressing human dimensions 9
hybrid wolves more dangerous to rural life than wild wolves, since they did not
fear humans and were much more likely to cause damage to livestock. Overall,
the wolf-reintroduction narrative pictured “ecologists” as an out-group that
VetBooks.ir

promoted their interests at the expense of local communities. Knowledge from

hybridization (relating to changes in animal populations) was integrated with
ecologists’ perceived role to express rural resentment.
There were three different themata in this representational field (“wild vs.
domesticated”, “fearful vs. fearless”, “harmless vs. dangerous”), which were
used jointly to provide a sequence of premises and contrast wild wolves to
hybrid wolves (Table 1.1): The wild wolf is fearful of humans and, therefore,
almost harmless; the hybrid wolf is partly domesticated and, therefore, fearless
of humans and dangerous; namely, capable of causing severe damage to live-
stock. The constructive potential of cognitive polyphasia here refers to appro-
priating hybridization and drawing on ecologists’ perceived role in order to
produce a “hybrid wolf ” with new characteristics that were not to be found
neither in wild animals (which would fear humans) nor in domesticated ani-
mals (which would not constitute a threat).3 An interesting point to underline
is that intermediate characteristics in the representational field of the hybrid
wolf (i.e., a hybrid with phenotypic characteristics between wild wolves and
dogs) were associated with extreme possibility of harm (i.e., the “hybrid wolf ”
was more dangerous than the “wild wolf ”).
The themata of Table 1.1, or versions of them, have been reported in many
different regions in the world (see, for instance, Buller, 2004; Skogen et al., 2008;
Von Essen, 2017), while an analogous discursive scheme has been also been
reported in some cases for bears (e.g., López-Facal and Jiménez-Aleixandre,
2009). The implications for stakeholder interaction may be manifold. First,
the narrative may be taken as an attempt by local residents in rural areas to
gain justification for their resistance against large carnivore expansion, which is

Table 1.1 Themata in the representational field of “wild wolves” and “hybrid wolves”

Themata “Wild wolves” “Hybrid wolves”

“Wild vs. domesticated” Wild wolves have some Hybrid wolves have different
distinguishing features that characteristics from wild
allow for their recognition wolves in terms of appearance
and behavior
“Fearful vs. fearless” Wild wolves have a natural Hybrid wolves are not deterred
fear for humans by human presence since they
have lost their natural fear for
humans
“Harmless vs. dangerous” Wild wolves would not risk Hybrid wolves are much more
coming close to humans for prone to causing damage to
causing damage to livestock livestock as compared to wild
wolves
Data sources: Hovardas, 2010a, 2012, 2015; Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2008.
 10  Tasos Hovardas
thought to be imposed upon them by an urban pro-carnivore elite not belong-
ing to the local context and not entitled to dominate in that context. Since
“ecologists” are to be found behind the threat of hybrid wolves, “ecologists”
VetBooks.ir

are to blame for that threat, too. Second, the domesticated hybrid wolf may
not deserve the protection usually granted to genuine wild species. In line
with such an assumption, lethal control of wolf populations may be supported
to retain the natural fear of humans (Von Essen, 2017). Within the frame of
discursive positioning, the debate will be probably advanced and become
more complicated, especially under the light of recent verification of wolf-dog
hybridization (Pacheco et al., 2017; Torres et al., 2017).

Social influence mechanisms

Cognitive polyphasia and dynamics of social representations would indicate
that inter-group relations leave their mark on stakeholder interaction and may
also facilitate changes in stakeholder perspectives or action. But how do ideas
and practices change? If all social influence was to be sought in majorities as a
source, then all individuals within a society would have to conform to major-
ity positions. Then, how could we explain social change? This was the chal-
lenge formulated by Moscovici (1976) in his work on minority influence (see
also Martin and Hewstone, 2010). Minority influence describes the influence
minorities may exert on majorities.4 This may occur at a latent level: Conver-
sion of members of the majority to the position of the minority may proceed
with a delay and may not be explicitly admitted by majority members. Conver-
sion is promoted through a concentration of recipients on the content of the
minority position, which may eventuate in a position change of the majority.
Social influence is therefore different when the source is a majority or a minor-
ity: In the former case, the majority position may be adopted but this may
happen due to identification with the source (majority) and without involving
much processing of the content of the message. In the latter case, however,
engagement in social comparison is not expected, since an identification with
the source, in this case (minority), would not be desirable or favoured; instead,
the target audience is highly likely to engage in an evaluation of the argumenta-
tion put forward by the minority.
Local communities which have to coexist with large carnivores are found
within a complex web of social influence effects. Several social groups within
these local communities – for instance, local producers engaged in primary sec-
tor activities and local hunters – seem to comprise a salient majority who are
quite reluctant to celebrate the return of large carnivores and their increase in
abundance and distribution. However, local communities also host a number
of experts working in numerous projects concerning large carnivore conserva-
tion and management; for instance, scientists, wildlife conservation profession-
als, members of environmental non-governmental organizations, and people
involved in ecotourism (see Ghosal, in this volume). Many of these scientists
and professionals have a prolonged stay or even reside within local communities.
 Addressing human dimensions 11
They comprise a local minority that largely endorses the comeback of large
carnivores. This local minority is usually the recipient of harsh criticism for all
initiatives that start outside local communities (e.g., state initiatives for nature
VetBooks.ir

or wildlife conservation, environmental legislation, etc.) and which are per-

ceived by local people as being imposed upon them in a top-down fashion. In
this larger scale, the local community is positioned as a minority (inferior posi-
tion, having less power) against the state and central governments.
Overall, local communities in regions with large carnivores are integrated in
a double system of social influence mechanisms, where they can be presented
either as majorities opposed to local pro-carnivore minorities or as minorities,
themselves, opposed to the state and central government (Figure 1.1). The
complexity of social influence effects is augmented by the fact that majority
influence at the large scale (i.e., majority influence exerted by the state and
central government on the local community) is aligned to minority influence
exerted at the local scale (i.e., minority influence exerted by the pro-carnivore
local minority on the local community). This double system of social influence
mechanisms has been previously proposed for protected areas and Natura 2000
sites (Hovardas, 2010b), and seems to have mediated many relevant develop-
ments in the last few decades; for example, the diffusion of the environmentalist
discourse in rural communities (being mainly a result of minority influence
exerted by local minorities on local communities; see also Mauro and Cas-
tro, 2012), and the need for inclusionary schemes for environmental and pro-
tected area governance (being mainly a result of minority influence exerted by
local communities on the state and central government). The double system
of social influence mechanisms may also explain the difficulty of administrative

Figure 1.1 Double system of social influence mechanisms. Black arrows depict social influ-
ence exerted by majorities on minorities; grey arrows depict minority influence.
 12  Tasos Hovardas
personnel of regional authorities working at the local level, who may be con-
sidered among the local minority, when they strive to strike a balance between
advocating for local demands and their responsibility to enforce rules and regu-
VetBooks.ir

lations (Mauro and Castro, 2012; see also Sjölander et al., in this volume).
What are the implications of social influence effects for stakeholder consulta-
tion and engagement in large carnivore conservation and management? Social
groups in local communities face a series of motives and counter-motives when
offered the opportunity to take part in inclusionary schemes. On the one
hand, participation is in itself an instance of recognition for local groups and an
opportunity to voice their position and make an impact on future events. Pre-
vious research has shown that the negotiation style chosen by minorities will
be decisive for their final impact (see for instance Mugny, 1975): Minorities
will need to be both consistent (e.g., defending their position with certainty,
confidence and commitment) and flexible (e.g., showing readiness to negotiate
under certain conditions), since having a more rigid style that excludes com-
promise may stigmatize the minority position as unproductive and the minor-
ity message may remain largely unaccounted for.5 Timeline and scheduling
of stakeholder meetings may also play a role. Recent research has shown that
majority members were more receptive to the minority position when they
expected interaction to go on in the future, increasing the odds and intensity of
minority influence (San Martin et al., 2015).
On the other hand, stakeholder interaction in formal or informal governance
schemes will necessarily advance in parallel with standard in-group relations and
inter-group confrontation in society overall. This may create and maintain a
tension between outcomes in decision-making schemes and wider stakeholder
interaction. Spokespersons or representatives of local groups will need to posi-
tion themselves in these schemes, but they will also be held accountable for that
positioning from members of their own group. Any compromise, no matter
how well articulated, prepared, and democratically supported, will first need
to take a shape in negotiations and then be announced to the peer group. It is
likely that spokespersons or representatives, in their attempt to reach a compro-
mise, may need to deviate from expectations of other in-group members. If this
is taken to be threatening to the image of the group, then these representatives
may be isolated and stigmatized as in-group deviants to protect the identity
of the group (Pérez and Mugny, 1987). The “black-sheep” stigma describes
this derogation and rejection of deviant in-group members, which may be
even stronger when compared to out-group members (Marques et al., 2001).
Recent research has exemplified that the “black-sheep” effect may be triggered
for elements in the central core of social presentations (Zouhri and Rateau,
2015). When core assumptions of a social group will be considered challenged
by in-group members, then deviants will be stigmatized. All these effects may
provide background and explanation for the slow and insubstantial diffusion
of any positive results of decision-making and deliberation schemes among in-
group members who have not taken part themselves in these processes.
 Addressing human dimensions 13
Implications for science communication, science
education, environmental education, and outreach
VetBooks.ir

Social influence effects also need to be considered in contrast to calls for pro-
viding scientific knowledge to local groups and raising their environmental
awareness. According to the “deficit” model of science communication (e.g.,
Castro and Batel, 2008; Brossard and Lewenstein, 2009; Wibeck, 2014), lay
people would need additional scientific knowledge to grasp the full array of
consequences and implications of their practices, and then they are expected to
change their behaviour and align it with the new acquired knowledge. Many
initiatives in science communication and science education, as well as envi-
ronmental education and outreach, have been based on this “deficit” model,
and still are. Such a conceptualization, however, retains a skewed role for the
addressee or learner, generally, as a passive receptor of information or knowledge
and fails to recognize the active role of all targeted audiences in deciphering
and interpreting that information and knowledge as well as their various socio-
cultural implications (see a relevant discussion by López-Facal and Jiménez-
Aleixandre, 2009). Polyphasic representational fields and social influence
mechanisms may provide valuable insight in this regard: New information or
knowledge will be integrated in representational fields of the social groups tar-
geted and it will be fine-tuned so as to serve their own needs and desires. Such
a provision will not necessarily lead to behaviour change or change towards
the desired direction, since representational fields do not have “gaps” or “defi-
cits”. Instead, they provide a fully-fledged and coherent representation of social
groups for social objects, which guide inter-group interaction. Leaving the
“deficit” model behind may add numerous challenges to stakeholder involve-
ment, especially when approaching the latter as a co-creation process within a
frame of social learning (see Hovardas, in this volume).

Notes
1 The theory of social representations has originated in contrast to experimental social
psychology long practiced in North America, and has involved a strong refocusing
from individual actors on social groups (e.g., Moscovici, 1972). A social representa-
tion is defined as a system of values, ideas, and practices that a social group employs
to address a social object (Moscovici, 1973). The elements of a representation may be
distinguished in central ones, which form a salient core that largely defines the social
object under reference, and in peripheral elements, which function to adapt the rep-
resentation to the context (Abric, 1996). Two basic procedures have been proposed
for monitoring or reconstructing the genesis of a social representation: When a social
group is confronted with a new, unfamiliar, or threatening development, phenomenon,
or event, then it attempts to anchor this new development in a pre-existing system of
meanings to render it familiar and less threatening (anchoring). Moreover, the social
group may also portray the new phenomenon by means of an image that may add con-
crete visual content to account for its vagueness (objectification) (Jodelet, 2008). For
an overview of the theory of social presentations in environmental social science, see
Buijs et al. (2012).
 14  Tasos Hovardas
2 With the term “environmentalist discourse”, we address the multifarious meanings and
practices related to environmental and wildlife conservation and management as well
as natural resource management, which surfaced in the 1970s and have gradually been
VetBooks.ir

applauded by large segments of most societies worldwide. Although denoting a het-

erogeneous field, all different versions of the environmentalist discourse include the
necessity of a proper consideration of the relationship between society and nature. Of
course, “proper” may have quite different connotations – and this is where all relevant
discussions start.
3 The constructive character of cognitive polyphasia needs to be contrasted to responses
expected due to cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). In the latter case, “corrective”
action taken at the individual level is anticipated to address an inconsistency between dif-
ferent attitudes or attitudes and behaviour. In the case of cognitive polyphasia, however,
polyphasic representational fields are arranged so as to account for a social group’s “pro-
ject” and promote inter-group interaction.
4 Minorities are defined with reference to a quantitative criterion of number (minorities
having fewer members than majorities) and/or to a qualitative criterion of countering
hegemony (minorities challenging established norms) (Gardikiotis, 2011).
5 The incorporation of aspects of the environmentalist discourse in the argumentation for-
warded by local communities may establish a flexible negotiation style (when local com-
munities are approached as minorities in opposition to states or central governments); see
previous section on polyphasic representational fields.

References
Abric, J.-C. (1996) ‘Nature and function of the core system of social representations’, Inter-
national Journal of Psychology, vol 31, pp1443–1443.
Batel, S., Castro, P., Devine-Wright, P., and Howarth, C. (2016) ‘Developing a critical
agenda to understand pro-environmental actions: Contributions from social representa-
tions and social practices theories’, WIREs Climate Change, vol 7, no 5, pp727–745.
Bauer, M. W., and Gaskell, G. (2008) ‘Social representations theory: A progressive research
programme for social psychology’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol 38, no 4,
pp335–353.
Bautista, C., Naves, J., Revilla, E., Fernández, N., Albrecht, J., Scharf, A. K., Rigg, R.,
Karamanlidis, A. A., Jerina, K., Huber, D., Palazón, S., Kont, R., Ciucci, P., Groff, C.,
Dutsov, A., Seijas, J., Quenette, P.-I., Olszańska, A., Shkvyria, M., Adamec, M., Ozolins,
J., Jonozovič, M., and Selva, N. (2017) ‘Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear
damage on a continental scale’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 54, no 1, pp282–292.
Beck, U. (1997) The Reinvention of Politics:Towards a New Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bischof, R., Brøseth, H., and Gimenez, O. (2016) ‘Wildlife in a politically divided world:
Insularism inflates estimates of brown bear abundance’, Conservation Letters, vol 9, no 2,
pp122–130.
Brossard, D., and Lewenstein, B. (2009) ‘A critical appraisal of models of public understand-
ing of science: Using practice to inform theory’, in L. Kahlor and P. Stout (eds) Commu-
nicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, Routledge, New York.
Buijs, A., Hovardas, T., Figari, H., Castro, P., Devine-Wright, P., Fischer, A., Mouro, C.,
and Selge, S. (2012) ‘Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management:
Research on social representations of nature’, Society & Natural Resources, vol 25, no 11,
pp1167–1181.
Buller, H. (2004) ‘Where the wild things are: The evolving iconography of rural fauna’,
Journal of Rural Studies, vol 20, pp131–141.
 Addressing human dimensions 15
Cano, I. M., Taboada, F. G., Naves, J., Fernández-Gil, A., and Wiegand, T. (2016) ‘Decline
and recovery of a large carnivore: Environmental change and long-term trends in an endan-
gered brown bear population’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 283, no 1843, 20161832.
VetBooks.ir

Castro, P., and Batel, S. (2008) ‘Social representation, change and resistance: On the difficul-
ties of generalizing new norms’, Culture & Psychology, vol 14, pp475–497.
Davies, B., and Harré, R. (1990) ‘Positioning: The discursive production of selves’, Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol 20, no 1, pp43–63.
Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., and Riley, S. J. (in this volume) ‘Rural-urban heterogeneity
in attitudes towards large carnivores in Sweden, 1976–2014’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large
Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Fernández-Gil, A., Naves, J., Ordiz, A., Quevedo, M., Revilla, E., and Delibes, M. (2016)
‘Conflict misleads large carnivore management and conservation: Brown bears and wolves
in Spain’, PLoS ONE, vol 11, no 3, ppe0151541.
Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Gardikiotis, A. (2011) ‘Minority influence’, Social and Personality Compass, vol 5, pp679–693.
Ghosal, S. (in this volume) ‘Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores: Insights from
Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, and Ladakh’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore
Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Giourga, C., and Loumou, A. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of pluriactivity on sustainable
agriculture: A case study in rural areas of Beotia in Greece’, Environmental Management,
vol 37, no 6, pp753–763.
Hoffmann, C. F., Montgomery, R. A., and Jepson, P. R. (2017) ‘Examining the effect of
billboards in shaping the great wolf debate of the American West’, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, vol 2, no 3, pp267–281.
Hovardas, T. (2005) Social Representations on Ecotourism: Scheduling Interventions in Protected
Areas, PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Hovardas, T. (2010a) Stakeholder analysis, LIFE EXTRA – Improving the conditions for large
carnivore conservation – A transfer of best practices (LIFE07NAT/IT/000502), Report
of Action A5.
Hovardas, T. (2010b) ‘The contribution of social science research to the management of the
Dadia Forest Reserve: nature’s face in society’s mirror’, in C. Catsadorakis and Kälander
(eds) The Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, Greece: Biodiversity, Management, and
Conservation, WWF-International, Athens, www.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/Hovardas.pdf,
accessed 19 December 2017.
Hovardas, T. (2012) Follow up surveys of stakeholder attitudes, LIFE EXTRA – Improving the
conditions for large carnivore conservation – A transfer of best practices (LIFE07NAT/
IT/000502), Report of Action E3.
Hovardas, T. (2015) Questionnaire development and administration, Deliverable 2, Monitoring
of knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders in national park management, Management
Authority of Rodopi Mountain Range National Park (in Greek).
Hovardas, T. (2017) ‘ “Battlefields” of blue flags and sea horses: Acts of fencing and de-
fencing place in a gold mining controversy’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 53,
no pp100–111.
Hovardas, T. (in this volume) ‘A methodology for stakeholder analysis, consultation and
engagement in large carnivore conservation and management’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large
Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Hovardas, T., and Korfiatis, K. (2008) Report of local environmental knowledge in the
National Park of Northern Pindos. EU Community Initiative Programme INTERREG
 16  Tasos Hovardas
IIIB Archimed, East Mediterranean Network for the Sustainable Development of Pro-
tected Aeas – East-Med-Net.
Hovardas, Τ., and Korfiatis, K. J. (2012) ‘Adolescents’ beliefs about the wolf: Investigating
VetBooks.ir

the potential of human – Wolf coexistence in the European south’, Society & Natural
Resources, vol 25, no 12, pp1277–1292.
Hovardas, T., and Marsden, K. (in this volume) ‘Good practice in large carnivore conserva-
tion and management: Insights from the EU Platform on Coexistence between People
and Large Carnivores’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management:
Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Hurford, A., Hebblewhite, M., and Lewis, M. A. (2006) ‘A spatially explicit model for an
Allee effect: Why wolves recolonize so slowly in Greater Yellowstone’, Theoretical Popula-
tion Biology, vol 70, pp244–254.
Jacobsen, K. S., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2016) ‘Perceptions of environmental justice and the
conflict surrounding large carnivore management in Norway – Implications for conflict
management’, Biological Conservation, vol 203, pp197–206.
Jampel, C. (in this volume) ‘Situated, reflexive research in practice: Applying feminist meth-
odology to a study of human-bear conflict’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conserva-
tion and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Jodelet, D. (2008) ‘Social representations: The beautiful invention’, Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, vol 38, no 4, pp411–430.
Johansson, M., Ferreira, I. A., Støen, O.-G., Frank, J., and Flykt, A. (2016) ‘Targeting
human fear of large carnivores – Many ideas but few known effects’, Biological Conserva-
tion, vol 201, pp261–269.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2008) ‘The rehabilitation of common sense: Social representations, science
and cognitive polyphasia’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol 38, no 4, pp431–448.
Krange, O., and Skogen, K. (2007) ‘Reflexive tradition – Young working-class hunters
between wolves and modernity’, Young, vol 15, no 3, pp215–233.
Kutal, M., Kovařík, P., Kutalová, L., Bojda, M., and Dušková, M. (in this volume) ‘Attitudes
towards large carnivore species in the West Carpathians: Shifts in public perception and
media content after the return of the wolf and the bear’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carni-
vore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Lescureux, N., Garde, L., and Meuret, M. (in this volume) ‘Considering wolves as active
agents in understanding stakeholder perceptions and developing management strategies’,
in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions,
Routledge, London.
Lipscombe, S., White, C., Eagle, A., and van Maanen, E. (in this volume) ‘A community
divided: Local perspectives on the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) to the
UK’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions,
Routledge, London.
Liu, L. (2004) ‘Sensitising concept, themata and shareness: A dialogical perspective of social
representations’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol 34, no 3, pp249–264.
López-Facal, R., and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009) ‘Identities, social representations
and critical thinking’, Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 4, pp689–695.
Luhmann, N. (1990) Risiko und Gefahr: Soziologische Aufklärung 5. Konstruktivistische Perspek-
tiven, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Lute, M. L., and Gore, M. L. (in this volume) ‘Challenging the false dichotomy of Us vs
Them: Heterogeneity in stakeholder identities regarding carnivores’, in T. Hovardas (ed)
Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
 Addressing human dimensions 17
Marková, I. (2008) ‘The epistemological significance of the theory of social representations’,
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol 38, no 4, pp461–487.
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., and Hogg, M. A. (2001) ‘Social categorization, social
VetBooks.ir

identification, and rejection of deviant group members’, in M. A. Hogg and S. Tindale

(eds) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Martin, R., and Hewstone, M. (eds) (2010) Minority Influence and Innovation – Antecedents,
Processes and Consequences, Psychology Press, Hove and New York.
Mauro, C., and Castro, P. (2012) ‘Cognitive polyphasia in the reception of legal innovations
for biodiversity conservation’, Papers on Social Representations, vol 21, pp3.1–3.21.
Mishra, C., Alexander, J. S., Bhatnagar, Y. V., Johansson, O., Sharma, K., Suryawanshi,
K., Nawaz, M. A., and Samelius, G. (in this volume) ‘Science, society and snow leop-
ards: Bridging the divides through collaborations and best practice convergence’, in T.
Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Rout-
ledge, London.
Moscovici, S. (1961/2008) Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public (D. Macey, Trans.), Polity
Press, Cambridge.
Moscovici, S. (1972) ‘Society and theory in social psychology’, in J. Israel and H. Tajfel (eds)
The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment, Academic Press, London.
Moscovici, S. (1973) ‘Introduction’, in C. Herzlich (ed) Health and Illness: A Social Psychologi-
cal Analysis, Academic Press, London.
Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and Social Change, Academic, London.
Mugny, G. (1975) ‘Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 5, pp209–228.
Pacheco, C., López-Bao, J. V., García, E. J., Lema, F. J., Llaneza, L., Palacios, V., and God-
inho, R. (2017) ‘Spatial assessment of wolf-dog hybridization in a single breeding period’,
Scientific Reports, vol 7, 42475.
Penteriani, V., Huber, D., Jerina, K., Krofel, M., López-Bao, J. V., Ordiz, A., Zarzo-Arias,
A., and Dalerum, F. (in this volume) ‘Trans-boundary and trans-regional management of
a large carnivore: Managing brown bears across national and regional borders in Europe’,
in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions,
Routledge, London.
Pérez, J. A., and Mugny, G. (1987) ‘Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influ-
ence: When being an outgroup is an advantage’ European Journal of Social Psychology, vol
17, pp157–169.
Persson, J., Rauset, G. R., and Chapron, G. (2015) ‘Paying for an endangered predator leads
to population recovery’, Conservation Letters, vol 8, pp345–350.
Pohja-Mykrä, M. (in this volume) ‘Socio-political illegal acts as a challenge for wolf con-
servation and management: Implications for legitimizing traditional hunting practices’, in
T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Rout-
ledge, London.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2014) ‘Strong community support for illegal killing chal-
lenges wolf management’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 5, pp759–770.
Rasborg, K. (2012) ‘ “(World) risk society” or “new rationalities of risk”? A critical discus-
sion of Ulrich Beck’s theory of reflexive modernity’, Thesis Eleven, vol 108, no 1, pp3–25.
Rauset, G. R., Andrén, H., Swenson, J. E., Samelius, G., Segerström, P., Zedrosser, A.,
Persson, J. (2016) ‘National parks in Northern Sweden as refuges for illegal killing of large
carnivores’, Conservation Letters, vol 9, no 5, pp334–341.
San Martin, A., Swaab, R. I., Sinaceur, M., Vasiljevic, D. (2015) ‘The double-edged
impact of future expectations in groups: Minority influence depends on minorities’ and
 18  Tasos Hovardas
majorities’ expectations to interact again’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, vol 128, pp49–60.
Sandström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Pellikka, J., Hiedanpää, J., Krange, O., and Skogen,
VetBooks.ir

K. (in this volume) ‘Between politics and management: Governing large carnivores in
Fennoscandia’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human
Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Santiago-Ávila, F. J., Lynn, W. S., and Treves, A. (in this volume) ‘Inappropriate considera-
tion of animal interests in predator management: Towards a comprehensive moral code’,
in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions,
Routledge, London.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Bendz, A., Cinque, S., and Sandström, C. (in this volume) ‘Research
amidst the contentious issue of wolf presence: Exploration of reference frames and social,
cultural, and political dimensions’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and
Management: Human Dimensions, Routledge, London.
Skogen, K., Mauz, I., and Krange, O. (2008) ‘Cry wolf: Narratives of wolf recovery in
France and Norway’, Rural Sociology, vol 73, no 1, pp105–133.
Skonhoft, A. (2017) ‘The silence of the lambs: Payment for carnivore conservation and
livestock farming under strategic behavior’, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 67,
no 4, pp905–923.
Theodorakea, I. (2014) Who let the wolves out? Perceptions about the presence of the Wolf in Cen-
tral Greece, Master’s thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Torres, R. T., Ferreira, E., Rocha, R. G., and Fonseca, C. (2017) ‘Hybridization between
wolf and domestic dog: First evidence from an endangered population in central Portu-
gal’, Mammalian Biology, vol 86, pp70–74.
Tosi, G., Chirichella, R., Zibordi, F., Mustoni, A., Giovannini, R., Groff, C., Zanin, M.,
Apollonio, M. (2015) ‘Brown bear reintroduction in the Southern Alps: To what extent
are expectations being met?’ Journal for Nature Conservation, vol 26, pp9–19.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., and McManus, J. (2016) ‘Predator control should not be a shot in the
dark’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 14, pp380–388.
Von Essen, E. (2017) ‘Whose discourse is it anyway? Understanding resistance through the
rise of “barstool biology” in nature conservation’, Environmental Communication, vol 11,
no 4, pp470–489.
Wagner, W. (2007) ‘Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication’,
Public Understanding of Science, vol 16, no 1, pp7–22.
Wibeck, V. (2014) ‘Social representations of climate change in Swedish lay focus groups:
Local or distant, gradual or catastrophic?’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 23, no 2,
pp204–219.
Zabel, A., Pittel, K., Bostedt, G., and Engel, S. (2011) ‘Comparing conventional and new
policy approaches for carnivore conservation: Theoretical results and applications to tiger
preservation’ Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 48, no 2, pp287–311.
Zouhri, B., and Rateau, P. (2015) ‘Social representation and social identity in the black
sheep effect’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 45, no 6, pp669–677.
 2 Research amidst the
contentious issue of
VetBooks.ir

wolf presence
Exploration of reference frames
and social, cultural, and political
dimensions
Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist, Anna Bendz,
Serena Cinque, and Camilla Sandström

Introduction
Around the world, resolving human-wildlife conflicts remains a challenge for
wildlife management. The return and recovery of large carnivores may be
locally undesired – though of course also highly anticipated. In the case of the
Scandinavian wolf, the species is both considered an impediment to rural liveli-
hoods and survival, and is valued as an inextricable part of the fauna (Sjölander-
Lindqvist, 2008, 2009, 2015). These understandings pit conservationists against
private property owners, and farmers and hunters against wolves as well as
against policy and policy work (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Decker et al., 2012).
Unsurprisingly, such controversies are loaded with emotive human responses,
issues of social and political trust, conflicting values and norms, clashing knowl-
edge claims, and politicized arenas of interaction (Knight, 2003; Clark and
Rutherford, 2014; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). Understanding these
complex problems, which involve uncertainty regarding future prospects for
species recovery and human-wildlife coexistence, conflicting environmental
goals and values, and disputes over the burdens and benefits of conservation
initiatives, requires a research approach that can contribute to a renewed and
broadened understanding of contemporary aspects of the cultural, social, and
political dimensions of large carnivore presence.
Undertaking such research is itself beset with complexity. The researcher is
stepping into a highly politicized context characterized by multiple compet-
ing interests and values, polarization among actors, political and social distrust,
as well as ideological attributes and factions (Knight, 2000, 2003; Sjölander-
Lindqvist et al., 2008; Cinque et al., 2012). Scientific exploration and analysis
encounter tension and challenges when attempting to study politicized phe-
nomena. Part of the research task is to seek in-depth understanding of the issue’s
cultural layers and implications, while staying true to scientific imperatives
and maintaining distance. Simultaneously, the researcher must create a trustful
 20  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
conversational space and balance the entanglements arising from the socio-
cultural and political embeddedness of the connections between individuals,
groups, organizations, and institutions (Bernard, 1994). Therefore, to provide a
VetBooks.ir

‘generous, comparative but nevertheless critical understanding of human being

and knowing in the world we all inhabit’ (Ingold, 2008, p. 69) and maintain
an exploratory stance, research should explore various dimensions, including
the roles of scale, institutions, value orientations, and different actors’ (compet-
ing) understandings and interpretations of the world. To advance understand-
ing, various analytical aspects must be addressed, and the relationships between
components taken into account (Sobo and de Munck, 1998). This undoubt-
edly creates opportunities to apply interdisciplinary research designs.
Using the example of a controversial case of national conservation policy
implementation, this chapter discusses three topical aspects of complex wildlife
recovery activities: (1) the local setting of the introduction of management
regimes, illustrating how different perspectives and values regarding the land-
scape and local traditions shape local responses, in this case, to the political
decision that the wolf should be allowed to survive and recover; (2) the medi-
ating position of the authorities with the task of implementing political deci-
sions; and (3) the role of public opinion when it comes to understanding the
opportunities for policy makers to take various measures to enhance their legit-
imacy. The context of these aspects has both tangible and intangible dimen-
sions. Collectively shared and transmitted memories of past generations (e.g.,
stories of how wolves could cause starvation, by attacking and killing a crofter’s
only cow) – as well as social and cultural constructions of the landscape, place,
and identity – linger beside the implementation of political strategies for the
enhancement of biodiversity; for example, protective measures and a legisla-
tive framework for preserving the wolf. To illustrate the usefulness of different
theoretical and methodological perspectives, we will highlight the findings of
qualitative and quantitative studies of the Swedish wolf controversy. We started
with local conflicts over the presence of large carnivores, arising after the intro-
duction of the first coherent large carnivore policy by the Swedish parliament
in 2001. Ensuing conflicts and difficulties in attaining local consent to politics
and policy implementation led to an amended policy in 2009 incorporating
additional deliberative measures to increase locally approved decisions regard-
ing wolf management.
The studies, running from 2003 to date, have been interdisciplinary in
design, including theoretical perspectives from social anthropology, public
administration, political science, and human ecology. When studying con-
temporary controversies, the scientist ‘is at the front lines of battle’ (Scott
et al., 1990, p. 490). Actors’ expectations of the research undertaken enter into
the process, which may lead the analyst, wittingly or not, to ‘become a par-
tisan participant in the debate’ (Scott et al., 1990, p. 491). To prevent unbal-
anced analysis, asymmetrical and biased exploration must be avoided. Because
ideas, values, and norms are social, cultural, psychological, and political phe-
nomena, both individual and collective dimensions must be interrogated and
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 21
disciplinarily and methodologically triangulated. Through participant obser-
vations and semi-structured interviews undertaken in situ or over the phone
(with people living in wolf areas, administrators, managers, politicians, and
VetBooks.ir

stakeholder representatives), survey data, and document analysis, we inves-

tigated the immanent norms and values regarding the disputed presence of
wolves in Swedish rural areas (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008, 2009; Sjölander-
Lindvist et al., 2015; Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2014). Along with
interrogating local perspectives, our research has also explored wildlife man-
agement and public opinion in a policy context staged in response to intense
conflicts between stakeholder groups and reduced trust in the authorities
(Cinque, 2008, 2015; Sandström et al., 2009).
We begin by presenting an overview of three research areas connected to
various applicable perspectives and methodological approaches: local per-
spectives, the authorities’ mediating position, and matters of public opinion.
Building on this overview, we then discuss how environmental controversies
must be approached as continuously reflecting social, cultural, and political
norms and values. According to Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. (2015), it is increas-
ingly important to expand knowledge of and insight into the multiple and
complex value sets shaping and legitimizing understanding and action at dif-
ferent levels. This, we argue, requires a research approach that interrogates the
multiplicity of complex structures.

Local perspectives and stakeholder positioning

In one sense, the well-established discourse on sustainable development can be
understood as an arena in which the agency and authority of particular actors
are established by means of political directives and agreements. These may, as
in the case of Swedish wolf policy, be conceived as having material and social
impacts that intrude on local lives, resulting in conflicting perspectives on how
best to manage natural and cultural heritage resources. These controversies
engender debate on what are regarded as optimal measures for halting biodi-
versity loss and securing endangered species’ recovery while maintaining local
livelihood opportunities (cf. Tsing, 2001; Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008, 2009,
2015; Sjölander-Lindvist et al., 2015; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2008).
On one ‘side’, we find the view that farming and hunting are affected by the
presence of wolves (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008, 2009, 2015). In effect, inter-
viewed farmers and hunters say that their relationships with the local environ-
ment are being disturbed by the recovery of the wolf population. Farmers and
hunters sceptical of the wolf presence hold that wolves are affecting oppor-
tunities for recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, horseback riding,
orienteering, and berry- and mushroom-picking. The survival of small-scale
farming is also considered to be at stake. Farmers who bring their cattle to
summer pastures understand that they are perpetuating traditions of the past,
supporting both rich cultural heritage and biodiversity as this pastoral practice
helps maintain an open landscape and diversified flora. They claim, however,
 22  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
that the presence of large carnivores makes it difficult to uphold their traditions
because their livestock are exposed to the risk of predatory attacks. Conse-
quently, wolf presence is seen as endangering biological and cultural diver-
VetBooks.ir

sity when livestock breeders and farmers give up small-scale agriculture and
husbandry because of the burdens of wolf presence. Similarly, hunters claim
that reduced opportunities to hunt without exposing hunting dogs to prowl-
ing wolves will leave the Swedish forests empty of hunters. Hence, the effects
of the presence of wolves – attacks on livestock and hunting dogs, potential
attacks on people as growing wolf populations no longer have sufficient prey,
and declining game stocks – will, according to these informants, increase the
marginalization of rural people and the depopulation of the countryside. Con-
cerned about the reality – or possibility – of attacks on private property, wolf
sceptics say that wolves’ intrusive behaviour and residence near villages and
farmsteads must be controlled and restricted. Concomitant network building
and mobilization of opinion have taken place, and there have been complaints
and protests concerning Swedish wolf policy and management. Local hunters,
pet and livestock owners, and farmers say they have learned that the authorities
simply disregard local worries and knowledge. This has encouraged cohesion
and cooperation in efforts to protect local values. In such situations, members
of affected communities often lose trust in authorities and harbour feelings of
suspicion and hostility towards the state because they believe that the authori-
ties ignore local concerns (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2004, 2008, 2009; Feldman
and Khademian, 2007).
On the other ‘side’, wolf protectionists maintain that wolves have a right
to exist in the Swedish countryside and that action must be taken to restore
a threatened ecosystem. Grounding this position in the environmentalist dis-
course advocating action to restore ecosystems understood as under threat, they
promote fauna diversity and believe that ongoing action must be taken to sup-
port the survival of wolves in the Swedish fauna. In support of this, people with
pro-wolf attitudes have joined nature conservation and environmental organi-
zations. Similar pro-wolf arguments have also been evident among the authori-
ties handling governmental predator policy (Cinque, 2008). Administrators and
pro-wolf groups share a belief that the anti-wolf groups’ opinions as to the
causes and effects of wolf presence in the countryside are inconsistent, and that
these opinions must be addressed to resolve the persistence of unfounded fears
of wolves. These parties advocate scientific knowledge as central to both deci-
sion making and alleviating worries about the effects of large carnivore presence
(Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008). Backed by a governmental inquiry (Government
Official Report SOU, 1999, p. 146), it has been assumed that increased public
dissemination of science-informed knowledge will increase concerned stake-
holders’ consent to current policy (cf. Limoges, 1993). In this case, science has
taken a central position in science-informed management practice. Since the
1980s, wolves’ population growth, genetics, behaviour, and effects on large
herbivore populations have been investigated to support evidence-based wolf
population management.
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 23
The context of the controversy also includes positioning in the debate. In
this case, this occurs when sceptics maintain that society should learn from the
experience of past generations, claiming that wolves can severely harm local
VetBooks.ir

communities.1 Protectionists counter by pointing out that nobody has been

injured or killed by a wolf in modern times, and the sceptics’ fears are therefore
groundless. People opposing the public wolf policy respond that local interests
and knowledge gained over years and generations of residing in an area must
be acknowledged and reflected in decisions regarding the community environs
of rural Sweden. While protectionists generally hold the opinion that wolves
have migrated to Sweden, wolf sceptics believe otherwise. Explanations from
authorities and the biological science community that the Scandinavian wolf
has migrated to Sweden from Russia, Finland, and the Baltic States, passing the
Finnish-Swedish border, are not credible, according to interviewed wolf sceptic
informants. Instead, they believe that wolves do not really belong in the Swed-
ish countryside, but have been reintroduced by unidentified people and groups,
adding to the debate on whether Sweden should strive to protect wolves’ living
conditions (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008).
Although both sides – to varying extents – support systematic wildlife obser-
vation (e.g., using radio telemetry, GPS tracking, DNA sampling of carcasses
and droppings, and snow-tracking management), such observation may con-
tribute to local conceptions of the wolf as extraneous to nature; for example,
when scientific knowledge (e.g., Latour and Woolgar, 1986) signals that society
must interfere in nature to preserve its assets. The incorporation of data gath-
ered by evidence-producing methods into policy making and wildlife man-
agement lends the wolf exceptionality, and safeguarding the living conditions
of the wolves and promoting their survival have, from this perspective, taken
precedence over local living environments and traditions, inadvertently affect-
ing local identities (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008).

The mediating position of county administrative board

managers and field staff
Our second area of attention concerns the realities of policy work. Ideally, deci-
sion making in organizations should be logical: goals and alternatives should
be made explicit, and decision makers should calculate the effects of alterna-
tive strategies and evaluate them against the goals set (Simon, 1987). However,
instead of actors pursuing ‘rational’ ways of establishing accounts of alternative
actions, rationality is instead mediated by personal contexts, feelings, beliefs,
and – not least – experiences of different practices, all of which are essential
to the decision-making process (Klein, 1998; McPhee and Zaug, 2001; Meier
and O’Toole, 2006; Zinn, 2008). From a theoretical perspective, leadership
in public authorities is likely to be experience-informed and intuitive when
public managers conflate policy goals with personal preferences and necessi-
ties arising from previous experience. This forces a mediating position on the
manager that can be expected to have extensive impact on the management of
 24  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
controversial and emotion-laden issues, and on the manager’s personal life and
well-being (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013; Cinque, 2015).
In Sweden, the regulatory framework for wolf protection comprises an
VetBooks.ir

extensive administrative package including surveys, damage prevention, stake-

holder compensation, controlled hunting, delegation of decision making,
predator research programmes, enforcement of hunting legislation, and con-
sultation with interest organizations. While the Swedish Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (SEPA) is responsible for implementing national legislation
uniformly by providing coordination and guidance, the County Administrative
Boards (CABs) apply regulations at the local level by adapting and interpret-
ing them. This demands great ability to lead and coordinate collaborative and
consensus-seeking processes (Huxham, 2000). In addition to planning, moni-
toring, and evaluating policy (Conley and Moote, 2003), CAB managers and
field staff are also tasked with establishing and facilitating communication
between the authorities and stakeholder and interest organizations. CAB man-
agers, for example, have the responsibility to design and implement the quota-
regulated wolf hunt, to be implemented through a collaborative management
approach to increase the opportunity for local communities to take an active
part in wildlife management. Another example is their work to compensate
farmers and hunters for loss of private property (mainly farm and companion
animals) due to large carnivore attacks. In a case of suspected harm, a formal
investigation process to assess the damage and its cause is carried out by field
staff under CAB supervision. Expected to be impartial, enforcing rules and
regulations, the field staff should act supportively and empathetically so as to
promote local support for national large carnivore protection policies. Interact-
ing directly with concerned property owners at attack sites, as frontline actors
in policy implementation, they are to orient themselves according to both
organizational and social expectations (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013).
A third example refers to the implementation of collaborative approaches, sug-
gested to be necessary to reduce local conflict and yield consensus on the
contested matters of large carnivore presence (Sandström et al., 2009). In lead-
ing the collaborative process forward, CAB managers must maintain balance
between the broad representation of interests and the need to quickly accom-
plish collaborative goals through pragmatic management.
In their everyday work, CAB managers are expected to harmonize the mul-
tiple interactions of scale and level, maintain administrative rules, and achieve
the specific targets of policy decisions. They have to cope with innumerable
relationships and interactions. These multiple tasks demand great ability to
design and coordinate various processes (Feldman and Khademian, 2002). At
the same time, CAB managers try to avoid and manage possible conflicts with
both local stakeholders and SEPA. In interviews, they describe their work as
well structured and never ad hoc, implying that they follow a rational decision-
making process. However, managers recognize that they find themselves in an
exposed situation in which discretionary latitude allows them to adapt rules to
local conditions. For example, national legislation prescribes prevention as a
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 25
prerequisite for obtaining damage compensation. Furthermore, the rules spec-
ify that the compensation funds should first be used for preventive measures.
However, as many CAB managers believe that the compensation system is the
VetBooks.ir

main instrument to build trust and increase acceptance, they may decide to pay
for preventable damage, as well. This illustrates the existence of a responsive
working situation in which experiences and personal beliefs serve as a refer-
ence point for judgement and decision making, which they need to balance
against national policy requirements (Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013).
They lament that their work exposes them to contradictory expectations and
demands from different parties. For example, while farmers or hunters exposed
to large carnivore attacks demand that managers enforce targeted removal, con-
servationists expect the officers to apply protective rules and directives. This
situation contributes to an ambiguous situation: on one hand, public authori-
ties should be attentive to local circumstances, to build support for the gov-
ernment’s large carnivore policy; on the other hand, the bureaucracy should
enforce the rules. The solution to this dilemma is administrative discretion,
which the CAB managers apply to navigate various claims and expectations,
to reduce or defuse conflicts personally and bureaucratically, and to implement
what they call a ‘highly charged policy decision’ (Cinque, 2008, 2015). As
Lipsky (1980) observed, this decision entails various and ambiguous objectives,
generating both unrealistically high expectations and opposition from part of
the public. In this context, the role of the authorities will be crucial in inter-
preting, adapting, and partially modifying the content of the decision in order
to achieve sustainable results.
According to the results of our empirical investigations, the encounter
between citizens and public managers is a highly fluid interpretative zone of
face-to-face interaction characterized by varied social, cultural, political, and
economic dimensions (cf. Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). This trans-
forms the traditional perspective on bureaucracy as typically rational and hier-
archical in structure, steered by written rules, graded authority, strict discipline
and control, and expert qualification (Simon, 1947). When performing their
tasks, public managers instead find themselves in a highly emotion-laden judg-
ment situation in which essential parts of the decisions are formed by affective
and cognitive factors (cf. Feldman and Khademian, 2007; cf. Maynard-Moody
and Musheno, 2003; Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013).

Matters of public opinion

Along with local perspectives and bureaucratic circumstances, public attitudes,
preferences, and opinions should be considered for a fuller understanding of
the complexities of the politics and policies of large carnivore management.
Otherwise, it will be difficult to understand the challenges that decision mak-
ers and authorities face when formulating and implementing policies, and to
follow public responses to, for example, policy development and management
measures. For democracy to work and gain legitimacy for its policies, decision
 26  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
makers must be responsive to citizen expectations and value orientations (e.g.,
Page and Shapiro, 1983; Soroka and Wlezien, 2010). In this case, democratic
responsiveness is particularly challenging because of the polarization of public
VetBooks.ir

opinion when it comes to carnivore management, and the strong involved

values that may lead to open conflict between groups. Politicians may have dif-
ficulties properly representing public opinion in such a situation. This, in turn,
risks undermining the legitimacy of carnivore policy.
Looking at research into public attitudes towards carnivores, a recent study
based on three large-scale surveys conducted in 2004, 2009, and 2014 demon-
strated that, in general, the Swedish population is positive towards wolf pres-
ence in Sweden (Eriksson, 2016). In addition, 65–70% of respondents either
supported current wolf policy objectives targeting a specific number of wolves,
or wanted to increase the number of wolves still further. However, respondents
living in rural areas, particularly within or near wolf territories, were more
sceptical of or even negative towards the current wolf policy. Indeed, support
for a more restrictive wolf policy has grown over time from 30% in 2004 to
35% in 2009 and 2014. The data also indicate ongoing attitude polarization
based on geography, with attitudes towards wolves being rather stable in urban
areas but increasingly negative in rural areas. This result aligns with the expec-
tations of one of the classic cleavages suggested by Lipset and Rokkan (1967)
concerning the centre/periphery, in this case expressed as a division between
urban and rural areas.
It is possible to detect similar patterns in other countries (Dressel et al.,
2015). A meta-analysis of 105 surveys of attitudes towards bears and wolves
across Europe found that respondents were more positive towards bears than
wolves. The analysis also found that the proportion of people with positive atti-
tudes towards wolves decreased as the duration of their coexistence with them
increased. In general, farmers and hunters had less positive attitudes towards
wolves than did others. This rather well-known pattern was initially related to
two wildlife value orientations; i.e., the wildlife benefits/existence and wildlife
rights/use orientations (Fulton et al., 1996), precursors to the more developed
concept of wildlife value orientations (Teel and Manfredo, 2009), which now
include domination (also referred to as ‘utilitarianism’ or ‘materialism’) and
mutualism (Teel et al., 2010). People holding a domination value orientation
generally believe that wildlife should be managed for human benefit and are
more likely to rank human well-being over wildlife in their attitudes and behav-
iours. They also tend to justify management measures in utilitarian terms and
to rate lethal actions as acceptable. In contrast, people with a mutualist wildlife
value orientation hold an egalitarian ideology that encompasses human-animal
relationships. Wildlife is seen as part of an extended family, entitled to rights
and care. They are less likely to support lethal wildlife management measures,
and more likely to engage in actions to increase the welfare of and humanize
wildlife, that is, to ‘view wildlife in human terms’ (Teel et al., 2010, p. 109).
Previous research also demonstrates that public opinion on carnivore atti-
tudes can be divided according to socio-demographic and political factors. In
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 27
Sweden, the left-right ideological dimension is pronounced, not only regard-
ing, for example, attitudes to taxes or welfare, but also when it comes to atti-
tudes to wolves, with those who sympathize with left parties or the Greens
VetBooks.ir

being significantly less likely to approve of controlling the wolf population by

hunting. In addition, socio-demographic factors such as age and education also
seem to be of importance in explaining attitudes towards wolf hunting, with
younger and more educated respondents being less willing to accept control of
the wolf population by hunting (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2008; Cinque et al.,
2012; Eriksson, 2016).
An alternative value structure used in opinion research contrasts a green/
alternative/libertarian (GAL) perspective with a traditional/authoritarian/
nationalist (TAN) perspective (e.g., Hooghe et al., 2002). Although this con-
figuration transcends the left-right political continuum, it may also be relevant
to attitudes towards large carnivores. For instance, GAL advocates may lean
towards a more conservationist view or, as defined by Teel et al. (2010), towards
a mutualist approach to nature. Indeed, that positioning may be independent
of any broader ideological positioning or socio-demographic characteristics,
such as place of residence. In sum, public opinion may be polarized on sev-
eral dimensions, which makes it challenging to formulate a policy perceived
as legitimate by all. For decision makers, it is vital to pay attention to exist-
ing cleavages in public opinion and try to balance opposing preferences. It is
important to recall that public opinion, as the general assemblage of varying
opinions at the aggregated level, might not reflect the dilemmas existing at the
local level or any substantial variations between local communities.

A complex and demanding research field

The Swedish wolf conflict has been researched since the early 2000s, when
the first steps were taken by social science to explore the dimensions of this
environmental controversy. It has been learned that to manage the associated
socio-ecological conflicts without undermining the viability or welfare of
wildlife and humans, local concerns about rural community livelihoods and
vulnerable property must be balanced by international concerns about saving
threatened species. Sensitivity to psychological and sociocultural factors – such
as perceptions, triggered emotions, values, attitudes, and norms – pertaining to
large carnivores must be examined and understood within a wider context of
social, cultural, and political dynamics (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2009; Sjölander-
Lindqvist et al., 2015; Redpath et al., 2017). Social science perspectives are
therefore crucial for understanding the individual and collective dimensions
associated with the presence of disputed wild animals, dimensions shaping the
legitimacy of policy development, implementation, and management (Lund-
mark et al., 2014; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
It is equally important to consider the methodological complexities associ-
ated with describing and understanding ‘the multiplicity of conceptual com-
plex structures’ (Geertz, 1973, p. 9). Brilliantly described by the anthropologist
 28  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
Clifford Geertz, the ‘thing to ask (is) what is getting said’ and what the ‘import
is’ of the occurrence of the realities explored when entering the field of inves-
tigation (p. 10). Entering a contentious field, we may find authority officials
VetBooks.ir

asserting certain arguments and favouring certain coveted decisions. By doing

this, they may construe particular actors (often local residents) as having ‘indec-
orous’ concerns and opinions about the issues at hand (cf. Cinque, 2008; Cox,
2010; Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2014). Even deliberative arrangements,
introduced to reduce conflicts and enhance legitimacy, may end up increas-
ing polarization when representatives of engaged actors go on expressing their
diverging beliefs (cf. Duit et al., 2009; Lundmark and Matti, 2015) or when
relevant knowledge is sidelined in favour of certain interpretations of mandates
and certain expectation of roles (Hallgren and Westberg, 2015). At the local
level, state policy may be conceived as supporting wolf recovery over human
well-being, prompting feelings of injustice and marginalization; for example,
when farmers have to change their practices and routines due to wolf presence
(Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008). This highly politicized field context puts addi-
tional pressure on the research context.
Although single-method and disciplinary approaches have proven valuable in
achieving insight into certain aspects of the Swedish wolf controversy, we argue
that it is beneficial to aim for a comprehensive and exhaustive research design
that can describe the complex relationship between the individual and collec-
tive dimensions, including the researcher’s role as an impartial investigator. To
create and maintain legitimacy in conducting their research, researchers should
be able to present valid and reliable approaches to detecting value orientations
at different scales. Given the complexity and dynamics of stakeholder attitudes
and interactions regarding the wolf issue, researchers must be continuously
aware of the major trends in the controversy and systematically update their
records elaborating on both the global and the local, universals and particulars.
Apart from scale, interrelatedness and consistency may also be issues for vari-
ous theoretical and methodological approaches. It may be justifiable to inte-
grate quantitative methods and statistical analyses for large datasets and sample
sizes with finer-scaled, qualitative approaches that concentrate on specific social
strata or groups. According to Bunge (1998):

the fragmentation of the social studies into dozens of weakly related or

even mutually independent disciplines . . . is artificial because . . . every one
of the major subsystems of society – the biological, economic, political,
and cultural ones – is intimately connected.
(p. 452)

If research is incapable of giving a fair and objective picture of the attitudes

of larger and smaller groups, social trust in research into wildlife conflicts may
be threatened and researchers may be accused of taking sides. In addition, it
is important to acknowledge that not all options for solving human-wildlife
conflict are legitimate or even feasible from a political perspective. That is,
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 29
how local interests or public opinion conceptualize an issue and how political
decision makers are able and willing to respond to these conceptualizations do
set limits on what is possible. Taking measures not considered legitimate by
VetBooks.ir

the majority may harm the democratic process. On the other hand, polls of
larger segments of society may not be able to capture local aspects or uncover
disagreements between local people and the general public at the regional or
national scales (Ericsson et al., 2006). Such mismatch is especially significant
when there is a clash between opinions emerging from different frames of ref-
erence; for example, how the cost of large carnivore management should be
distributed, which arguably excessively burdens rural communities (Sjölander-
Lindqvist, 2008, 2009).
Research legitimacy, i.e., achieving and maintaining acceptance of research
activity and juggling divergent expectations, is therefore crucial. When research-
ers explore local perspectives, informants may expect the inquiries to bring
about changed laws and bureaucratic procedures when the identified difficulties
faced by hunters and farmers in their daily lives are presented to the decision
makers. From the public manager’s perspective, researchers might be expected
to inform the farmers and hunters about how policy works. In such situa-
tions, when actors at different levels have different expectations, the researcher
assumes the task of making findings understandable to decision makers (Crum-
ley, 2001). The researcher adopts both an explanatory and troubleshooting role,
and by conveying why society should support the further spread and recovery
of the wolf population, hostility and resentment towards public managers may
be decreased. Because wolf policy is said to increase the marginalization of rural
residents and the depopulation of rural areas (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008, 2009),
public administration may say that wolf-sceptical residents, stakeholders, and
stakeholder organizations are refusing to consider the possible merits of alterna-
tive points of view (Cinque, 2008). Immersed in facilitating and legitimizing
policy decisions, the manager is situated in the nexus between local conditions,
personal opinions, and policy requirements, affecting his or her personal life
(Cinque, 2008; Sjölander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013). Lipsky (1980) empha-
sized that when ‘street-level bureaucrats’ implement regulations, they tend to
conflate organizational goals with personal preferences and perceived necessi-
ties (Lipsky, 1980; cf. Winter, 2007; Vinzant and Crothers, 1998). The field
of policy implementation is therefore a socially negotiated encounter shaped
by its actors (Fineman, 1998). Here, the researcher assumes a moderating role
with the expectation of being an interlocutor both at the national level of
administration, interrogating decisions that managers themselves may disagree
with or find unfair, and at the local level, shedding light on the circumstances
engendered by certain political decisions.
Ensuring continued re-entry to the field may therefore be problematic for
researchers, challenging their integrity, knowledge, detachment, and objectiv-
ity; any scientific report may, depending on the actor’s position, be regarded as
‘choosing sides’ or as aligned with a particular group or policy. This means that
local stakeholders may misunderstand the research performed as yet another
 30  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
governmental initiative, or wildlife managers may believe that the research and
resulting reports may negatively affect policy implementation. Critically, this
refers to a boundary tension between research autonomy, knowledge integrity,
VetBooks.ir

authority over the research process, and the interests of the subjects of inquiry.
Those examples reflect the distinct social, cultural, and political spheres in
which the researcher participates. Informed by cultural value frameworks devel-
oped over years of ‘dwelling’ – to apply the terminology of anthropologist Tim
Ingold (1993) – local residents can be said to find themselves in a ‘configurative
complex of things’ (Casey, 1996, p. 25). Besides relating to the natural and social
worlds in ways that reproduce both collective memories (Schama, 1995) and the
meanings that rural traditions bring to their practitioners, people’s understand-
ings and experiences of the contemporary world are also informed by other
actors’ endeavours to impose different sets of values (Scott, 1998). For example,
whereas local traditions such as small-scale farming or hunting aid in reproduc-
ing collective memories and maintaining local identity (Sjölander-Lindqvist,
2008, 2009, 2015), public managers employ consensual and experience-
driven heuristic strategies to meet organizational and social expectations (Sjö-
lander-Lindqvist and Cinque, 2013). According to policy, these managers
must bring about the broad involvement of local actors without favouring any
particular interest, and must also maintain bureaucratic procedures to ensure
efficacy and efficiency. For example, if a wolf causes harm to farm or com-
panion animals, the property owner is entitled to state compensation. At the
same time as the damage is assessed by regional administration staff, the inspec-
tion constitutes an opportunity for those materially affected by the presence
of protected predators to meet those with the duty of locally implementing
state policy. In this situation, the inspectors find themselves in a continuously
exposed situation in which they are expected to behave professionally while
managing emotion-laden circumstances. They are expected to distance them-
selves in order to present impartial grounds for decisions on indemnity, while
empathetically addressing the concerns of the farmers and hunters exposed
to property damage. To summarize, members of the public administration
become facilitators, interpreters, and mediators expected to balance national
regulations, local demands, and public opinion against the background of past
and present experiences and anticipations, all of which intuitively inform cur-
rent policy implementation.
Any research into contentious and politicized situations characterized by
polarization between those conceiving of themselves as ‘objective’ and others
not regarded as equally objective requires a methodological approach capable
of addressing social, cultural, and political dimensions, as well as knowledge
and value structures, as they appear and inform current understandings and
opinions. Because of the inherent complexity of controversial issues, estab-
lishment of research legitimacy is crucial. We have discussed how local per-
spectives and the mediating position of the bureaucratic agent tap into one
another and how societal conflict over large carnivores apparently taps into
the value orientations of public opinion. If we think of these dimensions as
explorative entry points through which frames of reference and actors can
meet, we can assess how political-institutional structures function as boundary
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 31
agents (Star and Griesemer, 1989) connecting the micro and macro levels
(Rodman, 2003).
VetBooks.ir

Conclusion
Present-day ecological interventions to help endangered species retain their
places in the environment are directed by contemporary nature conservation
politics. Conservation outcomes, however, are also conditioned by the under-
standing that predatory animals encroach uninvited on humanized habitats and
have consequences for local livelihoods, evoking hostility towards their presence.
Since ‘it is the local people who are experiencing the costs of living alongside
wildlife’ (Woodroffe et al., 2005, p. 402), the locally undesired and politically
unintended consequences must be acknowledged (Tsing, 2001; Brechin et al.,
2003). Even though the decision on the recovery and dispersal of wolves in
Sweden was made democratically through parliamentary voting and has been
backed by national regulations and international directives (such as the EU Hab-
itat Directive), previous and current research demonstrates that the politics of
and underlying reasons for wolf population recovery remain contested.
Drawing on results and findings achieved by exploring local perspectives, the
mediating position of authorities and managers, and the value orientations of
public opinion, all of which may reflect divergent perceptions of wolves, wolf
policy, the local environment, and how to conduct bureaucratic work, lays
the groundwork for multidisciplinary research designs capable of addressing
both individual and collective dimensions (Table 2.1). The existence of three
reference frames – namely, the local, political-institutional, and public opinion

Table 2.1 Reference frames for investigating stakeholder reaction to wolf policy in Sweden

Local perspectives Authorities’ intermediary Matters of public opinion

position

Main actors Farmers, livestock and County administrative Public opinion

engaged and pet owners, hunters board managers; through surveys
voiced field staff
Main challenge • Wolves do not • The regulatory • Although there is
really belong in the framework for a clear majority in
landscape; wolves, protection of favour of enacted
wolf advocates and wolves embraces Swedish wolf policy,
Swedish wolf policy an extensive urban and rural
intruding on local administrative areas are divided
lives package • Public opinion is
• The effects of the • However, their not unified; several
presence of wolves work exposes them cleavages are present
will further increase to contradictory which aggravate
the marginalization expectations and representation
of rural people and demands from
the depopulation of different parties
the countryside

(Continued)
 32  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
Table 2.1 (Continued)

Local perspectives Authorities’ intermediary Matters of public opinion

VetBooks.ir

position

• Small-scale farming• Local people

is considered to be affected often lose
at stake trust in authorities
• Wolf presence because they feel
is understood to that they fail in
endanger biological considering local
and cultural concerns
diversity • Expected to
harmonize the
multiple interactions
of scale and level,
maintain rules and
achieve specific
policy targets
Main quest The intrusive Delicate balance Achieve democratic
behaviour of wolves between local legitimacy for wolf
and their residence interests and policy with regard
near villages and sympathy for to strong cleavages
farmsteads/pastures local actors, on
must be controlled the one side, and
and restricted; responsibility for
wolf attacks on dogs enforcing rules and
during hunt must regulations, on the
be controlled and other
restricted

frames – reflects a tangled web of assumptions and values that come into play
and shape responses to the political decision that the wolf should be allowed to
recover in Swedish forested areas.
The local level, informed by local identity and local community survival,
and the institutional level, informed by hierarchical mechanisms of control and
decision making, are inextricably nested and chained to the probabilities and
attributes of each particular situation. This means that contextual value-driven
circumstances, such as local perspectives and public attitudes, as well as sector-
specific tools, rules, resources, goals, and norms, are dimensions that research
must address.

Note
1 Whereas today we see legal measures to protect the wolf population, in the past, laws and
opinions regarded wolves as detrimental to humans and human activities, leading to wolf
persecution. Provincial laws from the fifteenth century, for example, established parishion-
ers’ obligation to take an active part in wolf battues, with only the women, vicar, and clerk
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 33
of the parish being exempt. Such hunting, before the enactment of the wolf preservation
act in 1965, was successful, and most wolves were exterminated from Sweden in the nine-
teenth and twentieth centuries. Using a variety of methods – traps, nets, weapons, and bat-
VetBooks.ir

tues – people throughout Sweden did a good job of hunting wolves. In addition, bounties
were imposed in 1647 to encourage wolf hunting, and these remained in force until the
wolf preservation act was enacted more than two hundred years later.

References
Bernard, H. R. (1994) Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Brechin, S. R., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwrangler, C. L., and West, P. C. (eds) (2003) Contested
Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century, State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Bunge, M. (1998) Social Science Under Debate:A Philosophical Perspective, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, ON.
Casey, E. S. (1996) ‘How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time: Phe-
nomenological prolegomena’, in S. Feld and K. H. Basso (eds) Senses of Place, School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.
Cinque, S. (2008) I vargens spår. Myndigheters handlingsutrymme i förvaltningen av varg [In the
Wolf Track: Administrative Discretion in Wolf Management], PhD thesis, University of
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Cinque, S. (2015) ‘Collaborative management in wolf licensed hunting: The role of public
managers in moving collaboration forward’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp157–164.
Cinque, S., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., and Bendz, A. (2012) ‘Värmlänningarna och rovdjurs-
förvaltningen. Uppfattningar om jakt och genetisk förstärkning av vargstammen’ [Trans-
lation of title], in L. Nilsson, L. Aronsson and P. O. Norell (eds) Värmländska landskap,
Karlstad University Press, Karlstad, Sweden.
Clark, S. G., and Rutherford, M. B. (eds) (2014) Large Carnivore Conservation: Integrating Sci-
ence and Policy in the North American West, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Conley, A., and Moote, M. (2003) ‘Evaluating collaborative natural resource management’,
Society and Natural Resources, vol 16, no 5, pp371–386.
Cox, R. (2010) Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crumley, C. L. (ed) (2001) New Directions in Anthropology & Environment, Altamira Press,
Walnut Creek, CA.
Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J., and Siemer, W. F. (eds) (2012) Human Dimensions of Wildlife Man-
agement (2nd ed.), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes
toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 2, no 2,
pp565–574.
Duit, A., Galaz, V., and Löf, A. (2009) ‘Fragmenterad förvirring eller kreativ arena? Från
hierarkisk till förhandlad styrning i svensk naturvårdspolitik’, in J. Pierre and G. Sund-
ström (eds) Samhällsstyrning i förändring, Liber, Malmö, Sweden.
Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., and Bostedt, G. (2006) ‘The problem of spatial scale when
studying human dimensions of a natural resource conflict: Human and carnivores as a case
study’, International Journal of Biodiversity, Science and Management, vol 2, no 4, pp334–349.
Eriksson, M. (2016) Changing Attitudes to Swedish Wolf Policy: Wolf Return, Rural Areas, and
Political Alienation, PhD thesis, Umeå Universitet, Umeå, Sweden.
 34  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
Feldman, M. S., and Khademian, A. M. (2002) ‘To manage is to govern’, Public Administra-
tion Review, vol 62, no 5, pp541–554.
Feldman, M. S., and Khademian, A. M. (2007) ‘The role of the public manager in inclusion:
VetBooks.ir

Creating communities of participation’, Governance, vol 20, no 2, pp305–324.

Fineman, S. (1998) ‘Street-level bureaucrats and the social construction of environmental
control’, Organization Studies, vol 19, no 6, pp953–974.
Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., and Lipscomb, J. (1996) ‘Wildlife value orientations: A con-
ceptual and measurement approach’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 1, no 2, pp24–47.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York.
Government Official Report SOU (1999):146 Rovdjursutredningen-Slutbetänkande om
en sammanhållen rovdjurspolitik. Miljö-och samhällsbyggnadsdepartementet (Ministry of
Environment and Social Structure).
Hallgren, L., and Westberg, L. (2015) ‘Adaptive management? Observations of knowledge
coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game management’, Wildlife Biol-
ogy, vol 21, no 3, pp165–174.
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., and Wilson, C. J. (2002) ‘Does left/right structure party positions
on European integration’, Comparative Political Studies, vol 35, no 8, pp965–989.
Huxham, C. (2000) ‘What makes partnerships ork’, in S. Osborne (ed) Managing Public –
Private Partnerships for Public Services, Routledge, London.
Ingold, T. (1993) ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology, vol 25, no 2,
pp152–174.
Ingold, T. (2008) ‘Anthropology is not ethnography’, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol
154, pp69–92.
Klein, G. A. (1998) Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Knight, J. (ed) (2000) Natural Enemies: People – Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective,
Routledge, London.
Knight, J. (2003) Waiting for Wolves in Japan: An Anthropological Study of People – Wildlife Rela-
tions, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory life:The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Limoges, C. (1993) ‘Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts’, Public
Understanding of Science, vol 2, no 4, pp417–426.
Lipset S. M., and Rokkan, S. (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspec-
tives, The Free Press, Toronto, ON.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, Russell
Sage Foundation, New York.
Lundmark, C., and Matti, S. (2015) ‘Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices as a
conflict-reducing and legitimacy-enhancing tool: The case of Swedish carnivore manage-
ment’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp147–156.
Lundmark, C., Matti, S., and Sandström, A. (2014) ‘Adaptive co-management: How social
networks, deliberation and learning affect legitimacy in carnivore management’, European
Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 4, pp637–644.
Maynard-Moody, S., and Musheno, M. C. (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the
Front Lines of Public Service, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
McPhee, R., and Zaug, P. (2001) ‘Organizational theory, organizational communication,
organizational knowledge, and problematic integration’, Journal of Communication, vol 51,
no 3, pp574–591.
Meier, K. J., and O’Toole, L. J. (2006) Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspec-
tive, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
 The contentious issue of wolf presence 35
Page, B. I., and Shapiro, R. Y. (1983) ‘Effects of public opinion on policy’, The American
Political Science Review, vol 77, no 1, pp175–190.
Redpath, S., Linnell, J., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A.,
VetBooks.ir

Gutiérrez, R. J., Irvine, J. I., Johansson, M., Majic, A., McMahon, B., Pooley, S., Sand-
ström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J., Trouwborst, A., Young, J.,
and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘Don’t forget to look down – Collaborative approaches
to predator conservation’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, no 4, pp2157–2163.
Rodman, M. (2003) ‘Empowering place: Multilocality and multivocality’, in S. M. Low and
D. Lawrence-Zúñiga (eds) The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Sandström, C., Pellikka, J., Ratamäki, O., and Sande, A. (2009) ‘Management of large car-
nivores in Fennoscandia: New patterns of regional participation’, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, vol 14, no 1, pp37–50.
Schama, S. (1995) Landscape and Memory, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing Like a State, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Scott, P., Richards, E., and Martin, B. (1990) ‘Captives of controversy: The myth of the
neutral social researcher in contemporary scientific controversies’, Science, Technology, and
Human Values, vol 15, no 4, pp474–494.
Simon, H. A. (1947) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administra-
tive Organizations, Free Press, New York.
Simon, H. A. (1987) ‘Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion’,
Academy of Management Executive, vol 1, no 1, pp57–64.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2004) ‘The effects of environmental uncertainty on farmers’ sense
of locality and futurity: A Swedish case study’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 7, no 2,
pp185–197.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2008) ‘Local identity, science and politics indivisible: The Swedish
wolf controversy deconstructed’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol 10, no
1, pp71–94.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2009) ‘Social – Natural landscape reorganised: Swedish forest-edge
farmers and wolf recuperation’, Conservation & Society, vol 7, no 2, pp130–140.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2015) ‘Targeted removals of wolves: Analysis of the motives for
controlled hunting’, Wildlife Biology, 21, no 3, pp138–146.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., and Cinque, S. (2013) ‘When wolves harm private property: Deci-
sion making on state compensation’, Focaal – Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology,
vol 65, pp114–128.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., and Cinque, S. (2014) ‘Dynamics of participation: Access, standing
and influence in contested natural resource management’, Partecipazione e Conflitto – The
Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies, vol 7, no 2, pp360–383.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Bendz, A., and Cinque, S. (2008) ‘Rör inte mitt får! Västsvenskens
uppfattningar om vargförvaltningens utformning’, in L. Nilsson and S. Johansson (eds)
Regionen och flernivådemokratin, SOM-institutet, Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg, Sweden.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M., and Sandström, C. (2015) ‘Individual and collective
responses to large carnivore management: The roles of trust, representation, knowledge
spheres, communication and leadership’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp175–185.
Sobo, E. J., and de Munck, V. C. (1998) ‘The forest of methods’, in V. C. de Munck and
E. J. Sobo (eds) Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook, Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Soroka, S. N., and Wlezien, C. (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion and Policy,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
 36  Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist et al.
Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. R. (1989) ‘Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–
39’, Social Studies of Science, vol 19, no 3, pp387–420.
VetBooks.ir

Teel, T. L., and Manfredo, M. J. (2009) ‘Understanding the diversity of public interests in
wildlife conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 24, no 1, pp128–139.
Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J., Jensen, F. S., Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Riepe, C., Arlinghaus,
R., and Jacobs, M. H. (2010) ‘Understanding the cognitive basis for human – Wildlife
relationships as a key to successful protected-area management’, International Journal of
Sociology, vol 40, no 3, pp04–23.
Treves, A., and Karanth, K. U. (2003) ‘Human – Carnivore conflicts and perspectives on
carnivore management worldwide’, Conservation Biology, vol 17, no 6, pp1491–1499.
Tsing, A. L. (2001) ‘Nature in the making’, in C. L. Crumley, A. E. van Deventer and J.
J. Fletcher (eds) New directions in Anthropology and Environment, Altamira Press, Walnut
Creek, CA.
Winter, S. C. (2007) ‘Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration’, in G. Peters
and J. Pierre (eds) The Handbook of Public Administration, SAGE Publications, London.
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds) (2005) People and Wildlife: Conflict or
Coexistence? Conservation Biology 9, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vinzant, J. C., and Crothers, L. (1998) Street-level Leadership: Discretion and Legitimacy in
Front-line Public Service, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
Zinn, J. (2008) ‘Heading into the unknown: Everyday strategies for managing risk and
uncertainty’, Health, Risk and Society, vol 10, no 5, pp439–450.
 3 Socio-political illegal
acts as a challenge for
VetBooks.ir

wolf conservation and

management
Implications for legitimizing
traditional hunting practices
Mari Pohja-Mykrä

Wolf conflict
The re-colonization of wolves in Nordic countries during the past few decades
brought along a bitter human-human conflict that previous research has thor-
oughly examined. Here I will present the core of this present-day wolf con-
flict by summarizing the development and implications of an attitude conflict
among stakeholders and the influence of several barriers that lead to conflict
escalation.
Wolf conflict can be defined as an attitude conflict, meaning that the val-
ues and emotions about wolves are in conflict in the society. This controversy
has long historical roots originating in the transnational environmental ethos
that started from Europe and extended around the world during the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. Conservation laws were enacted to protect wild-
life resources for the recreational purposes of the middle class and to support
the growing tourism industry. Previously acceptable local hunting practices for
household subsistence were turned into illegal acts (Reiger, 1975; Forsyth and
Marckese, 1993). These conservation priorities were imposed in an authoritar-
ian way that promoted urban needs and desires, causing rural discomfort and
opposition and coming into conflict with common practices in rural commu-
nities (e.g., Jacoby, 2001).
Urbanization caused the polarization of the rural and urban spheres, and can
be seen as the main driver of differing attitudes towards wildlife (Breitenmoser,
1998). Lifeworlds differed along with diverging living habits, anthropocentric
values collided with ecocentric values and rural people’s negative emotions
towards harmful species collided with conservationists’ emotional-driven need
to protect charismatic animals. After the re-colonization of the wolf, rural peo-
ple had to accommodate their livelihood practices and leisure activities to the
presence of wolves in their living territories. Spatial control has led to adap-
tations such as building fences, introducing guard dogs, and protecting and
monitoring hunting dogs (Skogen et al., 2006; Peltola and Heikkilä, 2015). In
 38  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
spite of the coexistence efforts, the species has caused remarkable damage to
livestock and dogs, has raised the question of human safety (“biosecurity” after
Buller, 2008) in the rural sphere and has made it challenging for humans to
VetBooks.ir

share the same space with wolves (Figari and Skogen, 2011; Liberg et al., 2012).
Attitudes towards wolves become more negative the longer people coexist with
them (Dressel et al., 2014).
In the meantime, animal welfarists and conservationists have integrated
wolves inside the ethical circle (Rannikko, 2003); wolves are not treated as game
species, but their protection is based on their intrinsic value, while conservation
success is to be measured on moral grounds. The wild nature of wolves moti-
vates animal welfarists and conservationists to enthusiastically act in favour of
the wolf ’s strict protection. In highly developed areas, wolves have become an
“emotional keystone species” for the restoration of indigenous wildlife (Bre-
itenmoser, 1998, p. 279), and, quite paradoxically, wolves have turned into
a symbol of urban values and hegemony, instead of representing wilderness
(Skogen and Krange, 2003).
Laws and norms in wolf policy are construed to guide human behaviour, but
it seems that these have turned into a type of institutional barrier that fails to
address and often fuels wolf conflict (Hiedanpää and Bromley, 2011). Conser-
vation arrangements enacted by means of international agreements such as the
Habitats Directive and its mandate of strict protection for wolves have aggra-
vated the widespread feeling of injustice (Buller, 2008) and the feeling of weak-
ness and alienation among rural working-class residents and hunters (Mischi,
2013; von Essen et al., 2015). EU conservation policies have been criticized
for preventing traditional rural ways of life and hindering the welfare of rural
livelihoods (Zabel and Holm-Muller, 2008; Bisi et al., 2010). Conservationists
have been empowered by EU conservation policy, whilst rural people have to
confront an EU environmentalist agenda ruled by technical-ecological exper-
tise that excludes alternative rationalities (von Essen, 2015). Dissent, resistance
and even political mobilization against wolf policies have occurred (von Essen,
2016). The goals set for wolf conservation are undermined not only by a hos-
tile public debate and anti-conservationist movements, but also by the illegal
killing of wolves (Liberg et al., 2012). This chapter focuses on bringing to the
fore the illegal killing of wolves in Finland, on discussing the implications of
research findings for reducing the crime rate and on addressing the need for
legitimizing local knowledge and emotions in wolf policies.

Methodological approaches to examining the illegal

killing of large carnivores in Finland
There is a growing scientific understanding that motives for illegal hunting of
wildlife go beyond gaining direct economic benefits. Instead, a considerable
number of drivers for illegal hunting stem from a vast pool of empirical knowl-
edge deriving from historically, socially and politically oppressive administra-
tion (Jacoby, 2001; von Essen et al., 2014). It was formerly widely claimed that
 Socio-political illegal acts 39
economic drivers rule the contemporary illegal wildlife trade from Africa and
Asia, but more recently, it has been proposed that the main drivers of illegal
killing are to be more or less socially and culturally construed, since local com-
VetBooks.ir

munities consider colonial regimes or post-independence states to be domi-

neering rather than acknowledging their needs (Duffy et al., 2016).
Research on the illegal killing of wildlife has mainly focused on instrumen-
tal perspectives that rely on an assumption that humans act as economically
rational actors: Individuals are driven to illegal acts by seeking economic prof-
its, and they would respond to incentives or penalties associated with the crime
(von Essen et al., 2014). Unfortunately, it seems that the main rationale behind
this kind of research is a strong protectionist belief anchored in natural science,
which is frequently not accompanied by overall comprehensive understanding
of human nature and behavior in the economic, social and political spheres (see
Dressel et al., 2014; Bennett et al., 2017). Previous research has led to numer-
ous conflict management implications that relied on disciplinary approaches,
enhanced surveillance networks and campaigns against crime, as well as sharing
of basic ecological information and setting ecocentric values over anthropo-
centric values (White et al., 2009). However, in the light of recent research, it
seems that the rule of this type of “ecological” approach has largely excluded
any alternative approaches, and therefore has been failing in terms of addressing
effectively human-human conflict management (see Dressel et al., 2014; Ben-
nett et al., 2017; Redpath et al., 2017).
Normative perspectives on illegal hunting brought socialization processes
(Green, 1990; Curcione, 1992; Forsyth and Marckese, 1993) and rationaliza-
tion of deviant behaviour to the fore (Forsyth et al., 1998; Eliason and Dodder,
1999; Eliason, 2004; Bell et al., 2007; Enticott, 2011). Illegal hunting can be
defined as a rebellious act and resistance against the ruling elites (Forsyth et al.,
1998), a sign of legitimacy deficit in policies (Mischi, 2013) or rural defiance
of authorities (Filteau, 2012; Kahler and Gore, 2012). These previous research
studies have dealt with illegal fishing and hunting in developed countries.
However, no research on the normative perspective on illegal hunting of large
carnivores has existed until the very recent years (see, e.g., von Essen, 2016).
Precisely how we manage to explore the motivations of illegal hunting and
define the core of a crime defines how effectively we can manage the conflict.
In the light of previous research findings and aiming at an exploration of illegal
killing of large carnivores in the Nordic setting, we have focused our research
on illegal killings on the Finnish context.
In Finland, population parameters showed that 25–30% of the total wolf
population was missing in 2014 because of assumed illegal hunting, and national
management efforts focused on a more punitive regime such as increased pen-
alties (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki, 2014a). Finland is the most sparsely populated
country in the EU region, and in practice, wolf packs always share their living
territories with humans, as there are no remote wilderness areas in Finland
outside the reindeer-herding area. Finland also has the highest percentage of
hunters (a total of 6% of the total population, of which 7% are women) in
 40  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
the EU (Suomen riistakeskus/Finnish Wildlife Agency, 2016). The majority of
hunters are members of local hunting clubs that hold hunting rights to most of
the private land. Hunters and hunting clubs have tight social networks in rural
VetBooks.ir

communities; even when hunters live in a suburban or urban areas, they spend
their leisure time hunting in the countryside as a part of a social group. Based
on a core knowledge of attitude formation inside social groups and of how
information circulates and is exchanged in a social network (Prell et al., 2009),
we concluded that hunters have and hold inside information on illegal hunt-
ing. Illegal hunting could not have happened at such a scale unless others have
known about these actions, and in many cases, unless there has been support to
these illegal acts (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki, 2014b).
In our methodological approach on examining illegal hunting, we have
employed innovative data collecting and triangulation of data sources and
relied on both empirical-analytical approaches and normative approaches (see
Table 3.1 for s synopsis of main aims, data and main outcomes). We were open
to local lifeworlds to get an informed understanding of the motives for illegal
hunting and, more importantly, to reveal the social context where these illegal
acts did emerge.

Profiling hunting violators

To profile hunting violators and to present descriptive statistics on targeted
large carnivore species, we requested investigation records of large carnivore
illegal hunting from Police Records for a six-year period, 2005–2010. To reveal
the motivations behind illegal acts and to categorize these crimes, we requested
the decisions in the cases on illegal hunting of large carnivores from the District
Courts for the same time period. From these data sources, we could draw an
understanding that illegal hunters were male, registered as hunters and mem-
bers of the Finnish Wildlife Agency, which has a legal and regulatory role in
game and hunting management. Illegal acts were more or less the result of
organized action carried out mainly in small groups. (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki,
2014b; Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a.)
The main motive behind illegal hunting was found to be the disagreement
with game policies, whereas financial benefit, the need for self-protection, acci-
dents and abetting a friend were found as motives less often. At this point, it
became clear that illegal hunting in Finland reflects local defiance of wolf man-
agement, and therefore, it could be considered to be a socio-political crime.
This research refocusing was necessary for differentiating illegal acts against
large carnivores from traditional subsistence-driven poaching or poaching
driven by economic reasons. The results also reasserted our presumption that
illegal hunting would need a much more comprehensive sociological approach
and framing, instead of just documenting its effect on wolf population sizes
(Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a).
 Table 3.1 Methodological approaches to examining the illegal killing of large carnivores in
Finland
VetBooks.ir

Profiling hunting Non-active role-playing with Semi-structured

violators (Pohja-Mykrä empathy-based fictitious interviews with visual
and Kurki, 2016a) stories (Pohja-Mykrä and stimuli (Pohja-Mykrä,
Kurki, 2014b; Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a)
2016b)

Main aims • Present descriptive • Examine support • Study illegal

statistics on targeted of local community hunting as the
large carnivore members to violators defiance of
species committing illegal acts authorities
• Reveal the • Examine neutralization • Get a deeper
motivations behind techniques understanding of
illegal acts and illegal hunting and
categorize these how conflicts had
crimes developed
Data • Police Records • Approach the core • Semi-structured
years 2005–2010 group of hunting interviews
(n = 141) violators, e.g., hunters with convicted
• Decisions in the and women; the core hunting violators
group consisted of
cases on the illegal (n =2 ) and game
hunting of large people who had inside management
carnivores from information about officials (n = 2),
the District Courtsillegal acts and who along with visual
years 2005–2010 may have had an effect stimuli
(n = 30) on the actualization of
illegal acts
• Respondents were given
a brief background
story and they were
asked to expand on the
narratives (N = 236)
Main • Main motive behind • The core group of • Alienation of
outcomes illegal hunting was hunting violators arose hunters from society
disagreement with from the rural context, and authoritative
game policies within which there are agents, which had
• Illegal hunting were signs of a larger occurred alongside
reflecting local cultural protest against the enforcement
defiance of wolf top-down conservation of conservation
management was regimes at the EU level programmes
to be considered to • Among hunters, it • Rationalization of
be a socio-political was essential to stick an illegal act as an
crime together on group integral part of the
• Illegal killing of standards, as deviation actor’s motivation
wolves is a sign may pose a threat to for the act, not just
of powerful non- their position in the an after-the-fact
communicative group excuse
rural resistance.
 42  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
Non-active role-playing with empathy-based fictitious stories

The core group of hunting violators

VetBooks.ir

To examine the possible support that local community members offered to

violators committing illegal acts, we chose to approach the core group of hunt-
ing violators, which consisted of people who had inside information about
illegal acts and who may have an effect on the actualization of illegal acts.
On the one hand, we considered that other hunters were familiar with illegal
acts, and they might have actively decided whether, and on what conditions,
they would support illegal hunting. On the other hand, we were especially
interested in whether women supported illegal hunting. We assumed that the
support should be given by family members: Family cohesiveness is built upon
shared attitudes, and women generally are concerned for their family and secu-
rity (Verchick, 2004). In Finland, parents’ associations with active participation
of women have been vocal opponents of wolf conservation in response to the
perceived risk faced by schoolchildren on the way to school (Hiedanpää et al.,
2016). In turn, women have been shown to differ from men in terms of risk
assessment and attitudes towards authorities (Verchick, 2004), and there were
gender-marked differences in attitudes towards the environment (Gore and
Kahler, 2012).
In collecting the data, we utilized a novel approach to take into account the
ethical aspects of this sensitive issue: the method of non-active role-playing
with empathy-based fictitious stories. Role-playing provides discourses, which
include references to actual illegal actions. Since people are usually expected
to elaborate on topics based on their own perceptions and knowledge, the
method is able to deliver statements that take into account both the rhetorical
and social nature of argumentation.
In practice, respondents were given a brief written story and they were asked
to respond to it with a written imagined continuation. The story described a
person meeting an old acquaintance in possession of an illegally killed large
carnivore. It is worth noting that the story gave no information on the species
in question, the hunting violator’s sex, the setting, the killing method or what
had led up to the situation. The story was made as short and as general as pos-
sible so as not to restrict the respondents’ narratives, and it gave the respondents
an opportunity to write about sensitive issues in the third person. There were
two versions of the story: one in which the person sees the killed animal and
reports the alleged illegal killing to the authorities, and another one in which s/
he does not report the hunting violator after having noticed the killed animal.
The respondents received one of the two versions of the story randomly. Then,
in complete anonymity, they were requested to expand on the narrative by
addressing two questions. This was the background story with the two ques-
tions that followed:

A car drove into a yard. An old acquaintance came up, displayed a large car-
nivore in the trunk of the car, and said that it had been illegally killed. The
 Socio-political illegal acts 43
person who had been told this said something/said nothing to the authorities
about the illegal act. Imagine the situation. Describe a) what had led up to
the situation, and b) why the person told said something/said nothing about
VetBooks.ir

the illegal action to the authorities?

We had a twofold theoretical approach to the examination of community sup-

port. First, we examined the narratives with the theoretical framework of Bil-
lig’s rhetorical attitude theory (1996), according to which individuals are set
up in a relationship between the social sphere and their personal lifeworld, and
argumentation takes place within these relationships. Argumentation, there-
fore, can be conceptualized as a way of using linguistic power to take a stand
in a conflict situation. By analyzing argumentation, written or verbal, it is
possible to make interpretations about attitudes. It also makes it possible to
interpret socially and culturally accepted aspects related to the environment.
From a rhetorical point of view, everyone has an ability to diversify their verbal
expressions, and the perceived audience affects the way in which attitudes are
expressed, as well as how people want things to be done (Billig, 1996). Rhe-
torical attitudes were examined using a qualitative attitude analysis method
called argumentation analysis, which can be seen as a methodical continuation
of rhetorical attitude theory based on two assumptions: Classified data can be
interpreted as a sample of controversial claims about social reality, and the for-
mation and expression of attitudes can be studied as social phenomena (Vesala
and Rantanen, 2007.)
Our results showed that attitudes towards wolves were built on strong pri-
mary emotions such as fear of wolves and anger toward wolves, as well as
secondary emotions such as frustration towards game management authorities.
Both hunters and women gave strong support to illegal killings, and the level
of support did not depend on age group or place of residence. Among hunters,
it was essential to stick together on group standards, as deviation may pose a
threat to their position in the group. This group pressure among hunters was
something that women were lacking. Instead, women still had some faith in
authorities and their ability to correct wolf policies, if informed correctly about
the current local wolf pressure. The fact that support was contingent on the
lack of the necessary actions by the game management authorities indicates that
this lack necessitates taking matters into one’s own hands and thereby granting
illegal killing a permissible status (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki, 2014b).

Neutralization techniques
We built an understanding that illegal hunting of large carnivores was carried
out as an activity deliberately executed as part of belonging to a social group.
Hunting violators did not see themselves as detached from society or as mar-
ginal or outlaw individuals; they are generally committed to the rules and laws
of society, but they may rationalize certain exceptions. Rural protests were not
expressed by hunting violators alone: Community members who supported
 44  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
hunting violators may also perform acts of neutralization; namely, ways of jus-
tifying the illegal acts. In the second phase, our purpose here was to show how
the core group of hunting violators negated the perceived shame from the
VetBooks.ir

stigma and sanctions associated with violating the law, and to understand how
rural communities attempted to sustain alternative ways of regulating their life-
world, which they saw to be under pressure from wildlife conservation regimes.
In accomplishing this objective, our second theoretical approach was to exam-
ine neutralization techniques from the narratives produced by the respondents.
Neutralization techniques were introduced in sociological literature by Sykes
and Matza (1957), and the list with these techniques has been extended since
then by Coleman (1994), Klockars (1974) and Minor (1981).
The neutralization techniques employed by respondents allowed us to see
rationalizations behind the hunting violations, but they also showed us how the
rural identity and way of life were defended and how rural protests against con-
servation policies were voiced within the context of a pressure put by “Euro-
peanization”, which has occurred in recent decades (Enticott, 2011; von Essen
et al., 2014). Although the illegal killing of large carnivores would be expected
to invite the criminalization of hunters and their stigmatization by the rest
of society, those belonging to the core group of hunting violators employed
certain strategies of rationalizing and justifying such illegal actions as well as
the support given to them. The results implied that the core group of hunt-
ing violators arose from the rural context, within which there were signs of a
larger cultural protest against top-down conservation regimes applied at the
EU level. These regimes were held to be “illegitimate” in terms of local socio-
cultural legitimacy. Our findings suggested that not only hunting violators but
also the core group of hunting violators had non-communicative resistance
power, which they had exercised prior to the implementation of the new wolf
management plan as manifested in the drastic decrease in the wolf population
mentioned previously (Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a, 2016b).

Interviews with convicted hunting violators and

game management officials
To get a deeper understanding of illegal hunting, we interviewed convicted
hunting violators and game management officials. Interviews were imple-
mented in a semi-structured manner with visual stimuli – pictures related to
large carnivores and their management, illegal killing and stakeholders. Inter-
viewing with stimuli gave an opportunity to approach this sensitive issue in a
subtle manner. These stimuli provided an atmosphere in which the interviewed
person found himself/herself in the position of a third person. Therefore, they
did not have to express their own opinions of the species or reveal their own
actions concerning illegal killings of large carnivores, but they acted as observ-
ers of the consequences of the current policies and expressed their understand-
ing of how conflicts had developed.
 Socio-political illegal acts 45
The theoretical basis for illustrating illegal hunting from the interview data
as rural defiance rested on Sherman’s defiance theory (1993). With critical
discourse analysis, it was possible to examine the alienation of hunters from
VetBooks.ir

society and authoritative agents that had occurred alongside the enforcement
of conservation programmes as well as to examine how interviewees found
conservation procedures unfair and even stigmatizing and how they neutralized
negative behaviour towards wolves and management authorities (Pohja-Mykrä,
2016a; 2016c). Rural space has been differentiated from the rest of society at
large, and the rural social sphere was filled with feelings of inequality, injustice,
frustration and lack of trust. Hunting violators came to defend a particular rural
identity and way of life. As expected, the rationalization of an illegal act was
not to be seen as just an after-the-fact excuse that someone invented to justify
their own illegal behaviour, but as an integral part of the actor’s motivation for
the act (Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a; see Coleman, 1994).

Discussion of our findings in relation to

reducing the crime rate
Illegal killing of wolves in Finland may be defined as a socio-political crime,
as far as it reflects widespread dissent and rural defiance of authorities (see von
Essen et al., 2014). Retaliatory killing was found to be a noteworthy rationale
in justifying illegal acts: Hunting violators claimed entitlement, for instance, in
the case of a loss of hunting dogs, and the core group supported illegal killings
because of loss of livestock. However, these justifications primarily reflected the
issue of biosecurity, the need of a rural community for a safe living-environment.
A woman respondent who supported hunting violations put it this way: “If
people have to live in this kind of fear, it’s some relief when someone does
something to remedy the situation. The authorities won’t help!” The wolf-free
era that occurred in Finland from the early 1900s up to the 1990s accustomed
people to practices that allowed them to exercise hunting with loose dogs, to
keep livestock without wolf fences and to let children freely play in yards and
go to school on foot. This kind of socio-cultural accommodation that has been
developed and actively constructed by humans in the absence of wolves has
been challenged alongside the re-colonization of wolves around Europe.
Rural space is constructed on traditional agricultural values, and there is
antagonism between these values and conservation policies. In Norway, it has
been concluded that, under the pressure of the environmental ethos, rural
people living in wolf territories have confronted a feeling of alienation from
society at large (Skogen and Krange, 2003). Our results imply that there are
signs of rural and cultural resistance against adopted EU conservation regimes.
A hunter respondent argued that “Common sense has defeated all those EU
bureaucrats.” The acts of local hunting violators need to be seen as contingent
on national and EU-level conservation policies: In the absence of formal wolf
management, informal management takes place out of necessity.
 46  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
Hunting violators’ law-breaking was an outcome of a kind of rational cost-
benefit calculation. However, when considering risks and benefits from a nor-
mative perspective, it was not economic penalties but social norms and social
VetBooks.ir

justice that counted when the legitimacy of law was contested. (von Essen
et al., 2014; Duffy et al., 2016.) The demands of the core group, as a smaller
unit of the local society reflected the needs and desires of rural society, overall.
This was how a woman justified community members’ silence considering
hunting violations:

[T]he hunting violator was doing them all a favour for the sake of community peace,
something that everyone else was afraid to do. . . . Besides, he was also thinking of
the safety of the locals and of the farm animals.

What can count when choosing between alternative ways of acting is not only
the shared lifeworlds and empirical knowledge of wolves and the shared nega-
tive emotions such as frustration towards management authorities, but also a
need to support long-held rural traditions and hunting customs and to actively
reflect on management policies. It has to be noted, too, that deviating from
shared group attitudes might pose a risk of being socially stigmatized by in-
group members or excluded from the group, and therefore, the coherence of
the local community might be questioned. In a hunter’s words: “Those wolves
breed like rabbits, but good friends are damn hard to find.”
The essence of the rural protest can be captured with the neutralization of
illegal acts that are used to qualify hunting violations as acceptable. Hunting
violators were considered good poachers and they are doing an act in favour of
the entire community: Illegal killings of wolves are, indeed, recognized as acts
of justice. This support was manifested in the form of silent endorsement and
approval of the act, through verbal sparring or even encouragement, but also
as a common agreement to which the core group is committed. This is how a
female respondent presented this disposition: “Because there was silent agree-
ment among the villagers. And the person went along with the agreement. If
he had told the authorities about the illegal killing, he would have failed his
own community.” Hunting violators were affected and bound by moral and
social sanctions in their community. Thus, socio-political crime derived its
legitimacy not only from the individual who had committed the illegal act, but
from the entire local community, which endorsed the act and was ready to sup-
port the violator. Social norms aligned the behavior of in-group members with
this code of conduct, and therefore, any deviation from the law should not be
treated as unjust. This informal code of conduct contested formal regulations
and the law (von Essen, 2016). Interestingly, local authorities such as game
wardens were also caught between in this social reality, understanding the local
setting that may lead to illegal actions, on the one hand, and acknowledging
the demands of their position, on the other.
It is interesting to note that research in the context of international ille-
gal wildlife trade has largely rested on enforcement activities based on the
 Socio-political illegal acts 47
assumption that people act economically rationally. More recently, this
approach has been contested, and it has been suggested that a more normative
approach would reveal the real reasons behind illegal wildlife hunting (Duffy
VetBooks.ir

et al., 2016). From the normative point of view, it was also easier to com-
prehend why crimes committed in rural defiance could not be countered by
more severe punishments. Instead, a lack of legitimacy in policies may result
in a legitimization of the authorities and possibly an increase in the crime rate
(Sherman, 1993; Wellsmith, 2011; Filteau, 2012).Of course, society can direct
more efforts to disciplinary approaches, and that has happened also in Finland.
The latest wolf population management plan from 2015 states that illegal hunt-
ing will be tackled more seriously and supports the idea of increased patrols
(MAF, 2015). Certainly, with increased surveillance, there is an opportunity
to detect more hunting violations and punish them more harshly. However,
these increased punishments do not reduce the support local community mem-
bers offer to hunting violators. Instead, it is more likely that this support will
increase, making local communities cherish hunting violators as Robin Hoods in
their communities, a development which in turn deepens the divide between
the rural sphere and management authorities (see also von Essen et al., 2014).

Dimensions of “poverty”
Since disciplinary approaches are unhelpful and inadequate when formulat-
ing effective disincentives to illegal killing and when attempting to increase
compliance with conservation regimes, other ways have to be sought to affect
the crime rate. To meet this challenge, a start may be to link poverty to wolf
management and to show how traditional hunting of wolves in Finland may
respond to the poverty challenge. Such a perspective would verify, at the same
time, commonly approved management tools.
To decrease the crime rate in international illegal wildlife trade, Duffy et al.
(2016) addressed Professor Sen’s thoughtful definition of poverty in the context
of illegal hunting in the developing countries, which involved “a lack of power,
prestige, voice and an inability to define one’s future and day-to-day activities”
(p. 16). Rural residents may be “poor” in this sense. In the past several decades,
rural people have had to accommodate their life to the presence of wolves and
to meet the demands set in EU policies, their agricultural values have been
disputed, their empirical knowledge of species has been neglected, they have
lost power in relation to wolf management, they have been stigmatized as irre-
sponsible in relation to wildlife and nature, they have had to protect their liveli-
hoods, they have been facing constant dog and livestock losses and their sense
of a secure living environment has been shaken. Management policies that aim
at reversing these dimensions of “poverty” in rural communities may provide
positive policy responses and increase compliance with conservation regimes.
Hunters are key actors in executing the illegal killing of wolves. Hunting
holds a strong social connotation and supports hunters’ stewardship of wildlife.
Furthermore, hunting can be defined as an integral part of rural communities’
 48  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
cultural identity. Especially the hunting of large prey species, such as moose
and brown bear, includes long cultural traditions and builds hunters’ identity as
big-game hunters (Kruuk, 2002; Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2015; Watts et al., 2017).
VetBooks.ir

Wolf hunting in Finland also has long historical roots, and hunters have been
protectors of rural life and tradition, human safety and livestock (Pohja-Mykrä
et al., 2005; Mykrä et al., 2017). In regard to historical, social and cultural
aspects and legitimate agency in relation to wolves, hunters may be defined as
primordial stakeholders. Hunters, along with other locals who share their eve-
ryday territory with wolves, have spatial proximity to wolves. In addition to
proximity, hunters have a legitimate role to play in wolf management, they
may easily feel the urgency of management actions and they may enact actual
power – either legal or illegal – over wolf populations (Mykrä et al., 2017).

Traditional wolf hunting

The first attempts at supporting this ancient role of hunters have been made
by introducing hunting derogations based on wolf population management in
Finland in 2015–2016. This initiative acknowledged hunting of wolves, prac-
ticed within the local tradition (not culling), as a valid and eligible means of
wolf population management as is the case with other game species worldwide.
Traditional wolf hunting leans toward responsive and deliberative governance
of wildlife and natural resources management and conservation, with the aim
of empowering locals in management and policy, especially, by bringing to the
fore their sense of wolf management and how it is to be implemented. Dressel
et al. (2014) considered that permission of hunting may also have an effect on
attitudes, since the ability to hunt brown bears may be one reason bears were
regarded more positively than wolves all over Europe.
Conservation of wolves via traditional wolf hunting acknowledges the
importance of local knowledge along with ecological-technological expertise
(Skogen and Krange, 2003; von Essen, 2015), respects hunters’ stewardship and
management role (Kaltenborn et al., 2013) and addresses the importance of
building trust and legitimacy between stakeholders (Cvetkovich and Winter,
2003). Thus, it may support voluntary compliance with conservation regimes
(Stern, 2008). Increased levels of trust may have a positive effect on reducing
the fear of wolves (Johansson et al., 2012). In addition, wolf hunting may fulfill
a need for interaction with the living environment and “effectance” on objects
that belong in it, and therefore, it may also strengthen the hunters’ psycho-
logical ownership feelings towards wolves. Feelings of ownership may have
positive feedback on behaviour, since such feelings might be accompanied by
stewardship towards wolves, if wolves are seen as a valuable quarry hunters may
promote (see Pierce et al., 2003; Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2015).
Wolf hunting leans towards positive incentives, as traditional hunting involves
approximately 50 men per hunt, and hunters are allowed to keep the hunting
bag. Strong social connotations, positive emotions and trophies attached to
actions may also strengthen hunters’ psychological ownership feelings towards
 Socio-political illegal acts 49
wolves (see Pierce et al., 2003; Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2015). The first signs of
revived traditional wolf-hunting practices may be already observable, such
as hunting with hounds and skiing after prey. Very recent results show that
VetBooks.ir

legal hunting seems to decrease illegal killing, at least in the short run (Suu-
tarinen and Kojol, 2017). Keeping in mind the support that hunting viola-
tors may receive from their core group, the introduction of traditional wolf
hunting makes hunting violators irrelevant to community welfare. This raises
the opportunity to utilize voluntary compliance through informal sanctions
based on collective moral judgments and the perceived legitimacy of rules (see
Gezelius, 2002; Keane et al., 2008). When gaining hunting permits for legal
traditional hunting is contingent on a reduced illegal hunting rate, there is a
possibility of transforming the core groups’ perception of the hunting violator
from beneficiary to divergent.
To summarize this section, wolf as a species challenges the well-being of
those humans who share their living territories with wolves. Based on the
results of earlier attitude research, it seems almost impossible for a strong wolf
population to co-exist with humans without violating some basic human needs
for a safe living environment. The failure of formal wildlife management ini-
tiatives here leads to the inevitable; namely, informal wolf management takes
place. By supporting primordial stakeholders’ desires and needs, there is a pos-
sibility to conduct more socially just and socio-culturally legitimate wolf man-
agement, by means of which the tolerance for wolves may improve (see also
Bruskotter and Fulton, 2012). Transparent and reflective formal management
with legal hunting may act in favor of maintaining sustainable wolf populations,
not against it.

Implications for wolf policy and management

Legitimation of traditional hunting practices

Conservation procedures that affect locals’ well-being and their accustomed
living habits may face legitimacy deficits and should, therefore, take note of
local social and cultural traditions. There is some appreciation of cultural self-
preservation and expression when allowing the indigenous people to continue
with their traditional hunting practices (Nurse, 2016). There is also a growing
recognition of the need for carrying out such management implications in
the developing countries that support traditional subsistence hunting practices,
and research strongly relies on a presumption of the link between poverty and
motives for illegal hunting (Duffy et al., 2016). Previous research efforts, how-
ever, tend to dismiss the primary reasons for illegal hunting and the complexity
of involved networks and cultural and social traditions (Duffy et al., 2016). In
European countries and at the EU level, the debate has more or less downplayed
long-lasting hunting traditions in rural communities and has been focused on
limiting the right for sports hunting. However, sport and trophy hunting prac-
tices faced strong critique based on severe ecological, ethical, economic, social
 50  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
and even political concerns. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights
has determined that hunting does not represent a particular lifestyle considered
to be essential for one’s personal identity (Nurse, 2016). However, the relevant
VetBooks.ir

literature involves examples of local hunting traditions being understated with

the rise of urbanization and centralized urban-driven conservation procedures.
Such a transformation in wildlife management and conservation has turned
previously acceptable hunting practices into illegal acts (Okihiro, 1997; Jacoby,
2001; Holmes, 2007).
The Finnish context is especially interesting when discussing hunting as
part of cultural heritage. Traditionally, it has been widely possible for all peo-
ple in Finland to make use of natural resources, regardless of the landowner.
Nowadays this is expressed through “Everyman’s Rights” (the right to roam),
which guarantee free public access to both private and public forests and which
include some rights to use them, even for commercial purposes (Matilainen
et al., 2017). Wildlife is considered res nullius, “no-one’s property”, and the
outtake of game and fish has been based on a fair share for everyone since time
immemorial (de Klemm, 1996; see also von Essen et al., 2017). Local hunting
clubs lease their hunting grounds basically free of charge from local landown-
ers, who in turn are usually members of the local hunting clubs. There is also a
possibility for anyone outside the hunting clubs to lease hunting premises from
the state land: The aim is to provide equal hunting opportunities to anyone
interested (Watts et al., 2017). These cultural and social norms may reflect the
need for cultural continuity with hunting practices and rights regarding game
such as large carnivores even today. Examining the adaptability and resistance to
wolf policies brings the legitimacy of local people’s and stakeholders’ empirical
and cultural knowledge about wolves to the fore and calls for new platforms for
justifiable inclusion of emotions and local empirical knowledge.

Local knowledge in a clash of discourses

For more than three decades, there has been an understanding that traditional,
indigenous or local ecological knowledge should be taken into account when
implementing natural resource use or conservation, in order to empower locals
and respect the social and economic sustainability of natural-resource-based
livelihoods (Davis and Wagner, 2003). However, what has not been sufficiently
addressed is that it is not only indigenous people who hold strong empirical
knowledge of their living environment – so does everyone, and all have a grave
respect for their experienced lifeworlds, as well. It can be argued that wolf
conservation has suffered so far from an inadequate understanding of legiti-
macy deficits in social justice (Borgström, 2012; see also Bennett et al., 2017;
Redpath et al., 2017).
Local knowledge may not be an unambiguous term in itself, but the position-
ing of rural communities in a defensive stance against urban interest appears
to be a unifying characteristic for the various dimensions behind it (Skogen
and Krange, 2003). The first step to respect local knowledge is to comprehend
 Socio-political illegal acts 51
how locals ground their expertise about wolves and their habits by appealing
to traditions, personal experience, established social actions and agrarian val-
ues. These lifeworld discourses may easily become delegitimized by authori-
VetBooks.ir

ties as emotionally driven, irrational and ill-informed (see Buijs et al., 2014).
In contrast, ecological discourse and those appealing to the law, authorities,
ecological knowledge or ecocentric values are often seen as respected actors,
and their message as neutral and not carrying any political implications (see
von Essen, 2016).
Neglecting local knowledge may lead to counteractive behavior. Von Essen
(2015) launched the term “barstool biology” to embody the way in which
Swedish hunters increasingly adopt a technical-ecological discourse of scien-
tific experts when disputing wolf policies. Hunters believe that they are at a
disadvantage when using lifeworld arguments, but at the same time hunters,
attempt to narrow and downgrade their own traditional discourse (von Essen,
2015). This kind of adoption of ecological discourse, including an endorse-
ment of biodiversity conservation and favourable conservation status of species, can be
characterized as publicly accepted flagship argumentation, and it aims at making a
particular opinion acceptable to the target audience. For example, by adopting
hybrid wolves when discussing about wolf-dog hybrids, people want to express
their knowledge as wolf experts in relation to scientists and authorities. In
turn, when hunters and local people want to speak to their own people, they
contest dominant ecological discourse and may use traditional, emotion-based
empirical and cultural argumentation. For example, when debating the genetic
purity of free-ranging wolves, a wolf is stigmatized as a “porridge-eating dog”
(Pohja-Mykrä, 2016a) or a “tainted immigrant from the east” (von Essen,
2015), instead of being spoken about as a hybrid wolf. Hunters may also resist
ecological discourse in arguing that wolves should be seen as ordinary game
species instead of ethically untouchable species (von Essen, 2016).
To respect local knowledge, the spatial proximity of individuals to the wolf
issue is something that needs to be carefully addressed in planning and imple-
menting wolf policies. The first steps towards this direction have been already
taken in Finland since the implementation of the revised wolf management
plan, which has introduced wolf-territory-based stakeholder group gatherings
that will have an influence on proximate wolf packs (MAF, 2015). Prior to
the previously mentioned management plan, a nationwide wolf management
forum was set up on the internet. This informal e-participation supported
deliberation of wolf policies by bringing local views and opinions into an inter-
active knowledge sharing platform. The participants of this e-forum provided
also practical suggestions on how local-level decision making related to wolves
should be conducted (Salo et al., 2017).
Local knowledge is shared in social networks comprised of actors who are
tied to one another through socially meaningful relations. Central actors in
those social networks not only pass on and circulate information, but may also
produce new information (Prell et al., 2009). This new, informal informa-
tion may be disseminated and dispute other formal types of information and
 52  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
knowledge. Bearing that in mind, one should further cultivate any platforms
in which informal information can be shared. In Finland, for example, “local
parliaments” that gather traditionally in local gas stations around a cup of cof-
VetBooks.ir

fee may be sources of local knowledge. Such “parliaments” are set by groups
of local actors who informally gather together regularly, for instance weekly, to
discuss important and locally “hot” matters. The discussion of the wolf issue
has been obviously one of the main topics during the past decade. Capturing
the informal discourse might shed light on social justice and legal implications
for wolf policy and management.

The concept of psychological ownership

Wolf policies and management can easily fail to take into account adequately
the emotional responses and dispositions that affect opinions, attitudes and
behaviour (see Jacobs, 2012; Buijs and Lawrence, 2013; Hiedanpää et al.,
2016). However, emotions motivate people to think explicitly about an issue,
and act. Strong emotions towards animals, natural resources, places and place-
based processes reflect basic human needs, build human self-identity, and thus
engage local actors in a long-term interest in environmental processes (Buijs
and Lawrence, 2013).
Humans have emotional bonds with places and place-based processes, and
these emotions may have an effect on how people adopt specific large carnivore
governance procedures. In previous research studying the emotions and mean-
ings related to natural or wilderness places, concepts applied have included
“place attachment” (e.g., Brehm et al., 2013), “place meanings” (e.g., Smith
et al., 2011) and “sense of place” (e.g., Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001). The
related concept of “psychological ownership” has recently been introduced to
natural resource management and wolf management (Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2015;
Matilainen et al., 2017). The core feeling of psychological ownership is posses-
sion, a state in which individuals perceive the target of ownership as “theirs”.
This possession can be directed towards objects such as animals, whilst it fulfills
generic and socially generated motives and basic human needs of self-identity,
efficacy and effectance in relation to the living environment and having a place
in which to dwell (Pierce et al., 2003). These motives serve associated functions
such as stimulating security, comfort and pleasure (Pierce et al., 2003), all of
which are important in ensuring a good quality of life for local people.
Allowing hunters and rural communities to have psychological ownership
feelings towards wolves, and supporting these feelings, reduces their “poverty”
in terms of lack of power, prestige and voice. The routes leading to the experi-
ence of psychological ownership are the power of control over wolves, access
to any knowledge related to wolves, and the possibility to invest time and effort
in wolf management. Acknowledging, for example, the role of traditional wolf
hunting in strengthening these routes may lead to positive behaviors towards
wolves, such as a sense of responsibility and a willingness to support the well-
being of the species (Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2015). Although local ownership of
 Socio-political illegal acts 53
wildlife may facilitate responsibility towards it (Measham and Lumbasi, 2013),
the ownership of res nullius property is contested in the post-modern world
(von Essen et al., 2017). Psychological ownership, in general, can be seen as
VetBooks.ir

a facilitator of sustainable behaviors towards the environment (Suessenbach

and Kamleitner, 2017) and has also been noted in biological reviews on more
socially just large carnivore policies (Redpath et al., 2017).
It has to be noted that the feeling of psychological ownership towards wolves
in itself cannot guarantee any solution to human-human conflicts lying under-
neath human-wolf conflicts. Instead, it could be that stakeholders holding
strong feelings of possession and safeguarding their psychological ownership
may execute negative behavior such as resistance to change, disputes over wolf
management and all these aspects may impede co-operation (Pohja-Mykrä
et al., 2017). Psychological ownership will not resolve wolf conflict in itself,
but it can be used to anticipate and manage conflict in a more socially just
way (see Matilainen et al., 2017). In addition, the concept of psychological
ownership will allow researchers and management authorities to gain a better
understanding of emotional responses in wolf issues, as well as put weight on
emotional aspects to develop more successful conservation regimes.

References
Bell, S., Hampshire, K., and Topalidou, S. (2007) ‘The political culture of poaching: A case
study from northern Greece’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 16, pp399–418.
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K. M. A., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Epstein,
G., Nelson, M. P., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R. E. W., Wyborn, C., Curran, D.,
Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J., and Veríssimo, D. (2017) ‘Mainstreaming the social sciences in
conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 31, pp56–66.
Billig, M. (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, Revised Edi-
tion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bisi, J., Liukkonen, T., Mykrä, S., Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2010) ‘The good bad
wolf – Wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict’, European Journal of
Wildlife Research, vol 56, no 5, pp771–779.
Borgström, S. (2012) ‘Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf conservation’, Journal of Environmental
Law, pp1–26, doi:10.1093/jel/eqs015.
Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., and Stedman, R. C. (2013) ‘Environmental concern: Exam-
ining the role of place meaning and place attachment’, Society & Natural Resources, vol 26,
no 5, pp522–538.
Breitenmoser, U. (1998) ‘Large predators in the Alps: The fall and rise of man’s competitors’,
Biological Conservation, vol 83, pp279–289.
Bruskotter, J.T., and Fulton, D. C. (2012) ‘Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves
and Martin’, Society & Natural Resources, vol 25, pp97–102.
Buijs, A., and Lawrence, A. (2013) ‘Emotional conflicts in rational forestry:Towards a research
agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts’, Forest Policy and Economics,
vol 33, pp104–111.
Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T., and Arts, B. (2014) ‘ “The man, the administration and the counter-
discourse”: An analysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy’, Land Use
Policy, vol 38, pp676–684.
 54  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
Buller, H. (2008) ‘Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing philosophies of
nature’, Environment and Planning, vol 40, pp1583–1597.
Coleman, J.W. (1994) The Criminal Elite:The Sociology of White Collar Crime, St. Martin’s Press,
VetBooks.ir

New York.
Curcione, N. (1992) ‘Deviance as delight: Party-boat poaching in southern California’, Devi-
ant Behavior, vol 13, pp33–57.
Cvetkovich, G., and Winter, P. L. (2003) ‘Trust and social representations of the management
of threatened and endangered species’, Environment and Behavior, vol 35, no 2, pp286–307.
Davis, A., and Wagner, J. R. (2003) ‘Who knows? On the importance of identifying “Experts”
when researching local ecological knowledge’, Human Ecology, vol 31, no 3, pp463–489.
de Klemm, C. (1996) ‘Compensation for damage caused by wild animals’, Natural Environ-
ment, No 84, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2014) ‘A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes
toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 2,
pp565–574.
Duffy, R., St John, F. A. V., Büscher, B., and Brockington, D. (2016) ‘Toward a new under-
standing of the links between poverty and illegal wildlife hunting’, Conservation Biology,
vol 30, no 1, pp14–22.
Eliason, S. L. (2004) ‘Accounts of wildlife law violators: Motivations and rationalizations’,
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 9, no 2, pp119–131.
Eliason, S. L., and Dodder, R. (1999) ‘Techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers in
the western U.S.: A research note’, Journal of Deviant Behavior, vol 20, pp233–252.
Enticott, G. (2011) ‘Techniques of neutralising wildlife crime in rural England and Wales’,
Journal of Rural Studies, vol 27, pp200–208.
Figari, H., and Skogen, K. (2011) ‘Social representations of the wolf ’, Acta Sociologica, vol 54,
no 4, pp317–332.
Filteau, M. (2012) ‘Deterring defiance: ‘Don’t give a poacher a reason to poach’, Journal of
Rural Criminology, vol 1, pp236–255.
Forsyth, C., and Marckese, T. A. (1993) ‘Folk outlaws: Vocabularies of motives’, International
Review of Modern Sociology, vol 23, pp17–31.
Forsyth, C. J., Gramling, R., and Wooddell, G. (1998) ‘The game of poaching: Folk crimes in
Southwest California’, Society & Natural Resources, vol 11, no 1, pp25–38.
Gezelius, S. (2002) ‘Do norms count? State regulation and compliance in a Norwegian fish-
ing community’, Acta Sociologica, vol 45, pp305–314.
Gore, M. L., and Kahler, J. S. (2012) ‘Gendered risk perceptions associated with human –
Wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation’, PloS One, vol 7, no 3.
Green, G. S. (1990) ‘Resurrecting polygraph validation of self-reported crime data: A note
on research method and ethics using the deer poacher’, Deviant Behavior, 11, pp131–137.
Hiedanpää, J., and Bromley, D. W. (2011) ‘The harmonization game: Reason and rules in
European biodiversity policy’, Environment Policy and Governance, 21, pp99–111.
Hiedanpää, J., Pellikka, J., and Ojalammi, S. (2016) ‘Meet the parents: Emotional regime and
the reception of the grey wolf return in Southwestern Finland’, Trace – Finnish Journal for
Human-Animal Studies, vol 2, pp4–27.
Holmes, G. (2007) ‘Protection, politics and protest: Understanding resistance to conserva-
tion’, Conservation & Society, vol 5, pp184–201.
Jacobs, M. H. (2012) ‘Human emotions toward wildlife’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol
17, pp1–3.
Jacoby, K. (2001) Crimes Against Nature Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the Hidden History of
American Conservation, University of California Press, Berkeley.
 Socio-political illegal acts 55
Johansson, M., Karlsson, J., Pedersen, E., and Flykt, A. (2012) ‘Factors governing human fear
of brown bear and wolf ’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 17, pp68–74.
Jorgensen, B. S., and Stedman, R. C. (2001) ‘Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore own-
VetBooks.ir

ers attitudes toward their properties’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 21, no 3,
pp233–248.
Kahler, J., and Gore, M. (2012) ‘Beyond the cooking pot and pocket book: Factors influenc-
ing noncompliance with wildlife poaching rules’, Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,
vol 35, pp1–18.
Kaltenborn, B. P., Andersen, O., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2013) ‘Predators, stewards, or sports-
men – How do Norwegian hunters perceive their role in carnivore management?’, Inter-
national Journal of Biodiversity Science, vol 9, no 3, pp239–248.
Keane, A., Jones, J. P. G., Edwards-Jones, G., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2008) ‘The sleeping
policeman: Understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation’, Animal
Conservation, vol 11, no 2, pp75–82.
Klockars, C. B. (1974) The Professional Fence, Free Press, New York.
Kruuk, H. (2002) Hunters and Hunted: Relationships Between Carnivores and People, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Liberg, O., Chapron, G., Wabakken, P., Pedersen, H. C., Hobbs, N. T., and Sand, H. (2012)
‘Shoot, shovel and shut up: Cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in
Europe’, Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, vol 27, pp9910–9915.
MAF (2015) Management Plan for Wolf Population in Finland, Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Finland.
Matilainen, A., Pohja-Mykrä, M., Lähdesmäki, M., and Kurki, S. (2017) ‘I feel it is mine! –
Psychological ownership in relation to natural resources’, Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy, vol 51, pp31–45.
Measham, T. G., and Lumbasi, J. A. (2013) ‘Success factors for community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia’, Environmental Man-
agement, vol 52, no 3, pp649–659.
Minor, W. W. (1981) ‘Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical
examination’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol 18, pp295–318.
Mischi, J. (2013) ‘Contested rural activities: Class, politics, and shooting in the French coun-
tryside’, Ethnography, vol 14, pp64–84.
Mykrä, S., Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Vuorisalo, T. (2017) ‘Hunters’ attitudes matter: Diverging
bear and wolf population trajectories in Finland in the late 19th century and today’, Euro-
pean Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 63, p76, doi:10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1.
Nurse, A. (2016) ‘Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting
legislation’, Crime Law and Social Change, vol 67, pp383–399.
Okihiro, N. R. (1997) Mounties, Moose and Moonshine. The Patterns and Context of Outport
Crime, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.
Peltola,T., and Heikkilä, J. (2015) ‘Response-ability in wolf – Dog conflicts’, European Journal
of Wildlife Research, vol 61, no 5, pp711–721.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., and Dirks, K. T. (2003) ‘The state of psychological ownership: Inte-
grating and extending a century of research’, Review of General Psychology, vol 7, no 1,
pp84–107.
Pohja-Mykrä, M. (2016a) ‘Felony or act of justice? – Illegal killing of large carnivores as defi-
ance of authorities’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol 44, pp46–54.
Pohja-Mykrä, M. (2016b) ‘Community power over conservation regimes: Techniques of
neutralizing illegal killing of large carnivores in Finland’, Crime Law and Social Change, vol
67, pp439–460.
 56  Mari Pohja-Mykrä
Pohja-Mykrä, M. (2016c) ‘Illegal killing as rural defiance’, in J Donnermeyer (ed) The Rout-
ledge International Handbook of Rural Criminology, Routledge, London.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2014a) ‘Evaluation of the Finnish national policy on large
VetBooks.ir

carnivores’, Reports 135. Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki.

Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2014b) ‘Strong community support for illegal killings chal-
lenges wolf management’, European Journal for Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 5, pp759–770.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., Kurki, S., and Mykrä, S. (2015) ‘Susipolitiikan suunnanmuutos – ohjailusta
omistajuuteen’, in J. Hiedanpää and O. Ratamäki (eds) Suden kanssa, University of Lapland
Printing Centre, Rovaniemi.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., Mykrä, S., Matilainen, A., and Lähdesmäki, M. (2017) ‘The emergence of
collective psychological ownership in stakeholder large carnivore texts and its effect on
conservation conflict escalation’ [manuscript].
Pohja-Mykrä, M., Vuorisalo, T., and Mykrä, S. (2005) ‘Hunting bounties as a key measure
for historical wildlife management and game conservation: Finnish bounty schemes in
1647–1975’, Oryx, vol 39, no 3, pp284–291.
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., and Reed, M. (2009) ‘Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis
in natural resource management’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 22, no 6, pp501–518.
Rannikko, P. (2003) ‘Oikeudenmukaisuuskysymys suomalaisen ympäristöliikehdinnän aal-
loissa’, in A. Lehtinen and P. Rannikko (eds) Oikeudenmukaisuus ja ympäristö, University
Press Finland Ltd, Tampere.
Redpath, S., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A.,
Gutiérrez, R. J., Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sand-
ström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Ketil Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A.,Young,
J., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘Don’t forget to look down – Collaborative approaches
to predator conservation’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, pp2157–2163.
Reiger, J. F. (1975) American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, Winchester Press, New
York.
Salo, M., Hiedanpää, J., Luoma, M., and Pellikka, J. (2017) ‘Nudging the Impasse? Lessons
from the Nationwide Online Wolf Management Forum in Finland’, Society & Natural
Resources, vol 30, pp1141–1157.
Sherman, L. (1993) ‘Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction’,
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol 30, pp445–473.
Skogen, K., and Krange, O. (2003) ‘A wolf at the gate: The anti-carnivore alliance and the
symbolic construction of community’, Sociological Ruralis, vol 43, pp309–325.
Skogen, K., Mauz, I., and Krange, O. (2006) ‘Wolves and ecopower: A French-Norwegian
analysis of the narratives of the return of large carnivores’, Journal of Alpine Research, vol
94, pp78–87.
Smith, J. W., Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H., and Leahy, J. E. (2011) ‘Place meanings and
desired management outcomes’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 101, no 4, pp359–370.
Stern, M. J. (2008) ‘Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: The role of trust and legiti-
macy in combating local opposition to protected areas’, Environmental Conservation, vol 35,
pp200–210.
Suessenbach, S., and Kamleitner, B. (2017) ‘Psychological ownership as a facilitator of sus-
tainable behaviors’, in J. Peck and S. Shu (eds) Psychological Ownership (tbd). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Suomen riistakeskus/Finnish Wildlife Agency (2016) ‘Metsästäjien määrä pysynyt muuttu-
mattomana’, https://riista.fi/metsastajien-maara-pysynyt-muuttumattomana/, accessed 4
December 2017.
 Socio-political illegal acts 57
Suutarinen, J., and Kojol, I. (2017) ‘Poaching regulates the legally hunted wolf population in
Finland’, Biological Conservation, vol 215, pp11–18.
Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957) ‘Techniques of neutralisation: A theory of delinquency’,
VetBooks.ir

American Sociological Review, vol 22, no 6, pp664–670.

Verchick, R. M. (2004) ‘Feminist theory and environmental justice’, in R. Stein (ed) New
Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality and Activism, The State University of
New Jersey, Rutgers.
Vesala, K. M., and Rantanen, T. (2007) ‘Laadullinen asennetutkimus: lähtökohtia, periaatteita,
mahdollisuuksia’, in Vesala K and T. Rantanen (eds) Argumentaatio ja tulkinta: laadullisen
asennetutkimuksen lähestymistapa, Gaudeamus, Helsinki.
von Essen, E. (2015) ‘Whose discourse is it anyway? Understanding resistance through the
rise of “barstool biology” in nature conservation’, Environmental Communication, vol 11,
pp470–489.
von Essen, E. (2016) In the Gap between Legality and Legitimacy: Illegal Hunting in Sweden as a
Crime of Dissent, PhD thesis, University of Uppsala, Sweden.
von Essen, E., Allen, M., and Hansen, H. P. (2017) ‘Hunters, crown, nobles, and conserva-
tion elites: Class antagonism over the ownership of common fauna’, International Journal of
Cultural Property, vol 24, no 2, pp161–186.
von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Nordström Källström, H., Peterson, M. N., and Peterson, T. R.
(2014) ‘Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon – A review of typologies for under-
standing illegal hunting’, British Journal of Criminology, vol 54, no 4, pp632–651.
von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Nordström Källström, H., Peterson, M. N., and Peterson, T. R.
(2015) ‘The radicalisation of rural resistance: How hunting counterpublics in the Nordic
countries contribute to illegal hunting’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol 39, pp199–209.
Watts, D., Matilainen, A., Kurki, S., Keskinarkaus, S., and Hunter, C. (2017) ‘Hunting cultures
and the ‘northern periphery’: Exploring their relationship in Scotland and Finland’, Jour-
nal of Rural Studies, vol 54, pp255–265.
Wellsmith, M. (2011) ‘Wildlife crime: The problems of enforcement’, European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research, vol17, pp125–148.
White, R. M., Fischer, A., Marshall, K., . . . and Van der Wal, R. (2009) ‘Developing an inte-
grated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts’, Land Use Policy, vol 26,
no 2, pp242–253.
Zabel, A., and Holm-Muller, K. (2008) ‘Conservation performance payments for carnivore
conservation in Sweden’, Conservation Biology, vol 22, pp247–251.
 4 Situated, reflexive research
in practice
VetBooks.ir

Applying feminist methodology to

a study of human-bear conflict
Catherine Jampel

Introduction
From November 2009 through November 2011, over 100 incidents of Andean
bears (Tremarctos ornatus) predating on cattle were recorded in the provinces of
Imbabura and Carchi in the northern Ecuadorian Andes (Laguna, 2011). Biolo-
gists feared that without some form of intervention, the level of cattle predation
would continue or even increase, possibly leading to retribution poaching and
resulting in “an unknown number of illegal bear deaths” (Castellanos et al.,
2011, p. 17).This study in the rural parishes of Pimampiro, Ecuador began with
the cattle, which mediated the most salient contemporary relationship between
humans and bears in the region, and posed the question: How has raising cattle
become a form of livelihood in the northern Ecuadorian Andes, and how have
bears come to represent a threat in this landscape?
The majority of the study findings corresponded with existing literature
from elsewhere in the Andes of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru (Jampel, 2016,
pp. 87–89). That is, varied socio-ecological, socioeconomic, and political fac-
tors contributed to a shift away from crop-based livelihoods and to the growth
of cattle-based livelihoods. Push factors that decreased residents’ commitments
to crop-based livelihoods included soil fertility loss, increasingly variable and
unpredictable climate, rising agricultural input prices, and out-migration from
rural areas, which reduced the available labor force for such labor-intensive
work. Pull factors stimulating residents’ adoption of cattle-based livelihoods
included the relative ease of raising cattle and that they self-reproduce, the
increased market demand for dairy products, and small livestock-oriented
development programs. As one resident interviewed said, whereas “in planting,
you invest 80% of what you will earn, with milk, almost everything is profit.”
Bears became a threat in the region, specifically in the context of the growth
of cattle-based livelihoods on the agricultural frontier and furthermore as gov-
ernment protection improved for Andean bears and their habitat (Castellanos
et al., 2010).
The study’s chief addition to the existing literature was to highlight the role
of attachment to rural place as a key part of the story for the smallholding
farmers raising cattle, through which they entered into new relationships with
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 59
Andean bears. Whereas many people in the northern Ecuadorian Andes have
participated in the Latin America-wide trend of leaving rural areas, some are
“stayers,” or non-migrants (Kay, 2008; Huijsmans, 2014). In the study area, those
VetBooks.ir

remaining in the countryside following five decades of rural outmigration

expressed ideals such as autonomy and tranquility as reasons for staying. They
turned to raising cattle in order to participate in the steady dairy economy and
as a form of wealth generation. In a work of interpretive social science, I used
the idea of “taskscape” (Ingold, 1993) to tell the story of cattle-based livelihoods
and their consequences for relationships between residents and bears (Jampel,
2016). The present contribution complements that product, “Cattle-based live-
lihoods, changes in the taskscape, and human-bear conflict in the Ecuadorian
Andes,” published in the geography journal Geoforum, and elaborates on the
research context, design, and methodology – that is, the conditions of knowl-
edge production.1 Some readers may wish to read the description of the process
in this chapter side by side with the product in Geoforum. Table 4.1 summarizes
the study questions and findings.
The following material primarily focuses on the process from 2011–2015,
but also accounts for newer work relevant to qualitative social science research
in conservation research (Moon et al., 2016; Pooley et al., 2017) and geography
(Brisbois and Polo, 2017; Caretta and Jokinen, 2017). The aim is to relate two
key ideas from feminist methodology – situated knowledges and reflexivity –
and then demonstrate how situated, reflexive research may contribute to dia-
logues about the human dimensions of large carnivore conservation. The next
section further details the study, explains situated knowledges and reflexivity,
and then elaborates on the study process.The following sections provide further
detail on how the conditions of knowledge production influenced the inter-
pretation of the data, and the implications of such interpretations for under-
standing the human dimensions of large carnivore conservation.

Theoretical background and methodology

Study context
The study, initially framed as “Cattle-based livelihoods and the bear ‘problem’
in northern Ecuador,” was a qualitative research project, conducted with two
primary goals: to provide insights about the human-bear conflict in Pimampiro,
Ecuador, from a critical social science lens, in order to complement conserva-
tion biologists’ ongoing work there; and in the course of doing so, continue my
graduate education in Geography and Women’s Studies. The initial conception
of this study focused on the bears because my entrée into the region was through
one of the Andean Bear Foundation’s two conservation biologists. But the sec-
ond piece, graduate education, is also crucial to understanding the conditions
of knowledge production and problem framing. My thesis committee encour-
aged me to consider how the researcher’s focus might influence the importance
respondents ascribe to a certain issue. For example, how might the social context
 60  Catherine Jampel
Table 4.1  Summary of study research questions, main findings, and implications

Research questions Main findings Implications

VetBooks.ir

How has raising cattle • The dwelling activities • People in the area turned
become a form of and landscape changed from tasks with loud and
livelihood in the northern significantly over two frequent human presence,
Ecuadorian Andes? decades, as many residents such as hunting, timber
turned from crop-based extraction, and large mingas
to cattle-based livelihoods (collaborative workgroups),
for dairy production, to sowing and harvesting,
transforming the landscape to leaving bull calves in
from one dominated by remote pastures for days.
fields to pastures. • Out-migration’s “flip side”
• Push factors included was that “stayers” may
changes in climatic have to adapt to different
conditions, soil fertility, labor availability; “stayers”
prices, and labor availability. are “committed” to the
due to out-migration. countryside.
• Pull factors included • Patches of forest, where
ease of raising cattle, families used to live before
market demand, and small migrating, recovered.
development program
activities.
How have bears come to • Bears were not as great of • Bears were able to
represent a threat in this a threat to cattle health, approach cattle in pastures
landscape? well-being, and life as other surrounded by forest
threats such as quantity patches in a now-quiet area
and quality of available without the kinds of human
pasture, falling, climate and mechanical sounds that
(e.g., pneumonia risk), and used to reverberate.
disease (e.g., mastitis). • Patches of regenerating
• However, depopulation forest can have mixed rather
contributed to the than uniform results for
combination of vulnerable the extent of “secure” bear
cattle and patches of habitat.
secondary forests where • Effective approaches to
bears may easily access large carnivore conservation
them. will include recognizing
• Political and economic and addressing cultural and
drivers such as conservation economic pressures beyond
legislation and production the local region.
pressures also shaped the
agricultural frontier.
Note: See also Jampel, 2013, 2016.

(entrée through an organization focused on conservation) and power relations

(researchers educated in the country capital and abroad), combined with inter-
views centered on bears, serve to produce particular stories, whether emphasizing
“conflict”2 or missing other factors contributing to the phenomenon in ques-
tion? To re-orient the study, I drew from political ecology and livelihoods studies.
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 61
The sub-discipline of political ecology in geography includes in its founda-
tions the idea of opening the aperture of analysis to consider local or proximate
phenomena in the context of more “global” or distal phenomena. For example,
VetBooks.ir

Tom Bassett’s (1988) pioneering work elucidated how the livestock develop-
ment policies of the government of the Ivory Coast in the 1980s contributed
to conflict between pastoralists and peasants. Feminist critiques of science and
epistemology in the 1980s also influenced some political ecologists to account
for the conditions of knowledge production, some of whom adopted the term
feminist political ecology (Sundberg, 2017). To open this aperture while also
recognizing the underlying purpose of conducting this particular research in
this particular place – to understand why and how relationships between resi-
dents and Andean bears had recently changed in the region – led to decenter-
ing the bears and focusing on the cattle as the non-indigenous species, and to
framing the study around the classic question from the livelihoods literature in
development studies (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Scoones, 2009): “How do
people live in this place?”
Further, because little information existed about this region or transition,
especially in the published literature, an open-ended approach was warranted
in order to avoid misdirecting the research with inappropriate hypotheses or
distorting the lived experiences of people in the study area. Because this study
decentered the bears to focus on the livelihood context of the human-bear
“conflict,” less attention was given to parsing out the social and ecological con-
tributions to the dynamics of the bear-cattle incidents themselves, which other
researchers have taken up (Figueroa Pizarro, 2015; Zukowski and Ormsby,
2016).
Most data collection took place over the course of two months in the sum-
mer of 2012. I conducted 83 interviews with residents in three communities
and a few NGO and government employees, and lived with two host families.
I also collected other data that emerged, such as newspaper clippings, satellite
images of the area, and data on cattle ownership, and used these data to chal-
lenge or corroborate my findings. The following sections describe the theory
underpinning various methodological choices and also provide some examples
of the theory “in action.”

Situated knowledges
Debates within feminist theory and the broader critical social science literature
about knowledge production and objectivity informed the study’s development
and execution. Trenchant critiques of science emerged in the US in the mid-
1980s, as scholars of social studies of science and technology (STS) and feminist
critics wrote about the social construction of knowledge – meaning that what
anyone knows is influenced by the social conditions of its production; that
is, by the perspectives, priorities, and privileges of the people generating the
knowledge (Harding, 1986; Hacking, 2000; Wylie, 2003). Any researcher or
aspiring scientist taking such critiques seriously might find themselves at an
 62  Catherine Jampel
impasse: If all knowledge is a product of its social world, does that mean none
can be understood as more reliable, and if so, why conduct research? To address
the threat of impasse and the dismissal of potentially useful knowledge, feminist
VetBooks.ir

scholar Donna Haraway (1988) introduced the concept of situated knowledges.

She argued that feminists and other researchers have a responsibility not to
suggest that all knowledge is equally unreliable, since scholarship and knowl-
edge production inform society. Rather, to make “rational knowledge claims,”
scholars and scientists must account for their situatedness, and the situatedness
of the subjects and objects of their research. Doing so will lead to more “faith-
ful accounts of a ‘real’ world” (Haraway, 1988, p. 579). The social production
of knowledge, including the social locations of the researchers, affect question
framing, data collection, data analysis, and communication.
For example, a researcher trained as a wildlife manager or in an educational
or policy institution (social location) might design a study reflecting the pri-
orities of their training and professional community. As Bruskotter and Shelby
(2010, p. 312) write in their case for social science research on large carnivore
conservation:

Managers would not think of making controversial decisions about endan-

gered species without data on such factors as abundance, distribution,
and recruitment, yet appear quite comfortable making assumptions about
human values, attitudes, and behaviors that are at least as important to the
long-term success of conservation efforts.

In the special issue Bruskotter and Shelby edited,“Human Dimensions of Large

Carnivore Conservation and Management,” Goldman et al. (2010) challenged
some of the routine ways of describing attitudes toward wildlife as Western
analytical categories, reflecting a sense of knowledges as situated and socially
produced. They used ethnographic approaches to study the Maasai and their
relationships with lions in Kenya and Tanzania and highlighted negative, posi-
tive, and often “complex and sometimes ambivalent ways in which local people
think about, and relate with, wildlife” (Goldman et al., 2010, p. 333). Though
their paper does not delve into the specifics, the work rests on previous research
by geographers and anthropologists and anticipates a collection of articles
bridging STS and political ecology (Nadasdy, 2003; Goldman, 2007, Goldman
et al., 2011). They contend that a better understanding of people’s ambivalent
attitudes toward large carnivores can lead to better practices, and that studies
of human relations with wildlife benefit from reflecting on the conditions of
knowledge production.

Reflexivity and an abductive approach

Accounting for the conditions of knowledge production can be accomplished,
in part, through the practice of reflexivity. Reflexivity is one of many “situating
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 63
technologies” that researchers use in order to practice situated science (Rose,
1997, p. 308). Practicing reflexivity means that a researcher considers vari-
ous aspects of knowledge production, including social and institutional con-
VetBooks.ir

texts, the assumptions that come with those contexts, and the ways in which
social locations influence various research relations. Two important categories
are introspective and epistemological reflexivity (Foley, 2002). Introspective
reflexivity – also sometimes called confessional or transparent reflexivity –
interrogates the researcher’s own position and examines the researcher’s
relationships with her subjects and reality.  In contrast, epistemological reflexivity,
also sometimes called theoretical reflexivity, focuses not only on the research-
er’s identity and relationships, but also on the entire knowledge production
process.
Introspective reflexivity about a researcher’s own position or situatedness
means that “we must recognize and take account of our own position, as well
as that of our research participants, and write this in our research practice,”
according to feminist geographer Linda McDowell (1992, p. 409). However,
this requires more than most researchers are capable of: a complete knowledge
of self and context (Rose, 1997, p. 311). Instead, Gillian Rose (1997, p. 311)
proposes the idea of “constitutive negotiation,” meaning that research can be
understood knowledge that emerges from varied and changing relationships.
The researcher is not authoritative but rather “situated, not by what she knows,
but by what she uncertainly performs.” For example, Juanita Sundberg (2003,
2005), writing about conservation in Latin America, noted that race and gender
influenced research relationships for North American and European geogra-
phers conducting studies in the region. In one of Sundberg’s studies, she found
that when working with NGOs, gender seemed less important to her research
identity than her status as a US citizen, whereas when working with exten-
sion agents in a rural community, gender discrimination was so pervasive that
she elected to hire an assistant to complete the interviews. More recently, two
researchers from Canada and Ecuador have written about the ways in which
their identities influenced their studies in the coastal region of Ecuador (Bris-
bois and Polo, 2017). Canadian Ben Brisbois reflected on how he came to
insights about poverty and poor health outcomes for marginalized Ecuadorians
as related not only to racism and neo-colonialism on the part of the “Global
North,” external to the country, but also to within-country racism. He suspected
that the in-country elites perpetuating racist ideologies shared their opinions
with him because of their assumption that he would be sympathetic, given his
identity (white, male, Canadian). Ecuadorian Patricia Polo, university-educated
and from urban highland Ecuador, also reported finding that her “social loca-
tion appeared to create a comfortable space within which [culturally deter-
ministic] narratives could be shared by relatively privileged Costeños [coastal
elites]” (Brisbois and Polo, 2017, p. 197).
Epistemological reflexivity requires a researcher to “ground her theoreti-
cal constructs in the everyday cultural practices of the subjects,” following the
 64  Catherine Jampel
work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (Foley, 2002, p. 476). As anthro-
pologist Douglas Foley (2002, p. 476) helpfully summarizes:
VetBooks.ir

Such a move replaces abstract armchair theorizing about everyday life with
an experiential, abductive (deductive and inductive) way of knowing. An
abductive ethnographer must tack back and forth mentally between her
concrete field experience and her abstract theoretical explanations of that
experience. In the end, “theoretical [or epistemological] reflexivity” should
produce a reasonably objective, authoritative account of the cultural other.

An abductive approach seeks to use a combination of data and theory to provide

the best possible explanation to a problem, thus combining both deductive and
inductive reasoning, which in many cases are “ideal types” rather than reflective
of the realities of research. As an ideal type, deductive reasoning moves from
theory to hypothesis development and testing. For example, in their study of
the correlation between normative beliefs and support for wolf management
options in Italy, Glikman et al. (2010) began with hypotheses based on specific
principles, and then conducted 1,611 personal interviews to test their hypoth-
eses. They summarize their findings as “reinforcing the predictive potential of
psychological variables when attempting to understand support or opposition
for wildlife management issues.” In contrast, inductive reasoning moves from
observation to theory. When Maan Barua (2014, p. 1463) went to rural north-
east India to investigate human-elephant relationships in the context of crop
raiding and house damage, he “initially sought to unpack the political drivers of
deforestation to investigate how asymmetric social relationships structured and
reproduced conflicts.” Yet in the course of research, he began to make observa-
tions about the role of alcohol in these relationships, as elephants are attracted
to sulaī, country spirits that many people distill locally. These observations led
Barua to develop insights about how alcohol contributes to the phenomenon
of human-elephant “conflict,” and further use these insights to contribute to
theorizing the role of non-human and non-animal materials in political and
ecological relationships.
Abduction means not taking a unidirectional approach, either from obser-
vation to theory or from theory to testing, but rather an approach that moves
back and forth between the two. Rosemary Collard’s (2013) dissertation pro-
vides an example. Initial observations of the wildlife trade on a trip to China
as a teenager led to research on the flows of live, wild-caught animals into
the US, and a project in which she specifically sought to shed light on US
demand-driven trade. Throughout the work, she discusses beginning with an
anti-speciesist position (theory), leading to a commitment to a set of research
questions and approaches (design and methodology), leading to data collec-
tion, and then to interpretation focused less on “testing” anti-speciesism per se
and more on understanding specific phenomena of the wildlife trade, such as
how live, wild-caught animals become commodities.Yet relating the process of
abduction to readers may be challenging in the publishing unit of a single paper
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 65
or book chapter. However, many researchers would likely identify the ways in
which they practice abduction on a regular basis.
At its core, practicing reflexivity means that researchers consider and com-
VetBooks.ir

municate how their “position can manifest in the research findings while still
yielding useful insights,” as Moon et al. (2016, p. 3) put it in their review and
assessment of qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conserva-
tion journals.Yet attention to reflexivity was reported in only seven of the 146
studies Moon et al. (2016, p. 17) reviewed in their evaluation of the quality of
qualitative research in conservation science, making it one of the most weakly
reported attributes. In my own published findings, I reported a form of triangu-
lation only in passing (Jampel, 2016, p. 86) but following what I perceived to be
conventions, did not report on reflexivity. The next section addresses that gap
in detail to address how researchers might practice reflexivity.

Situated and reflexive research in action

The previous three sections described the origins and overview of the study,
the social context, and some of the key concepts related to knowledge pro-
duction. This section provides further detail about execution in terms of both
fieldwork and interpretation, drawing on the initial write-up (Jampel, 2013) as
well as further reflections based on more recently available work. In qualitative
research, the researcher herself is an “instrument of research” (Brodsky, 2008).
Further, emotion, vulnerability, and positionality shape how geographers are
able to conduct their fieldwork (Caretta and Jokinen, 2017). It is hard for a
researcher to truthfully appraise herself, not for want of trying, and my best
guess is that my first graduate-level research experience was characterized by
some combination of delusion and hubris, on the one hand, and humility and
anxiety, on the other, all of which informed the study’s execution. Put simply,
data collection involved gathering as much information from residents as pos-
sible about two questions:Why do you have cattle, and what are the issues with
your cattle?

Sites
I chose three focus communities in the cantón (political sub-unit) experiencing
bear predation of cattle, based on a combination of practical and theoretical
considerations. On a practical note, I began my research in the community
where someone had helped me find a place to stay, in the former room of a
Peace Corps volunteer. Indeed, if I had to credit a single factor for being able
to collect data successfully, it would be the enthusiastically favorable views of
the Peace Corps volunteer who had recently completed his two years of ser-
vice in the region. My position as a gringa (white person, from the US) often
meant that people related to me first by comparing me with the Peace Corps
volunteer, greeting me with more warmth than suspicion, and also expressing
disappointment that I was not going to be conducting projects akin to those
 66  Catherine Jampel
of volunteers. Because the community was so small, I was new to social sci-
ence research, and there was little else to do, I conducted interviews in every
household except one. My learning there inspired me to seek additional per-
VetBooks.ir

spectives from other towns in the parish in order to check and challenge my
initial findings. I chose the other two communities for their practicality (I could
walk to one, and was able to find a place to stay in the other), because they all
had residents who had lost cattle to bears, and because together, the three com-
munities would represent the breadth of communities in the parish based on
number of households, range of wealth and poverty, and extent of livelihood
diversification. In addition, I interviewed residents in neighboring communities
when the opportunity arose.

Participants
Interview participants were recruited in three focus communities using a com-
bination of snowball sampling and going door-to-door. I sought a sample of
maximum variation with a range of people and experiences in terms of gender,
age, life stage, livelihood pursuits, and experiences with bears, which I did by
keeping a spreadsheet, talking to my host families, and quietly compiling an
informal census of each town. The anxiety that I would miss someone impor-
tant led me to ask others about any household I could not make contact with,
asking questions such as whether they had any pastures bordering the forest, or
why it was so hard to make contact.
In general, I approached people directly through an introduction or at home,
work, or on the road, and following introductions, requested to set up an
appointment. In some cases, people suggested that we conduct the interview
on the spot, which often had the added benefit of observing or participating
in livelihood activities. Participants always chose the location for the interview,
and almost all interviews were conducted either in people’s homes or yards,
with the exception of a few on walks, near playing fields, or in vehicles in tran-
sit. Interviews also became opportunities for observation, and I generally paid
attention to the specifics of the surroundings (Oberhauser, 1997, Elwood and
Martin, 2000). However, I also strived not to make assumptions about wealth
or poverty without hearing directly from people about how they perceived
their financial status. Interactions in homes also influenced power dynamics
in terms of norms of hospitality and reciprocity, and following the first week
I brought rolls or cookies to offer, given that many people served me warm
milk and sometimes lunch. Keeping in mind the critique of researchers who
treat a household as a single, homogenous unit, I also often interviewed more
than one member of a household and purposefully did not seek to interview
the “head of household.”
The dynamics surrounding interviewing, relationship-building, and getting
daily work done shaped the data I was able to collect. For example, I was sur-
prised to find that being a woman seemed to be useful and give me greater
access to both men and women than I anticipated. In a way, the gender I
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 67
“uncertainly performed,” as a curious woman happy to peel potatoes, gave me
access I had not expected. I also was surprised to find that my dependence on
the people in the communities where I lived and interviewed people made me
VetBooks.ir

appear nonthreatening, since gaining access to transportation in the area, which

involved informal routes and walks alone in the dark, put me in a position
of vulnerability. My experience echoed that of geographer Elizabeth Chacko
(2004, p. 60) in rural India, who explained that “tacit acknowledgment that vil-
lagers possessed superior knowledge in areas where I had little was of immense
help in breaking the ice and developing relationships with local people in the
field.” It also shaped what data I was not able to collect in ways that I cannot
even presume to understand fully.

Interview data
Semi-structured, open-ended interviews decentered the bear “problem.” The
interview protocol was developed with assistance from my faculty, peers, the
local biologist, and a long-time friend and Spanish teacher. Some elements of
language translation continue to create confusion in terms of data collection
and interpretation. For example, I had initially conceived of the study in Eng-
lish as about “threats” to livelihoods, bears being among them. Discussion with
my Spanish teacher led to choosing the word “riesgos,” or “risks,” in order to
better communicate my questions. However, as the word “risk” started to seep
into my writing, it opened up the question of the “risk literature” and “percep-
tions of risk,” which the study design had not incorporated as a dimension to
investigate or measure.
With the majority of the people I interviewed, I began by introducing myself
as a student researcher “living with host family X” and explained that I was
interested in agriculture (crops) and livestock, purposefully leaving the topic
open-ended. One woman excitedly exclaimed, “That’s great, because that
[agriculture and livestock] is my life here!” Often, I also explained that I was
working with a biologist seeking to understand changes in the forest, and that
my research was complementary. Almost all interviews began with family and
household structure, making a living, and how livelihood activities had changed
over time. From there, interviews turned to the rewards and challenges (threats,
risks) of a household’s livelihood pursuits. In the majority of interviews, when
asked about the challenges for raising cattle, people did not bring up bears as an
issue. Rather, the primary concerns people raised had to do with cattle-specific
issues related to their biology (not to the bears’ biology or ethology) such as
cold, infection, and risk of rolling and falling. Climate was also a concern, as it
had been with crops, and people named pneumonia as a persistent issue.
Except in the few cases in which an interviewee brought up the bears,
I raised the question of bear presence near the end of the interview. In only a
few instances, I shared my specific interest in the bear issue; for example, my
conservation-oriented contacts introduced me to my hosts in each of the three
communities, and on one occasion I persuaded an important informant to
 68  Catherine Jampel
speak with me by highlighting the connection to the bears. Yet once I raised
the question of the bears, the topic often stimulated more passionate discussion
than concerns about climate and cattle’s physical vulnerability, which I sus-
VetBooks.ir

pected was due to the combination of the novelty, the charisma of mega-fauna,
and frustration at a lack of government attention, the assumption being that the
government should take responsibility for the bears, given their designation as
a protected species. Overall, however, the relatively rare mention of bears indi-
cated that the perception of bears as a primary threat was concentrated among
a small subset of people with direct experience or particular allegiances or
personalities.
Although the interview data yielded material for a rich story about the cul-
tural logics of livestock, one of several major limitations of the study included
not having systematically collected data on certain phenomena relevant to the
wider issue, such as perceptions and knowledge of the Andean bear. My inter-
view data came from an interview protocol that included 14 questions organ-
ized by family profile, household livelihoods, challenges to livelihoods, and bears,
and interviews usually lasted 30–90 minutes. Contrast this with the data that
Zukowski and Ormsby (2016, p. 5) reported in their study in the same region, in
which they used a questionnaire with 27 questions “organized by general con-
servation themes, knowledge of the Andean Bear, the nearby Cayambe-Coca
National Park, cattle raising, and the recent bear depredation.” Most of their
interviews lasted 30–60 minutes. One of their primary aims was to compare “in
situ” and “ex situ” residents, meaning those living in the rural “affected” commu-
nities and those living in the equivalent of a county seat.The chief contribution
of their research was learning that although, as expected, most residents were
more in favor of protecting Andean bears in greater Ecuador than in their own
community, residents living “ex situ” – in an area without vulnerable cattle –
“responded three times more frequently in outright opposition to bear con-
servation than the rural communities” (Zukowski and Ormsby, 2016, p. 5).
The authors speculated that “informal communication,” “word-of-mouth,” and
“gossip” contributed to the strong reactions of people in town, contrary to their
hypothesis that those most affected by predation would be more opposed to
conservation. They also speculated that the even greater inexperience of peo-
ple in town with bears might lead to greater generalizations (“all bears” rather
than “problem bear”). I might offer another hypothesis, related to sampling. T   he
authors reported: “Participants were randomly selected from various commu-
nity gatherings and door-to-door canvassing. Interviews took place outdoors
or in the interviewees’ private residence, away from any observers who might
offer bias” (Zukowski and Ormsby, 2016, p. 4). Yet recruitment at community
events and door-to-door canvassing in rural communities of hundreds of people
is quite different than a town of several thousand, with many people from sur-
rounding communities circulating as well. It is possible that the sample in town
could be skewed due to the ease of recruiting participants who are already out
and about, charlando (chatting), or willing to open their doors, and who have
strong personalities and an eagerness to share their opinions.
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 69
Interview style
The benefit of hindsight suggests that one of my primary reasons for choos-
VetBooks.ir

ing the semi-structured, open-ended interview style is my own preference

for serendipity. Several years later I learned that one term that characterizes
my approach is that of “responsive interviewing as an extended conversation”
(Rubin and Rubin, 2012). In particular, one feminist research practice related
to situated knowledges and reflexivity – providing opportunities for the “gaze
to be returned” (Chacko, 2004, Sharp and Dowler, 2011) – led to the primary
insight from the study: the role of people’s commitment to the countryside. In
some cases, people began to ask me questions from the outset, about where
I was from, whether I had siblings, and where they were, and we entered into
a conversation about family structures and migration. In all cases, I provided an
opportunity for people to ask me questions as well, acknowledging that I had
been asking them a lot of questions.
Parents in their 60s asked me about my own moving away from home, and
wanted to talk about their children’s departure for the provincial capital, coun-
try capital, and especially Spain, and the changing nature of work in the coun-
tryside as the region depopulated. People in their 30s shared their stories of
leaving and returning to build a life of their choosing, and frequent questions
about my background highlighted how a strong sense of place and identity of
making a living on the land influenced their livelihood choices. One man in
his early 30s regularly asked me about technology, job opportunities, and potato
production and ranching in the US. His curiosity about agricultural practices in
the US and his regrets about his limited educational opportunities both threw
into relief the implicit power dynamics and inequality (we are about the same
age) and also highlighted one of the major themes that emerged with respect to
people’s commitments the countryside: It was a place where they could pursue
a livelihood that did not require an education or having a boss. He had traveled
to work in a flower plantation on the outskirts of an urban area and found the
work in freezer rooms and with pesticides intolerable. A number of young peo-
ple who returned to live where they had grown up also had worked for some
period in flower industry. Conversations with this person over time gave me a
sense of his life story, and how he and his extended family had come to be some
of the households most vulnerable to bear predation of their cattle. Not only
did they experience predation directly, but also, they had difficulty maintaining
a viable livelihood – and raising a few cattle to have milk for the family and as
a form of wealth storage was part of their livelihood of last resort.

Reflecting in action
During the course of fieldwork, I noticed what structured the days of the lives
of the people around me: milking cows. Unlike the farmers in Barua’s (2014)
study of human-elephant interactions in India, mentioned previously, who set
up crop-guarding shelters and preoccupied themselves with potential elephant
 70  Catherine Jampel
raids, the small-scale farmers and ranchers in Pimampiro did not preoccupy
themselves daily with the activities of Andean bears. Rather, daily preoccupa-
tions included the weather, the long walks of up to two hours each way to tend
VetBooks.ir

to cattle, children who were far away, and for children who were close, school
expenses. The research design and interview protocol, aimed at decentering
the bears and accompanied by purposeful immersion, led to learning about the
“everyday cultural practices of the subjects” and the eventual interpretation of
the dairy taskscape.

Telling the story of a taskscape

The published findings of this study are organized around anthropologist Tim
Ingold’s idea of the taskscape. The centrality of this concept to the Geoforum
paper reflects the situatedness of knowledge production. Multiple faculty mem-
bers in my doctoral program assigned anthropologist Arturo Escobar’s paper
“Culture Sits in Places” (2001), in which he briefly refers to Ingold’s work
(p. 152):

And as Ingold (1993) so perceptively has discussed, places can only have
boundaries in relation to the activities of the people (the “taskscapes”),
or animals, for whom they are recognized and experienced as such. Even
“natural boundaries” such as rivers and mountains follow this logic of con-
struction.That places are also constituted by capital and “the global” should
be clear by now.

This reference led me to read Ingold’s original paper, well after what I had
considered to be the “completion” of the study.
In his paper “The Temporality of the Landscape,” Ingold probes how a land-
scape is a living process: an “enduring record of – and testimony to – the lives
and works of past generations who have dwelt within it, and in so doing, have
left there something of themselves” (Ingold, 1993, p. 152). Ingold devotes much
of his paper to considering how to define landscape, which he then defines
as constituted by and through various processes, most importantly “dwelling
activities” or tasks that take place over time. Ingold’s conceptualization of task is
important for my purposes. He defines task as “any practical operation, carried
out by a skilled agent in an environment, as part of his or her normal business of
life.”  Tasks include all kinds of activities, whether or not they provide income,
such as preparing a field to be sown, or walking to visit a friend, or cooking
a meal. The task-scape, then, is “the entire ensemble of tasks, in their mutual
interlocking.” Any place inhabited by “skilled agents” – which we might argue
include human animals, non-human animals, and other agents – has a taskscape,
or an “array of related activities” (Ingold, 1993, p. 158). This array of related
activities contributes to the shaping of the landscape, an array of related fea-
tures – whether those features are primary forests and logging paths, secondary
forests and clearings, or pastures and fences and long horizons. The landscape
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 71
features are those that we see, the tasks in their “embodied form,” and the tasks,
for Ingold, are what we hear – the hum of activity. The landscape is the con-
gealed form of historical and contemporary dwelling activities.
VetBooks.ir

In the study area, the dwelling activities and landscape had changed signifi-
cantly over two decades, as residents turned from crop-based to cattle-based
livelihoods, transforming the landscape from one dominated by fields of pota-
toes, broad beans, barley, corn, and wheat, as well as peas, carrots, beans, parsnips,
red onions, and myriad other produce, to pastures for cattle. Residents turned
to raising cattle, primarily for dairy production, due to dairy’s reliable profits
and because it would allow them to remain in the countryside rather than
migrate to the city. The new pasture spaces and the cattle inhabiting those
spaces mediated relationships between humans and bears. The concept of the
taskscape allows for fully considering the history, political economy, culture, and
ecology of the region and how they continually shape each other to constitute
the landscape. It aids with understanding how both indigenous and mestizo
(mixed Spanish colonial and indigenous descent) people, many of whom came
to the area from large haciendas to make their own independent livings, devel-
oped place attachment and cattle attachment.

Findings and implications for large

carnivore conservation
The primary contribution of the taskscape as an analytical concept for research-
ers interested in human-wildlife conflict is that it provides an organizing princi-
ple for thinking about livelihood activities – which are often at the crux of such
conflicts – as both economic and cultural, and moreover both shaped by and
shaping place, place attachment, and interactions in the landscape. For some,
these interconnections may appear self-evident. However, it was useful for this
study in order to highlight the importance of those connections. Moreover, it
provided an opportunity to recognize the potential importance of the auditory
landscape as it relates to dwelling and livelihood activities as a contributing fac-
tor to human-bear conflict in the study area. People in the area turned from
tasks with loud and frequent human presence, such as hunting, timber extrac-
tion, and large mingas (collaborative workgroups) to sow and harvest, to leaving
bull calves in remote pastures for days. The features of the landscape included
recently recovering patches of forest where families used to live before migrat-
ing. Bears were able to approach cattle in pastures surrounded by these patches
in a now-quiet area without the kinds of human and mechanical sounds that
used to reverberate. The focus in this research were the dwelling patterns of
residents coming into conflict with bears, and that focus on cattle-based liveli-
hoods made the taskscape a more appropriate organizing principle for relating
the study’s findings than a focus on animal behavior, for example. This has spe-
cific implications for Andean bear conservation.
The primary drivers of Andean bears’ vulnerability to extinction are poach-
ing, habitat loss and fragmentation, and overall lack of knowledge about their
 72  Catherine Jampel
distribution and status (Goldstein et al., 2008). These phenomena are inter-
related and part of larger political-economic and cultural systems. Habitat loss
and fragmentation are fundamentally landscape and taskscape changes that in
VetBooks.ir

this case, have occurred on the agricultural frontier (la frontera agrícola), which is
both a conceptual term for the space where field or pasture meets forest, as well
as a contemporary legal boundary. For thousands of years, biogeophysical char-
acteristics and cultural activities, such as fire, burning, and grazing-and-burning,
influenced the tree line and agricultural frontier at high altitudes. More recently,
production pressures have pushed the agricultural frontier even farther up into
forested mountainsides (Sarmiento, 2002). Further, the combination of Ecua-
dor’s 1981 Forestry Law, the 1999 Environmental Law, and the 2004 Biodiver-
sity Law have enforced this boundary between field or pasture and forest. At
present, timber extraction is illegal in any place without prior permission and
always illegal beyond the agricultural frontier boundary. Hunting is also forbid-
den, and so human activity on the “other side” of the agricultural frontier has
diminished. These changing arrays of features (landscape), such as the density
and type of forest cover on the agricultural frontier, and changing array of
activities (taskscape), such as timber extraction and hunting, characterize the
everyday characteristics of changes in bear habitat.
Ingold’s emphasis on the taskscape being about not only what is seen but
also about what is heard highlights the types of insights that can be gained by
thinking about the ways in which different livelihood activities correspond
with different levels of human activity in a place, not only in a binary sense of
whether activity is or is not present. Some people expressed their thinking that
with less timber extraction and no hunting, the bears “aren’t scared,” especially
since people are making much less noise with chainsaws. One person said,
“Before, people were sawing [wood], but now they [the government] ask that
we don’t saw, and so the bears can comfortably come down here, because no
one is making noise.” Further, faraway pastures are where people had left their
bull calves, which in some cases they checked on only once or twice a week,
creating periods of many days without human noise. The use of the taskscape
as a conceptual framework emerged as a result of reading and reflection and
part of the knowledge production process in a specific social context. Yet in
turn the concept leads to further ways of thinking about deterrence strate-
gies for residents committed to reducing bear predation. For example, there
may exist reasonable potential for success for regular patrols of people making
noise, though of course this presents “hidden costs” for those making the patrols
(Barua et al., 2013).
The shift in the array of tasks came with a shift in the array of features on the
agricultural frontier, which now included pastures surrounded by regenerating
secondary forest. Some interviewees talked about how households had been
moving “down the mountain” and the prospect of “everything turning back
into forest.” During a walking interview with the man in his 30s mentioned in
the section on “Theoretical background and methodology,” sub-section “Inter-
view Style,” we visited an abandoned house that was located near a pasture
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 73
surrounded by secondary forest, and also was the site of a bear attack. The
family had moved almost two decades ago after the interviewee’s brother was
born, and in that time the area had been completely recolonized with trees.
VetBooks.ir

This “invisible” forest recovery may provide a comfortable place from which
bears can attack cattle and also a place for them to drag the carcasses. Such for-
est recovery could potentially be an explanation for why bears had become a
problem in the past few years and not in the past two decades, as another per-
son puzzled: “We bought our land thirty, twenty years ago. We had cattle. They
began to eat about two years ago. So it is not from working on the mountain [in
areas we have cleared].” Qualitative data points such as these offer further reason
for those studying forest transitions to take seriously how depopulation of an
area may increase contact with large carnivores for those remaining, in some
cases precipitating conflict (Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005, p. 253). Patches
of regenerating forest can have mixed rather than uniform results for the extent
of “secure” bear habitat (Gray and Bilsborrow, 2014; Hecht, 2014; Hecht et al.,
2015, Ohrens et al., 2016).
The combination of features (fields of corn, pastures of cattle) and liveli-
hood activities (planting crops, raising cattle) also intersected with govern-
ment enforcement of bear protection that increased parallel to livelihood shifts.
The fact that killing a bear carries a hefty fine affects how people perceive
the responsibility of the government. Two people interviewed speculated that
Andean bears had ventured into fields in the past and eaten crops, but that the
salience and significance of the damage did not provoke the same notice and
therefore outrage as cattle predation. Crops were also valuable, but these cases
occurred before the government had began protecting Andean bears, which led
to people perceiving the government as having assumed responsibility for them
and their activities (Castellanos et al., 2010). For example, two women joked,
personifying the bears, that “because now it is forbidden to kill the animals,
they come down because no one will bother them,” and it “seems like they are
coming because now they know they are protected, and no one will kill them.
Now that they know we won’t touch them, they come to eat!”
Drawing connections between livelihoods as dwelling activities or tasks and
a landscape where humans and carnivores come into conflict also highlights
the importance of thinking about not only the policies but also the scale of
governance in terms of carnivore conservation. The people in this study situ-
ated their place attachment and preference for rurality in the changing politi-
cal economic and climatic conditions of their lives: volatile prices for crops in
an unpredictable regional and national market; rural outmigration as younger
people moved to cities in Ecuador, to extractive areas, or abroad, following the
jobs; and changing, more unpredictable rainfall patterns. These trends link to
changes at multiple scales. For example, global climate change affects regional
rainfall patterns and national economic policy such as Ecuador’s “dollariza-
tion” in 2000 relate to global economic systems and affect farmers purchas-
ing imported inputs (Sherwood et al., 2005; McDowell and Hess, 2012). The
scale of the analysis to address the question of how raising cattle became an
 74  Catherine Jampel
important livelihood in the northern Ecuadorian Andes then begins to suggest
different scales of intervention. In my view, any educational program or newly
introduced policies and practices must account for the astute and accurate per-
VetBooks.ir

ceptions of people raising cattle and angry about bear predation: Many of the
forces responsible for the constraints in which they are pursuing viable liveli-
hoods are out of their control. Looking at those perceptions as they relate to
an entire world of threats to livelihoods situates the bear threat among others
and highlights the importance of considering people’s lives in their entirety
when designing programs to promote conservation. Again, I offer the example
of Zukowski and Ormsby’s (2016) paper on the same issue in the same region
as a point of contrast for differences in methodology as related to epistemolo-
gies (ideas about how we know what we know) and philosophical paradigms
(Moon et al., 2016). The lens of analysis for their paper leads to recommending
a long-term strategy that “should promote co-existence through education,
research, and a strategy to mitigate the financial costs to depredation victims”
(2016, p. 13). Even if stakeholders interested in carnivore conservation are
not prepared to take a radical stance – etymologically, meaning a stance that
addresses the root causes of the issues – recognizing and affirming the experi-
ences of people like the small-scale ranchers and their neighbors in this study
would likely contribute to successful interventions.

Conclusion
This chapter has described how research design and methodology informed
by feminist, qualitative, and interpretive approaches led to a particular set of
insights about the rise of cattle-based livelihoods in northern Ecuador and its
consequences for Andean bears and residents’ perceptions of them. The insight
that attachment to rural place is a key part of the story emerged from a research
design and interview protocol that aimed to decenter the bears as a specific
problem, open the aperture, and consider the wider social and cultural dynam-
ics contributing to human-bear relationships. Such an approach contributes to
Pooley et al.’s (2017) exhortation that those seeking to address “adverse human-
predator encounters” engage with cultural dynamics and underlying drivers of
“conflicts,” including the problem-framing itself.
Researchers seeking to work across disciplines will need to discuss ways of
understanding and communicating the conditions of knowledge production. In
this chapter, I have attempted to make transparent how I came to tell a particu-
lar story and what was gained and lost in such a telling. As Moon et al. (2016)
delineate, readers and reviewers can use four criteria to evaluate qualitative
research: dependability (how reliable is it?), credibility (is there internal valid-
ity?), confirmability (is “objectivity” accounted for?), and transferability (is there
external validity, and is it generalizable?). Although researchers often reported
on the first two, the authors found (p. 1) that they were “poorly evolved in
relation to critical aspects of qualitative social science such as methodology and
triangulation including reflexivity.” The authors also found that confirmability
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 75
and transferability were “poorly developed.” Moon et al. (2016) have made
clear that in terms of sound communication of qualitative research in the field,
much work remains, and my own reflection is that their checklists would have
VetBooks.ir

been useful to have when designing the project. This chapter sought to provide
relatable specifics of how researchers in the field might think about and practice
reflexivity and account for situated knowledges rather than idealized objectiv-
ity. Perhaps more importantly, this chapter sought to make the case that such an
approach can contribute specific and valuable types of knowledges about the
human dimensions of large carnivore conservation.

Notes
1 Acknowledgements and thanks again to Andrés Laguna, Carlos Racines, Luz Amores, and
Melissa Wright for their essential contributions to this project; to Alex Moulton, Alida
Cantor, and Roopa Krithivasan for their assistance with this piece; and to the Conference
of Latin American Geographers, the AAG Rural Geography Specialty Group, and the
Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, for their funding support.
2 Conservation biology has increasingly adopted an understanding of human-wildlife rela-
tions as relationships in an intra-connected system, rather than solely as conflict. Not only
can conflict language define a situation in an unnecessarily polarizing way, but it is also
often inaccurate, since the human-wildlife conflict label can conceal underlying dynamics
such as differences in values, priorities, and power among the people involved (Peterson
et al., 2010; Hill, 2015; Pooley et al., 2017).

References
Barua, M. (2014) ‘Volatile ecologies: Towards a material politics of human-animal relations’,
Environment and Planning A, vol 46, no 6, pp1462–1478.
Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A., and Jadhav, S. (2013) ‘The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife
conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs’, Biological Conservation, vol 157,
pp309–316.
Bassett, T. J. (1988) ‘The political ecology of peasant-herder conflicts in the northern Ivory
Coast’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol 78, no 3, pp453–472.
Brisbois, B. W., and Polo, P. P. (2017) ‘Attending to researcher positionality in geographic
fieldwork on health in Latin America: Lessons from La Costa Ecuatoriana’, Journal of Latin
American Geography, vol 16, no 1, pp194–201.
Brodsky, A. E. (2008) ‘Researcher as instrument’, in L. M. Given (ed) The SAGE Encyclopedia
of Qualitative Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bruskotter, J., and Shelby, L. (2010) ‘Human dimensions of large carnivore conservation and
management: Introduction to the special issue’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 15, no
5, pp311–314.
Caretta, M. A., and Jokinen, J. C. (2017) ‘Conflating privilege and vulnerability: A reflexive
analysis of emotions and positionality in postgraduate fieldwork’, The Professional Geogra-
pher, vol 69, no 2, pp275–283.
Castellanos, A., Cevallos, J., Laguna, A., Achig, L.,Viteri, P., and Molina, S. (eds) (2010) Estrate-
gia Nacional De Conservación Del Oso Andino (National Strategy for the Conservation of the
Andean Bear), Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (Ministry of Environment), Quito,
Ecuador.
 76  Catherine Jampel
Castellanos, A., Laguna, A., and Clifford, S. (2011) ‘Suggestions for mitigating cattle depreda-
tion and resulting human-bear conflicts in Ecuador’, International Bear News, vol 20, no 3,
pp16–18.
VetBooks.ir

Chacko, E. (2004) ‘Positionality and praxis: Fieldwork experiences in rural India’, Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, vol 25, no 1, pp51–63.
Chambers, R., and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st
century, Discussion Paper 296, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton.
Collard, R.-C. (2013) Animal traffic: Making, remaking, and unmaking commodities in the global
live wildlife trade, PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.
Elwood, S. A., and Martin, D. G. (2000) ‘ “Placing” interviews: Location and scales of power
in qualitative research’, The Professional Geographer, vol 52, no 4, pp649–657.
Escobar, A. (2001) ‘Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of
localization’, Political Geography, vol 20, no 2, pp139–174.
Figueroa Pizarro, J. (2015) ‘Interacciones humano-oso andino Tremarctos ornatus en el Perú:
consumo de cultivos y depredación de ganado’ (Human-Andean Bear Tremarctos Ornatus
Interaction in Peru: Consumption of Crops and Predation on Livestock), Therya, vol 6,
no 1, pp251–278.
Foley, D. E. (2002) ‘Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn’, International Journal of Qualita-
tive Studies in Education, vol 15, no 4, pp469–490.
Glikman, J., Bath, A., and Vaske, J. (2010) ‘Segmenting normative beliefs regarding wolf man-
agement in central Italy’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 15, no 5, pp347–358.
Goldman, M. (2007) ‘Tracking wildebeest, locating knowledge: Maasai and conservation
biology understandings of wildebeest behavior in Northern Tanzania’, Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, vol 25, no 2, pp307–331.
Goldman, M., Nadasdy, P., and Turner, M. (eds) (2011) Knowing Nature: Conversations at the
Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Goldman, M., Roque De Pinho, J., and Perry, J. (2010) ‘Maintaining complex relations with
large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya and Tanzania’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 15,
no 5, pp332–346.
Goldstein, I. R., Velez-Liendo, X., Paisley, S., and Garshelis, D. L. (2008) Tremarctos ornatus
(Andean Bear, Spectacled Bear), IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, www.iucnredlist.
org/apps/redlist/details/22066/0, accessed 15 January 2012.
Gray, C. L., and Bilsborrow, R. E. (2014) ‘Consequences of out-migration for land use in
rural Ecuador’, Land Use Policy, vol 36, pp182–191.
Hacking, I. (2000) The Social Construction of What?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated knowledges:The science question in feminism and the privilege
of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, vol 14, no 3, pp575–599.
Harding, S. (1986) The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Hecht, S.,Yang, A. L., Bimbika, S. B., Padoch, C., and Peluso, N. L. (2015) ‘People in motion,
forests in transition: Trends in migration, urbanization, and remittances and their effects
on tropical forests’, Occasional Paper 142, Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Hecht, S. B. (2014) ‘Forests lost and found in tropical Latin America: The woodland “green
revolution” ’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol 41, no 5, pp877–909.
Hill, C. M. (2015) ‘Perspectives of “conflict” at the wildlife-agriculture boundary: 10 years
on’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 20, no 4, pp296–301.
Huijsmans, R. (2014) ‘Becoming a young migrant or stayer seen through the lens of “house-
holding”: Households “in flux” and the intersection of relations of gender and seniority’,
Geoforum, vol 51, pp294–304.
 Situated, reflexive research in practice 77
Ingold, T. (1993) ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology, vol 25, no 2,
pp152–174.
Jampel, C. (2013) Cattle-Based Livelihoods and the Bear “Problem” in Northern Ecuador, MS the-
VetBooks.ir

sis, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Jampel, C. (2016) ‘Cattle-based livelihoods, changes in the taskscape, and human-bear con-
flict in the Ecuadorian Andes’, Geoforum, vol 69, pp84–93.
Kay, C. (2008) ‘Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization
period: A new rurality?’, Development and Change, vol 39, no 6, pp915–943.
Laguna, A. (2011) ‘Resultados preliminares del conflicto hombre-oso en el norte de Ecuador
(Preliminary results of the human-bear conflict in northern Ecuador)’, I Congreso Ecu-
atoriano de Mastozoologia (First Ecuadorian Mammalogy Conference), Quito, Ecuador.
McDowell, J. Z., and Hess, J. J. (2012) ‘Accessing adaptation: Multiple stressors on livelihoods
in the Bolivian highlands under a changing climate’, Global Environmental Change, vol 22,
no 2, pp342–352.
McDowell, L. (1992) ‘Doing gender: Feminism, feminists and research methods in human
geography’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol 17, no 4, pp399–416.
Moon, K., Brewer, T., Januchowski-Hartley, S., Adams,V., and Blackman, D. (2016) ‘A guide-
line to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals’,
Ecology and Society, vol 21, no 3.
Nadasdy, P. (2003) Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations in
the Southwest Yukon, UBC Press,Vancouver.
Naughton-Treves, L., and Treves, A. (2005) ‘Socio-ecological factors shaping local support
for wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa’, in R. Woodroffe, S.
Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz (eds) People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Oberhauser, A. M. (1997) ‘The home as “field”: Households and homework in rural Appa-
lachia’, in J. P. Jones, H. J. Nast, and S. M. Roberts (eds) Thresholds In Feminist Geography:
Difference, Methodology, Representation, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Ohrens, O., Treves, A., and Bonacic, C. (2016) ‘Relationship between rural depopulation and
puma-human conflict in the high Andes of Chile’, Environmental Conservation, vol 43, no
1, pp24–33.
Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., and Peterson, T. R. (2010)
‘Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict’, Conservation Letters, vol 3, no 2,
pp74–82.
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart,W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Mac-
donald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Zimmermann, A., and Milner-
Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to
improving human-predator relations: Improving human-predator relations’, Conservation
Biology, vol 31, no 3, pp513–523.
Rose, G. (1997) ‘Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics’, Progress in
Human Geography, vol 21, no 3, pp305–320.
Rubin, H. J., and Rubin, I. S. (2012) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, SAGE
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sarmiento, F. O. (2002) ‘Anthropogenic change in the landscapes of highland Ecuador’, Geo-
graphical Review, vol 92, no 2, pp213–234.
Scoones, I. (2009) ‘Livelihoods perspectives and rural development’, Journal of Peasant Studies,
vol 36, no 1, pp171–196.
Sharp, J., and Dowler, L. (2011) ‘Framing the field’, in V. J. D. Casino, Jr., M. E.Thomas, P. Cloke,
and R. Panelli (eds) A Companion to Social Geography, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
 78  Catherine Jampel
Sherwood, S., Cole, D., Crissman, C., and Paredes, M. (2005) ‘From pesticides to people:
Improving ecosystem health in the northern Andes’, in J. N. Pretty (ed) The Pesticide Detox:
Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture, Earthscan, London.
VetBooks.ir

Sundberg, J. (2003) ‘Masculinist epistemologies and the politics of fieldwork in Latin Ameri-
canist geography’, Professional Geographer, vol 55, no 2, pp180–190.
Sundberg, J. (2005) ‘Looking for the critical geographer, or why bodies and geographies
matter to the emergence of critical geographies of Latin America’, Geoforum, vol 36, no 1,
pp17–28.
Sundberg, J. (2017) ‘Feminist political ecology’, in D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Good-
child, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, and R. A. Marston (eds) International Encyclopedia of Geography:
People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, John Wiley and Sons, Oxford.
Wylie, A. (2003) ‘Why standpoint matters’, in R. Figueroa and S. Harding (eds) Science and
Other Cultures: Diversity in the Philosophy of Science and Technology, Routledge, New York.
Zukowski, B., and Ormsby, A. (2016) ‘Andean bear livestock depredation and community
perceptions in northern Ecuador’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 21, no 2, pp111–126.
 5 A methodology for
stakeholder analysis,
VetBooks.ir

consultation and
engagement in large
carnivore conservation
and management
Tasos Hovardas

Introduction
Interaction among stakeholders in large carnivore and conservation unfolds in
Europe under three major trends. First, population densities of species are sta-
bilizing or even increasing in some European countries (Chapron et al., 2014).
This development presents substantial challenges for rural communities, espe-
cially in areas recolonized by large carnivores, where people have not lived
with these species for decades. Second, there are several socio-cultural differ-
ences that augment stakeholder heterogeneity at the national (Gangaas et al.,
2015) and regional levels (Piédallu et al., 2016), which is mediated through
inter-group relations and social influence mechanisms (see, for instance, Hovar-
das, 2005, 2010a; Hovardas and Poirazidis, 2007; Hovardas et al., 2009; see also
Hovardas, in this volume). Third, stakeholder heterogeneity is often condensed
in two broad coalitions: a pro-carnivore coalition with social actors who would
endorse the comeback of large carnivores, and an anti-carnivore coalition who
would be much more reluctant to accept any increase in the abundance and
range distribution of large carnivore species (e.g., Parker and Feldpausch-Parker,
2013; Lute and Gore, 2014). This reluctance is frequently exemplified by rein-
troduction narratives voiced by actors in the anti-carnivore coalition, according
to which, some pro-carnivore actors are supposed to breed large carnivores and
release them in the wild (Hovardas, 2006; Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2012; see also
Hovardas, in this volume).
Interaction among stakeholder coalitions frequently eventuates to tension
and conflict (Lüchtrath and Schraml, 2015). Indeed, the need to consult and
engage stakeholders in wildlife and nature conservation and management
appears more urgent where conflict among them is most salient, which pre-
sents a major challenge for stakeholder analysis, consultation, and engagement.
Therefore, explicitly addressing this conflictual nature of stakeholder interaction
has been considered among the main objectives of stakeholder involvement
(Young et al., 2013). A series of processes have been developed for taking into
 80  Tasos Hovardas
account stakeholder input. For instance, stakeholder analysis has been for long
promoted as a procedure aiming at conflict resolution (Grimble and Wellard,
1997). However, it has been highlighted that effective stakeholder involvement
VetBooks.ir

would necessitate an iterative procedure, which would build on regular stake-

holder feedback (Reed et al., 2009), and which would need to foster ongoing
and constructive interaction among stakeholders (George and Reed, 2017).This
premise denotes that stakeholder involvement needs to extend well beyond the
level of stakeholder analysis (Fraser et al., 2006). It has been observed that stake-
holder involvement may itself end up in intensifying social conflict, if it is not
properly designed and implemented (Young et al., 2013).
Developing a common vision among stakeholders has been highlighted
as a prerequisite for large carnivore conservation and management (Burkardt
and Ponds, 2006). However, endorsing pluralism in environmental governance
models increases substantially the time frame needed for reaching agreement
(George and Reed, 2017). Further, stakeholder heterogeneity makes agreement
difficult, since common vision needs to be created out of the interaction of a
wide array of different stakeholder groups (e.g., Hovardas and Marsden, 2016,
2017). Participatory procedures attempt to resolve a paradox; namely, to facili-
tate common vision and agreement among stakeholders with apparently diver-
gent values and conflicting interests. Social fragmentation and heterogeneity
leads to a seemingly unsolvable problem: how to reach agreement among social
actors in disagreement and conflict? If such an agreement did not yet emerge
under standard social interaction and social processes that are to be expected
in society, overall, then what can stakeholder consultation and engagement add
or deliver? And last but not least, how to motivate stakeholders to get involved
when non-participation may appear more advantageous?
The need to involve stakeholders already from the early stage of defining
management goals has been well documented so that tension and conflict
would be dealt with (e.g., Young et al., 2005). However, this has not always
been the case (Jolibert and Wesselink, 2012). Previous research highlighted
that stakeholder involvement in wildlife and natural resource management
was primarily driven by an instrumental aim of providing legitimacy to deci-
sions that had already been taken, instead of building on normative (e.g.,
aiming at strengthening the democratic mandate) or substantive (e.g., aiming
at increasing the knowledge base available to reach better-informed deci-
sions) claims (Young et al., 2013).This predominance of instrumental motives
has often discouraged commitment of stakeholders in the process, while
it has not allowed for the establishment of trust among them. Alternative
approaches to stakeholder engagement lean toward mutual understanding
and two-way symmetrical communication among stakeholders (e.g., sym-
metrical face-to-face stakeholder interaction in workshops), in contrast to an
outdated asymmetrical communication model (e.g., one which involved tra-
ditional outreach methods, such as pamphlets, brochures, press releases, etc.)
that largely aimed at compliance with pre-determined management objec-
tives (see Reed et al., 2009).
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 81
The methodology proposed in the present chapter cannot be implemented
unless active participation of stakeholders is sought from the start and through-
out the process. It builds on human dimension actions, which were imple-
VetBooks.ir

mented within the frame of LIFE projects (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

life/) in Greek protected areas during the last decade, and which have focused
on large carnivores. The methodology covers three different stages, which need
to be seen as an integrated whole. Namely, stakeholder analysis (first stage) is
performed to lead to stakeholder consultation and engagement (second stage),
followed by monitoring stakeholder interaction, attitudes and behaviour (third
stage). Stakeholder analysis identifies stakeholder groups and delivers existing or
possible points of convergence or divergence among stakeholders.Their engage-
ment is sought right afterwards in pronouncing convergence and attempting to
downplay divergence. Stakeholders are invited to outline common objectives
and develop future scenarios for stakeholder interaction, in order to monitor
the allocation of their input in pursuing their shared goals. All these stages of
the methodology are detailed in the following sections. For each stage, overall
aim and rationale is presented. Next, methods are exhibited. Finally, previous
research is reported with examples to illustrate the perspectives to be taken.

Stakeholder analysis: the SWOT template

Overall aim and rationale

Stakeholder analysis focuses on stakeholder perceptions, current behaviour and
future behaviour intentions across a number of core topics that relate to large
carnivore conservation and management. Social science research methods to
be employed in this stage involve semi-structured interviews and focus groups.
Stakeholder analysis delivers a Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Analysis (SWOT Analysis) for each topic that will be addressed.This deliverable
will be used later as a starting point for stakeholder consultation and engage-
ment. Stakeholder analysis is necessary before stakeholder involvement so that
the potential of adopting good practice will be scanned across a number of
crucial issues for large carnivore conservation and management.
Topics to be addressed by stakeholder analysis in large carnivore conservation
and management include damage prevention methods, such as use of electric
fences or use of livestock guarding dogs. These topics reveal several instances
of in-group characteristics and inter-group relations which can prove quite
important. For instance, willingness to exchange dogs can be recorded among
stock breeders (in-group aspect), while willingness and readiness to offer vet-
erinary care to a stock breeder guarding dog network can be recorded among
veterinarians (inter-group aspect). In addition, sharing offspring and training
guarding dogs are crucial in preserving and deploying their ability to prevent
damage. Many stock breeders fail to keep up with good practice in both repro-
duction and training of dogs, which leads to fast degeneration of the gene
pool of the local population of guarding dogs and to unattended training that
 82  Tasos Hovardas
degrades the ability of dogs to prevent damage. Competitive behaviour among
stock breeders, moreover, often acts as a barrier to share cubs. Stakeholder anal-
ysis may determine the potential of attitude change among stock breeders. In
VetBooks.ir

the same vein, stakeholder analysis may investigate an array of topics, including
compensation schemes for damages caused by large carnivores, use of illegal
poisoned baits, waste management systems (e.g., adoption of alternative systems,
which would decrease waste exposure and access of bears to waste), willingness
to manufacture and pay for carnivore-friendly products, etc.

Methods
The adjusted SWOT template (Table 5.1) outlines in-group aspects such as atti-
tudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills, behaviour intentions, and behaviours, which pro-
mote agreement among stakeholders or foster good practice (i.e., “Strengths”);
other in-group aspects hinder convergence or discourage stakeholders from
adopting good practice (i.e.,“Weaknesses”).The template also reveals inter-group
aspects that either enable or hinder agreement and diffusion of good practice
(i.e.,“Opportunities” and “Threats”, respectively). Stakeholder analysis scaffolded
by means of the SWOT template sheds light on existing or potential conver-
gences and divergences among stakeholder groups, which will prove decisive for
stakeholder interaction during the next stages of stakeholder involvement.
The template is completed through semi-structured interviews for in-group
aspects and focus group discussions with members of stakeholder groups for
inter-group aspects. Through an initial screening procedure, members of tar-
geted stakeholder groups willing to be interviewed are shortlisted. Purposive
sampling results in the first semi-structured interviews and then the proce-
dure continues with snowball sampling until information is saturated; namely,
until new information added is not providing any novel insight. After interview
data have been collected and analyzed for determining in-group aspects, focus
groups follow, which will address inter-group aspects.
The SWOT template is an adapted version of the standard template employed to
perform a SWOT Analysis (e.g., Baycheva-Merger and Wolfslehner, 2016). Instead
of focusing on aspects within an organization and aspects of the environment of
an organization, which is the norm in the standard form of SWOT Analysis, the
adjusted SWOT template for stakeholder analysis depicts stakeholder groups in
columns. Rows present in-group (“Strengths”; “Weaknesses”) and inter-group
aspects (“Opportunities”; “Threats”). Stakeholder synthesis in Table 5.1 pertains
to a case study of bear (Ursus arctos) conservation in three Natura 2000 sites in
Central Greece. Other case studies have a more or less differentiated stakeholder
synthesis. However, the rows of the SWOT template remain the same.

Previous research
In the first column of the SWOT template for bear conservation presented in
Table 5.1 (Hovardas, 2010b), stock breeders acknowledged the effectiveness of
 VetBooks.ir

Table 5.1 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) template for bear conservation and management

Stock Breeders Hunters Foresters Environmental

non-governmental
organizations (eNGOs)

Strengths Damage prevention Build on scientific Valuable experience Able to facilitate inter-
(In-group aspects that methods are knowledge and data gained through contextual transfer of
promote agreement or acknowledged as effective collection protocols working in the local good practice in bear
good practice) context conservation
Weaknesses There is yet no valid way Any damage to hunting There are several barriers Objectives and
(In-group aspects that of certifying livestock dogs is a significant loss to be overcome in demands might
hinder agreement or guarding dogs for hunters order to fulfil the not be adequately
good practice) mission of the Forest tailored to the local
Service adequately context
Opportunities (Inter- A minimum of damage to Wish to be involved in Institution responsible Strongly support
group aspects that livestock can be accepted, wildlife and nature by the law for bear the improvement
promote agreement or provided that it is conservation initiatives conservation of damage
good practice) compensated compensation
systems
Threats Some do not apply for Conflict with stock There are several Negative attitudes
(Inter-group aspects that compensation because breeders may escalate difficulties in engaging towards eNGOs still
hinder agreement or they believe they and result in illegal use in wildlife and nature prevail within other
good practice) would not be fairly of poisoned baits conservation networks stakeholder groups
compensated
Source: Hovardas (2010b) reporting on data collected in three Natura 2000 sites in Central Greece (Aspropotamos – GR1440001; Kerketio Oros-Koziakas – GR1440002;
Antichasia Ori – Meteora – GR1440003)
 84  Tasos Hovardas
damage prevention methods, especially electric fences.This in-group aspect has
proven decisive in achieving convergence among stakeholders and adopting
good practice, and therefore, it has been incorporated under “Strengths” in the
VetBooks.ir

column devoted to stock breeders. Although livestock guarding dogs would

also qualify among damage prevention methods, the lack of any valid way of
certifying guarding dogs in Greece was underlined as an important weakness
(Table 5.1; “Weaknesses” for stock breeders). Stock breeders would accept
damage caused by the bear up to a threshold, provided that this damage was
compensated (Table 5.1; “Opportunities” for stock breeders). Such an accept-
ance would demarcate a possible field of convergence between stock breeders
and environmental non-governmental organizations. However, there are many
stock breeders who refrain from recording damages they suffer, because they
believe they will never get any fair compensation (Table 5.1; “Threats” for stock
breeders).This aspect has been noted as a point of tension between stock breed-
ers and environmental non-governmental organizations. In an analogous man-
ner, one can follow “Strengths”, “Weaknesses”, “Opportunities” and “Threats”
for all other stakeholder groups in Table 5.1.

Stakeholder consultation and engagement: the

mixed-motive template

Overall aim and rationale

The main points of convergence and divergence among stakeholders were
reflected in the SWOT template of the previous section. In the next stage
of the methodology, stakeholder consultation and interaction builds on these
points in order to elaborate on “Strengths” and “Opportunities” (in-group and
inter-group aspects, respectively) and address “Weaknesses” and “Threats” (in-
group and inter-group aspects, respectively). The main aim at this stage is to
foster a structured interaction and negotiation among stakeholders by taking
into account both benefits and costs associated with alternative solutions.

Methods
The deliverable of this stage of the methodology is the completed template
of the “mixed-motive” perspective, an example of which is presented in
Table 5.2.The mixed-motive perspective offers an alternative trajectory to win-
win approaches, in that it explicitly addresses both gains and losses related to
alternative solutions for stakeholders. Although the mixed-motive approach still
envisages gain solutions for all engaged actors, it acknowledges that there will
always be a distributive aspect referring to costs that also need to be discussed
and settled (Hovardas, 2012a). In Table 5.2, stakeholders have been aggregated
in two coalitions with different positioning concerning large carnivore conser-
vation and management. The positioning of each coalition has been processed
to include the main common views of stakeholder groups in each side of the
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 85
Table 5.2 Template of the mixed-motive perspective for large carnivore conservation and
management
VetBooks.ir

Stakeholders who are reluctant to Stakeholders who endorse the comeback

endorse large carnivore expansion of large carnivores

Anticipated gains There are ecotourism Better and fairer compensation

or benefits opportunities related to systems for damage caused by
large carnivores, which may large carnivores would promote
diversify the tourism product human-carnivore coexistence and
assist in keeping damages below
the tolerance level
Anticipated costs There can be a tolerance • “Problem” animals should be
or losses threshold, under which removed if they continue causing
damage caused by large damage that overrides a tolerance
carnivores to livestock may threshold
be tolerated and provided • Carrying capacity of the park for
that this damage is fairly nature tourism and ecotourism
compensated has been already approached in
some places
Source: Hovardas (2015a) reporting on data collected in the Rodopi Mountain-Range National Park

controversy, and it exemplifies how perceived benefits and costs can be allo-
cated among stakeholders. The template of the mixed-motive perspective can
be completed during workshops with input from working groups with mem-
bers of all stakeholders and it can be further supported by quantitative evidence
provided by questionnaires administered to stakeholder members.
Each topic identified previously by stakeholder analysis can be incorporated
in the stage of stakeholder consultation and engagement. Stakeholder consul-
tation and interaction can unfold in workshops, which will outline the most
crucial points for consideration, and which will result in a road map for stake-
holder concerted action. Stakeholder representatives and spokespersons will
be invited to workshops. The number of participants would be high enough
to address dropouts and secure an adequate representation of all stakeholder
groups. Each workshop needs to be coordinated by a facilitator accepted by all
stakeholders. During workshops, the focus of stakeholder interaction needs to
be on adjusting good practice to fit demands at the local level. The formation
of working groups with members of all stakeholders catalyzes stakeholder com-
munication.Working groups will build on the SWOT template, delivered at the
previous stage, and concentrate on fostering “Strengths”, addressing “Weak-
nesses”, exemplifying “Opportunities”, and mitigating “Threats”. The sugges-
tions of working groups can be used as input in a round table discussion for
determining commonalities. Taking over from these common aspects of work-
ing groups, agreement among stakeholders may be formalized. Minutes taken
during workshops can be used to develop a questionnaire to be administered
to stakeholder populations, in order to reach out to wider stakeholder audi-
ences and offer quantitative evidence for adopting good practice. After having
 86  Tasos Hovardas
received quantitative feedback from stakeholder groups, advisory groups are
established for each topic of concern. These advisory groups should represent
the full array of stakeholder interests and they can take over the responsibil-
VetBooks.ir

ity of finalizing approaches to be followed later on (see participatory scenario

development in the next stage).

Previous research
Sustainability discourse has often built on an uncritical belief in desirable win-
win solutions (e.g., Galuppo et al., 2014). However, win-win conceptualiza-
tions of stakeholder interaction fall short of addressing the costs that are linked
to any alternative. By undermining or even concealing costs, conflict is tem-
pered in the short-term only to re-surface in the mid- and long-term (e.g.,
McShane et al., 2011). Contrary to this disadvantage of win-win conceptualiza-
tions, stakeholder inclusion needs to acknowledge trade-offs and strive toward
negotiated comprises (Sunderland et al., 2008). An alternative conceptualiza-
tion of stakeholder involvement is supported by the notion of distributive jus-
tice, which implies the fair allocation of both benefits and burdens among
affected actors (Pelletier, 2010). As solutions to large carnivore conservation
and management require the balancing of interests among a complex array of
participants, and because this can only be achieved through stakeholder interac-
tion and negotiations inevitably associated with both costs and benefits, there is
a need or a theoretical and empirical alternative to win-win perspectives, which
would address trade-offs as necessary for reaching and respecting agreement
among stakeholder groups.
In this direction, stakeholder engagement is promoted by a “mixed-motive”
perspective, which diverges from win-win approaches in that it concentrates on
both benefits and costs that accompany any given alternative to be taken (Hoff-
man et al., 1999; Hovardas, 2012a). An example of the mixed-motive perspec-
tive is shown in Table 5.2, which reports on a Greek case study in a protected
area with wolf and bear populations (Hovardas, 2015a).The mixed-motive per-
spective showcases the discursive positioning of stakeholders in two main coali-
tions of actors: those who endorse the increase of large carnivores in number
and distribution, and those who are reluctant to do so. Stakeholder groups in
each coalition elaborate on contrasting lines of argumentation and they present
the trade-offs for current or anticipated developments. It should be underlined
that the mixed-motive perspective is markedly mediated by the local context.
Although many aspects of Table 5.2 can be found in other case studies, each
different location would come along with its peculiar features.
The diversification of the tourism product in the area, through the promo-
tion of ecotourism opportunities related to large carnivores, was a core ben-
efit expected by stakeholders who were reluctant to endorse large carnivore
expansion (Table 5.2). Stakeholders in this coalition were willing to discuss and
accept a tolerance threshold for damage caused to livestock by large carnivores,
provided that this damage was fairly compensated.The coalition of stakeholders
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 87
who endorsed the comeback of large carnivores argued that better and fairer
compensation systems for damage caused by large carnivores would add to
human-carnivore coexistence. Such an improvement would assist in keeping
VetBooks.ir

damages below the tolerance level demarcated by the other stakeholder coali-
tion. Removal of “problem” animals would be the cost the pro-carnivore coa-
lition should be ready to accept, if damage caused by large carnivores would
override the tolerance threshold. In addition, this coalition expressed concern
with regard to carrying capacity of the park for nature tourism and ecotourism,
which had been already approached in some places.
Table 5.2 showcases how stakeholder interaction under the mixed-motive
perspective can promote discursive positioning of engaged actors in a structured
negotiation process. A proposal put forward by a coalition of actors may be taken
up by the other coalition (e.g., ecotourism development with an emphasis on
large carnivores), but this would give rise to new concerns (e.g., carrying capac-
ity levels). Current or future costs and benefits are closely related and negotiated
(e.g., removal of  “problem” animals, if the tolerance threshold for damage caused
by large carnivores would be overridden). Overall, the mixed-motive perspective
creates the background conditions for stakeholders to proceed to a collabora-
tively defined set of objectives for concerted action. Furthermore, it delineates a
common frame for building trust among stakeholder groups and a reference base
for their commitment to pursue the goals set jointly. After having agreed on such
a mixed-motive perspective, stakeholders are expected to be more determined to
work collaboratively and attempt co-creation and innovation.

Monitoring stakeholder interaction: participatory

scenario development

Overall aim and rationale

In this last stage of the methodology, stakeholders co-design scenarios to moni-
tor their future interactions. Scenarios will guide stakeholders in the allocation
of input and resources, and alert them to take corrective action, any time it is
needed. This can be supported by the ongoing operation of advisory groups.
Additionally, the scenarios co-designed and implemented by stakeholders and
monitored by advisory groups will support adopting good practice and anchor-
ing it at the local level. A major aspect that should be highlighted is that partici-
patory scenario development is expected to empower local stakeholders. This
empowerment dimension provides valuable insight for the long-term sustain-
ability of relevant implementations, since stakeholders will have the knowledge
and expertise to jointly set goals, plan and monitor their interaction.

Methods
The core method to be employed in this stage is participatory scenario devel-
opment. Scenarios often take the form of storylines of future developments,
 88  Tasos Hovardas
which are outlined as reasonable projections of current conditions under cer-
tain drivers (Haatanen et al., 2014). Since scenarios are frequently used to plan
for an uncertain future (Peterson et al., 2003), their primary aim is not to
VetBooks.ir

deliver an indisputable forecast, but rather to coordinate present collaboration

among stakeholders and assist them in effectively allocating resources to accom-
plish common objectives (Kok et al., 2007). Different scenarios can be prepared
under varying inputs (Varum and Melo, 2010), and this exemplifies the poten-
tial trajectories of stakeholder collaborations in time. When created through a
participatory procedure, scenarios comprise a collective resource, which may
commit stakeholders in joint action (Newig, 2011). Such a commitment will
demarcate a willingness of stakeholders to move away from baseline conditions
and work together to facilitate this departure.
Scenarios will guide the monitoring of stakeholder concerted action and
its effects. Using workshop reports, questionnaire data and the minutes of the
first meetings of advisory groups established during stakeholder consultation
and engagement, scenarios for adopting good practice can be co-designed by
stakeholders. A “business-as-usual” scenario will describe current or anticipated
perceptions and behaviour of stakeholders, when the latter would not present
any significant departure from current conditions. A “small-effort” scenario will
correspond to small-scale adoption of good practice, but it will, nevertheless,
demarcate a departure from the “business-as-usual” trajectory. A “best-case”
scenario will denote substantial involvement and commitment of stakeholders,
as well as substantial change towards adopting good practice. Through the par-
ticipatory scenario development procedure, scenarios are expected to realisti-
cally reflect the full potential to be exploited for adopting good practice.
Surveys on stakeholder perceptions and behaviour can also be conducted as
a follow-up of stakeholder consultation and engagement. The partial overlap
of instruments used in the second (stakeholder consultation and engagement)
and third (monitoring stakeholder interaction) stages of the methodology will
allow for an assessment of the impact of stakeholder involvement. Advisory
groups will meet regularly and irregularly anytime needed to discuss adoption
of good practice and updates in all topical foci of stakeholder interaction. The
ongoing operation of advisory groups is expected to shed light on any expected
or unforeseen difficulties in adopting good practice or any issues to be tackled
at the local level to re-focus stakeholders and adjust good practice to fit local
needs and desires. Advisory groups may revise scenarios if this will be necessary
and they will use these scenarios to track stakeholder adoption of good practice
in time.

Previous research
Table 5.3 presents an example of the template for participatory scenario devel-
opment, which focuses on promoting livestock guarding dogs as a damage
prevention method (Hovardas, 2012b). The template delineates three different
scenarios for each topic of concern (“business-as-usual” scenario; “small-effort”
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 89
Table 5.3  Participatory scenario development template for promoting livestock guarding dogs

Topics “Business-as-usual” “Small-effort” scenario “Best-case” scenario

VetBooks.ir

scenario

Certification of There has been Phenotypic A certification centre

livestock guarding no formalized characteristics will will be established
dogs certification process be determined by a consortium of
to ensure the stakeholders
preservation of
guarding dog
characteristics
Breeding of livestock There has been no Good practice in A breeding centre
guarding dogs concerted action breeding will be will be established
to promote good promoted by a stock by a consortium of
practice in breeding breeder network stakeholders
of livestock for exchanging
guarding dogs livestock guarding
dogs
Development of Many stock breeders A trusted third Stock breeder
a network for would be rather party (e.g., an associations will
exchanging reluctant to environmental take over and
livestock guarding exchange livestock non-governmental maintain the stock
dogs guarding dogs organization) will breeder network
initiate the network for exchanging
livestock guarding
dogs
Source: Hovardas (2012b)

scenario; “best-case” scenario; stakeholder input increases from “business-as-

usual” towards “best-case”). The topics handled involved certification and
breeding of livestock guarding dogs, as well as development of a network for
exchanging livestock guarding dogs. The topics were chosen and elaborated
upon so that concerted action among stakeholders can be initiated and sup-
ported by stock breeder associations, environmental non-governmental organi-
zations, academia, veterinarians and local authorities.
An interesting aspect that featured in the third topic shown in Table 5.3
(third row; development of a network for exchanging livestock guarding dogs)
was in-group conflict among stock breeders (Hovardas, 2012b). Namely, it was
highlighted that a good guarding dog is taken to be the one that was able to
hunt down and kill a dog from another stock breeder. In a series of instances,
analogous accounts were not only voiced by stock breeders themselves, but they
were cross-referenced by members of other stakeholder groups; for instance,
gamekeepers or hunters. Moreover, many stock breeders would not be willing
to exchange puppies among each other. The main reason behind this attitude
was a latent competition between stock breeders, a kind of rivalry over being
the one to have the best dogs in the area. Such a disposition indicates a way
of guaranteeing the protection of one’s own livestock against any potential
 90  Tasos Hovardas
damage from large carnivores. However, stock breeders in focus group discus-
sions admitted that this positioning did not allow for the increase of good
guarding dogs in the region, and it also proved deleterious for stock breeders
VetBooks.ir

as a whole, confining them in a type of “prisoner’s dilemma”. If only some

stock breeders had good guarding dogs, then there would still be consider-
able damage from large carnivores. But if all stock breeders had good livestock
guarding dogs, then overall damage would decrease substantially. This case was
exemplary in showcasing how good practice may be hindered in-group rather
than inter-group conflict. For this reason, a trusted third party (e.g., environ-
mental non-governmental organization) can initiate the stock breeder network
for exchanging livestock guarding dogs until stock breeders themselves take
over the network. The case study was also indicative of the deep roots of con-
servation controversies, which involved complex socio-cultural aspects of the
local context.

Implications for large carnivore conservation

and management
In-group relations and inter-group dynamics among stakeholder groups shape
the ground on which any conflict between humans and large carnivores will
emerge. Damages caused by large carnivores are often the triggering effect
behind tension, but they are not always the real cause. Recent research revealed
how these types of conflicts may question social identities (Lüchtrath and
Schraml, 2015). In the same direction, it seems that stakeholder interaction
is frequently more crucial than species density or distribution in determin-
ing stakeholder attitudes towards large carnivore species (Gangaas et al., 2013).
Therefore, there have been several recent calls for a concerted place-based policy,
which is necessary at the local level for conflict resolution (e.g., Pohja-Mykrä
and Kurki, 2014). This involves multiple vehicles of stakeholder deliberation,
such as regional large carnivore committees (Pellikka and Sandström, 2011) or
regional wildlife management delegations (Lundmark and Matti, 2015). These
structures facilitate trust and informed decision making based on pluralistic
perspectives (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). The proposed methodology can
complement analogous initiatives.
Any initiative to involve stakeholders will unfold in parallel with ongoing
stakeholder interaction in society at various scales (e.g., local, regional, national
and international). Further,  stakeholder consultation and engagement is expected
to augment stakeholder interaction and have a marked effect on in-group and
inter-group aspects. Due to the dynamic and persistent nature of stakeholder
interaction, stakeholder consultation and engagement is anticipated to produce
multiple feedback effects, which can be reflected on in-group aspects – such
as social representations of stakeholder groups on wildlife and natural resource
management (e.g., Hovardas and Stamou, 2006; Buijs et al., 2012) – as well as
on inter-group aspects, such as inter-group relations and discursive positioning
(e.g., Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2012; Hovardas, 2017; see also Hovardas, in this
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 91
volume). A crucial question for the effectiveness of stakeholder consultation and
engagement methodologies is if stakeholder involvement just fuels pre-existing
reasoning and behaviour or if it leads to substantial change of in-group or inter-
VetBooks.ir

group elements. Therefore, monitoring how stakeholder involvement will act

on in-group and inter-group aspects and how these outcomes will act back on
stakeholder interaction should be of primary importance.
Another demanding task added to stakeholder consultation and engagement
is transferability of good practice across contexts. Since context-dependency
is crucial for any attempt at engaging stakeholders (Durham et al., 2014, p. 10),
and if stakeholder involvement is needed to adopt good practice, then good
practice cannot be effectively transferred from one context to another unless
it is anchored to the local context. This means that any solutions to be imple-
mented by stakeholders need to be first adjusted to the local context – and this
presupposes that stakeholders will not just implement good practice gained
elsewhere, but that they would need to anchor good practice on local circum-
stances and develop a sense of ownership of the process (e.g., Durham et al.,
2014).
The methodology outlined in this chapter can also facilitate the empower-
ment of stakeholders to adopt the process itself. In the frame of the proposed
methodology, empowerment refers to all engaged actors and there is no divide
between “knowers” and “not-knowers”.The fact that no stakeholder may claim
to know “best”, however, does not lead to a relativist regression that “anything
goes”. First, there are some points where all stakeholder groups can converge;
for instance, on banning the illegal use of poisoned baits, and on endorsing
the effectiveness of damage prevention methods, such as livestock guarding
dogs and electric fences (Hovardas, 2015b). Second, commitment to the mixed-
motive perspective would be the result of stakeholder consultation and engage-
ment, which would build on stakeholder analysis, and which would set the stage
for monitoring stakeholder interaction. An implication here is that stakeholder
interaction may be directed towards a “small-effort” scenario across a series
of topics. Indeed, that has been the case in some implementations (Hovardas,
2015c). Even such a development, however, would signify a departure from the
“business-as-usual” scenario and it would present a noteworthy improvement
over previous norms and practices. Moreover, going through “small-effort”
scenarios is the most usual route towards a comprehensive adoption of good
practice. In several examples, the first few outcomes of stakeholder interaction
stimulate further investment in the process.
The methodology involved a series of templates (e.g., SWOT template,
mixed-motive template, template for participatory scenario development),
which would be elaborated upon through stakeholder interaction and which
would be employed in later stages of stakeholder interaction as a reference base.
In this way, engagement reinforces commitment to the process, since stake-
holder involvement is inscribed in the outcome of the procedure.The proposed
methodology integrates stakeholder interaction within a culture of continu-
ous social experimentation. Any decisions will necessarily have a temporary
 92  Tasos Hovardas
character, being subject to scrutiny and critical reappraisal. Within this frame,
stakeholder deliberation has to be conceptualized as a process that will remain
always incomplete and under the need of regular revision (e.g., Buizer and
VetBooks.ir

Van Herzele, 2012). The main drivers of the proposed approach include
(1) the acknowledgment of the open and experimental character of stakeholder
interaction, which supports social sustainability; (2) the acknowledgment of the
need to assess and re-schedule planning for large carnivore conservation and
management under the light of novel data and developments; and (3) orienta-
tion of stakeholder interaction towards concrete outcomes, since assessment
and revision would be a crucial premise of the proposed approach.
Stakeholder interaction under the mixed-motive perspective should be con-
ceptualized as a co-creation process among stakeholders, and it is expected to
unfold within a culture of social learning (e.g., Durham et al., 2014, p. 10).
To facilitate this objective, however, stakeholder consultation and engagement
should enable the accomplishment of another demanding and twofold goal: It
should be as open as possible to allow for social learning and stakeholder inter-
action to be reflected on stakeholder concerted action; and at the same time, it
should provide a thorough guidance for that same concerted action. These two
different needs are often viewed as contradictory, or too difficult to reconcile
within one and the same approach. The methodology proposed in this chap-
ter includes three stages in a modular sequence and uses templates to scaffold
stakeholder interaction. In that regard, it provides guidance (adds structure to
stakeholder interaction) without dictating the content or course of action to be
taken, which is left to be decided upon by stakeholders themselves. The tem-
plates provide key intermediate steps to be effectively accomplished, and will
also allow for monitoring the progress of stakeholder interaction.
The methodology has a constructive character in that stakeholder interac-
tion produces novel outcomes, which are marked by the procedure followed
by stakeholders. In that regard, the current contribution wishes to build on
a process-oriented approach to social sustainability (Boström, 2012). Moving
towards such an approach features as a core assumption for fair and accountable
decision-making (e.g., Reed et al., 2009; George and Reed, 2017). Moreo-
ver, the constructive element of the methodology reflects a special instance of
social learning (e.g., Keen et al., 2005; Newig, 2011), where the transforma-
tive effect on stakeholders is among the most characteristic features (Collins,
2014). Indeed, recognition and empowerment of stakeholders have been both
presented among the primary aims of the normative approach to stakeholder
engagement (Reed et al., 2009). Recognition of multiple perspectives is a
requirement for reaching an equitable distribution of social and economic ben-
efits (e.g., Schlosberg, 2007). In addition, empowerment and capacity building
through collaborative learning would allow stakeholders to effectively mobilize
future assets in order to achieve their shared goals (Diduck et al., 2015). The
social outcomes of stakeholder involvement, such as accountability and trust,
may be more appreciated than the actually targeted outcomes in large carnivore
conservation and management.
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 93
References
Baycheva-Merger, T., and Wolfslehner, B. (2016) ‘Evaluating the implementation of the Pan-
VetBooks.ir

European Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management – A SWOT analysis’,
Ecological Indicators, vol 60, pp1192–1199.
Boström, M. (2012) ‘A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustain-
ability: Introduction to the special issue’, Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, vol 8, no
1, pp3–14.
Buijs, A., Hovardas, T., Figari, H., Castro, P., Devine-Wright, P., Fischer, A., Mouro, C., and
Selge, S. (2012) ‘Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management: Research
on social representations of nature’, Society & Natural Resources, vol 25, no 11, pp1167–1181.
Buizer, M., and Van Herzele, A. (2012) ‘Combining deliberative governance theory and
discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated
plans’, Forest Policy and Economics, vol 16, pp93–101.
Burkardt, N., and Ponds, P. D. (2006) ‘Using role analysis to plan for stakeholder involvement:
A Wyoming case study’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 34, no 5, pp306–1313.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., et al. (2014) ‘Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, no 6216, pp1517–1519.
Collins, K. (2014) ‘Designing social learning systems for integrating social sciences into
policy processes: Some experiences of water managing’, in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, A.
Rechkemmer, and E. A. Duke (eds) Understanding Society & Natural Resources (pp. 229–
251), Springer, Dordrecht.
Diduck, A., Reed, M. G., and George, C. (2015) ‘Participation in environment and resource
management’, in B. Mitchell (ed) Resource and Environmental Management in Canada (5th
ed., pp. 142–170), Oxford University Press, Don Mills.
Durham, E., Baker, H., Smith, M., Moore, E., and Morgan,V. (2014) The BiodivERsA Stake-
holder Engagement Handbook, BiodivERsA, Paris.
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W., Reed, M. S., and McAlpine, P. (2006) ‘Bottom up
and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification
as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management’,
Journal of Environmental Management, vol 78, no 2, pp114–127.
Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G., and Kaneklin, C. (2014) ‘Building social sustainability:
Multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management’, Social Responsibility Journal, vol 10,
no 4, pp685–701.
Gangaas, K. E., Kaltenborn, B. P., and Andreassen, H. P. (2013) ‘Geo-spatial aspects of accept-
ance of illegal hunting of large carnivores in Scandinavia’, PloS One, vol 8, no 7, pp1–9.
Gangaas, K. E., Kaltenborn, B. P., and Andreassen, H. P. (2015) ‘Environmental attitudes asso-
ciated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts’, Environmen-
tal Conservation, vol 42, no 1, pp41–50.
George, C., and Reed, M. G. (2017) ‘Revealing inadvertent elitism in stakeholder models
of environmental governance: Assessing procedural justice in sustainability organizations’,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol 60, no 1, pp158–177.
Grimble, R., and Wellard, K. (1997) ‘Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource manage-
ment: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities’, Agricultural Systems,
vol 55, no 2, pp173–193.
Haatanen, A., den Herder, M., Leskinen, P., Lindner, M., Kurttila, M., and Salminen, O.
(2014) ‘Stakeholder engagement in scenario development process – Bioenergy produc-
tion and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland’, Journal of Environmental Management,
vol 135, pp45–53.
 94  Tasos Hovardas
Hoffman, A. J., Gillespie, J. J., Moore, D. A., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Thompson, L. L., and Baz-
erman, M. H. (1999) ‘A mixed-motive perspective on the economics versus environment
debate’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol 42, no 8, pp1254–1276.
VetBooks.ir

Hovardas, T. (2005) Social Representations on Ecotourism: Scheduling Interventions in Protected

Areas, PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Hovardas, T. (2006) Baseline study for the production of a school education kit on the wolf, LIFE
COEX – improving coexistence of large carnivores and agriculture in Southern
Europe – LIFE04NAT/IT/000144.
Hovardas, T. (2010a) ‘The contribution of social science research to the management of the
Dadia Forest Reserve: Nature’s face in society’s mirror’, in C. Catsadorakis and Kälander
(eds) The Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, Greece: Biodiversity, Management, and
Conservation (pp. 253–263), WWF-International, Athens.
Hovardas,T. (2010b) Stakeholder analysis, LIFE EXTRA – Improving the conditions for large
carnivore conservation – A transfer of best practices (LIFE07NAT/IT/000502), Report
of Action A5.
Hovardas, T. (2012a) ‘Can forest management produce new risk situations? A mixed-motive
perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi Forest National Park, Greece’, in J. Martin-
Garcia and J. J. Diez (eds) Sustainable Forest Management: Case Studies (pp. 239–258),
INTECH, Rijeka.
Hovardas, T. (2012b) Follow up surveys of stakeholder attitudes, LIFE EXTRA – Improving the
conditions for large carnivore conservation – A transfer of best practices (LIFE07NAT/
IT/000502), Report of Action E3.
Hovardas, T. (2015a) Recommendations to the Management Authority of Rodopi Mountain Range
National Park Concerning Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement, Deliverable 3, Monitor-
ing of knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders in national park management. Manage-
ment Authority of Rodopi Mountain Range National Park (in Greek).
Hovardas, T. (2015b) Questionnaire Development and Administration, Deliverable 2, Monitoring
of knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders in national park management, Management
Authority of Rodopi Mountain Range National Park (in Greek).
Hovardas, T. (2015c) Analysis and assessment of the impact of LIFE ARCPIN – Conservation
actions for improving conditions of human-bear coexistence in Northern Pindos on stakeholder
groups, LIFE ARCPIN-LIFE12 NAT/GR/000784, Grevena Development Agency (in
Greek).
Hovardas, T. (2017) ‘ “Battlefields” of blue flags and sea horses: Acts of fencing and de-
fencing place in a gold mining controversy’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 53, no
pp100–111.
Hovardas, T. (in this volume) ‘Addressing human dimensions in large carnivore conservation
and management: Insights from environmental social science and social psychology’, in T.
Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions, Earthscan,
London.
Hovardas, T., and Korfiatis, K. J. (2012) ‘Adolescents’ beliefs about the wolf: Investigating the
potential of human – Wolf coexistence in the European south’, Society & Natural Resources,
vol 25, no 12, pp1277–1292.
Hovardas, T., Korfiatis, K. J., and Pantis, D. J. (2009) ‘Environmental representations of local
communities’ spokespersons in protected areas’, Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, vol 19, no 6, pp459–472.
Hovardas, T., and Marsden, K. (2016) Use of rural development funding to support large carnivore-
human coexistence measures, EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carni-
vores, Platform Secretariat to DG Environment of the European Commission.
 A methodology for stakeholder engagement 95
Hovardas, T., and Marsden, K. (2017) Outlining Good Practice in Large Carnivore Conservation
and Management, 23rd International Symposium on Society and Resource Management,
Umeå, Sweden.
VetBooks.ir

Hovardas, T., and Poirazidis, K. (2007) ‘Environmental policy beliefs of stakeholders in pro-
tected area management’, Environmental Management, vol 39, no 4, pp515–525.
Hovardas, T., and Stamou, G. P. (2006) ‘Structural and narrative reconstruction of rural resi-
dents’ representations of “nature”, “wildlife”, and “landscape” ’, Biodiversity and Conserva-
tion, vol 15, pp1745–1770.
Jolibert, C., and Wesselink, A. (2012) ‘Research impacts and impact on research in biodi-
versity conservation: The influence of stakeholder engagement’, Environmental Science and
Policy, vol 22, pp100–111.
Keen, M., Brown,V. A., and Dybal, R. (2005) Social Learning: A New Approach to Environmental
Management, Earthscan, London.
Kok, K., Biggs, R., and Zurek, M. (2007) ‘Methods for developing multiscale participatory
scenarios: Insights from Southern Africa and Europe’, Ecology and Society, vol 12, no 1,
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art8/.
Lüchtrath, A., and Schraml, U. (2015) ‘The missing lynx – Understanding hunters’ opposi-
tion to large carnivores’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 2, pp110–119.
Lundmark, C., and Matti, S. (2015) ‘Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices as a
conflict-reducing and legitimacy-enhancing tool: The case of Swedish carnivore manage-
ment’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp147–156.
Lute, M. L., and Gore, M. L. (2014) ‘Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the role
of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan wolf stakeholders’, Human Dimensions
of Wildlife, vol 19, no 3, pp267–279.
McShane,T. O., Hirsch, P. D.,Trung,T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mute-
kanga, D., Van Thang, H., Dammert, J. L. Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius,
J. P., Coppolillo, P., and O’Connor, S. (2011) ‘Hard choices: Making trade-offs between
biodiversity conservation and human well-being’, Biological Conservation, vol 144, no 3,
pp966–972.
Newig, J. (2011) ‘Partizipation und neue Formen der Governance’, in M. Gross (Hrsg) Hand-
buch Umweltsoziologie (pp.  485–502),VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Parker, I. D., and Feldpausch-Parker, A. M. (2013) ‘Yellowstone grizzly delisting rhetoric: An
analysis of the online debate’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 37, no 2, pp248–255.
Pelletier, N. (2010) ‘Environmental sustainability as the first principle of distributive justice:
Towards an ecological communitarian normative foundation for ecological Economics’,
Ecological Economics, vol 69, no 10, pp1887–1894.
Pellikka, J., and Sandström, C. (2011) ‘The role of large carnivore committees in legitimising
large carnivore management in Finland and Sweden’, Environmental Management, vol 48,
pp212–228.
Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., and Carpenter, S. R. (2003) ‘Scenario planning: A tool for
conservation in an uncertain world’, Conservation Biology, vol 17, no 2, pp358–366.
Piédallu, B., Quenette, P.-Y., Mounet, C., et al. (2016) ‘Spatial variation in public attitudes
towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees’, Biological Conservation, vol 197, pp90–97.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2014) ‘Strong community support for illegal killing chal-
lenges wolf management’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 5, pp759–770.
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn,
C. H., and Stringer, L. C. (2009) ‘Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis
methods for natural resource management’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol 90,
no 5, pp1933–1949.
 96  Tasos Hovardas
Schlosberg, D. (2007) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements and Nature, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M., and Sandström, C. (2015) ‘Individual and collective
VetBooks.ir

responses to large carnivore management: The roles of trust, representation, knowledge

spheres, communication and leadership’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp175–185.
Sunderland, T., Ehringhaus, C., and Campbell, B. M. (2008) ‘Conservation and development
in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs?’, Environmental Conservation, vol
34, no 4, pp276–279.
Varum, C. A., and Melo, C. (2010) ‘Directions in scenario planning literature – A review of
the past decades’, Futures, vol 42, no 4, pp355–369.
Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, E.,
McCracken, D., Matouch, S., Niemela, J., and Richards, C. (2005) ‘Towards sustainable
land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodi-
versity conservation in Europe’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 14, no 7, pp1641–1661.
Young, J. C., Jordan, A. R., Searle, K., Butler, A. S., Chapman, D., Simmons, P., and Watt, A. D.
(2013) ‘Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?’ Biological
Conservation, vol 158, pp359–370.
 Part II
VetBooks.ir

Heterogeneity in
perceptions of and
behaviour towards
large carnivores
 6 A community divided
VetBooks.ir

Local perspectives on the

reintroduction of Eurasian
lynx (Lynx lynx) to the UK
Steven Lipscombe, Chris White, Adam Eagle
and Erwin van Maanen

Introduction
The recent past has seen the number and range of large mammals, particularly
carnivores, increase across Europe (Chapron et al., 2014; Milanesi et al., 2017).
Factors including agricultural land abandonment (MacDonald et al., 2000;
Sieber et al., 2015) and changes in hunting practices (Redpath et al., 2017)
have facilitated this recolonisation. Simultaneously, there is growing appetite
for reintroduction projects (Van Heel et al., 2017) and rewilding, defined as
‘large-scale conservation committed at restoring and protecting natural pro-
cesses and states in core wilderness areas, providing effective connectivity
between such areas, and protecting or reintroducing apex predators and other
keystone species’ (Soulé and Terborgh, 1999). The combination of these fac-
tors have placed these issues at the forefront of public and legislative awareness
(Trouwborst, 2010).
Within the UK, there has been a growing interest in the reintroduction of
keystone species, including apex predators, within recent years, encouraged in
part by the awareness generated by the reintroductions of extirpated species
such as the pine marten (Martes martes) and Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in
certain areas, as well as growing interest in the potential for keystone species
to encourage ecosystem restoration (Hetherington, 2006). While contempo-
rary public perceptions towards apex predators in the UK remain favourable
(Smith et al., 2015a), the reintroduction of the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupis lupis)
and the Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) as historical members of the
UK predator assemblage is unlikely to occur in the near future (Wilson, 2004;
Nilsen et al., 2007). As cursorial predators that adapt well to human-modified
landscapes, wolves are perceived as a threat to humans and livestock amongst
rural farming communities (Wilson, 2004; Nilsen et al., 2007; Wagner et al.,
2012). Furthermore, given the significant spatial requirements of wolves and
bears, it is doubtful if enough suitable connected habitat remains in the UK to
establish minimum viable populations and maintain genetic diversity (Wilson,
2004).The Eurasian lynx (hereafter lynx), on the other hand, poses no threat to
people and while they are also a potential predator of livestock, this is typically
‘low-level’ (Angst and Breitenmoser, 2003), although there is potential for lynx
 100  Steven Lipscombe et al.
to switch prey from deer to sheep depending on the relative abundance of prey
species (Odden et al., 2013).
Lynx have returned to areas in Western Europe where they had previously
VetBooks.ir

been extirpated, partly due to successful reintroductions but largely due to

natural recolonisation by recovering populations (Trouwborst, 2010; Kaczensky
et al., 2012); however, the recolonisation of lynx to the UK is prevented due
to its isolation from mainland Europe. The reintroduction of lynx has gained
considerable attention following recent developments towards an application
for a controlled trial reintroduction by the Lynx UK Trust (LUKT). Anthro-
pogenic factors such as severe deforestation, declining deer populations and
persecution are likely to have caused the extirpation of the lynx in Britain in
the 5th Century AD (Hetherington, 2006). Subsequently, the UK has experi-
enced extensive reforestation (Rackham, 2001), a significant shift in hunting
practices and a complete cessation of fur trapping and trading. Additionally, due
to the over-abundance of deer species in the UK (Jobin et al., 2000; Odden
et al., 2006; Basille et al., 2009), lynx are now likely to thrive in many areas of
Scotland and England.
The historical extirpation of large carnivores across many parts of Europe,
especially in the UK, has resulted in communities, populations and landscapes
with little or no experience of coexistence with large predators (Hetherington,
2006; Heurich et al., 2012; Chapron et al., 2014). While charismatic carnivores
have significant cultural symbolism (Hetherington, 2006; Sergio et al., 2006,
Van Heel et al., 2017) and are often promoted as flagship species for the wider
conservation cause (Simberloff, 1998; Andelman and Fagan, 2000), the reintro-
duction of charismatic animals presents challenges for conservation practice,
not least in terms of managing often vehement opposition (Arts et al., 2012).
Species reintroductions were initially quantified in terms of ecological
success (Griffith, 1989), but it became increasingly apparent that public con-
cerns regarding translocations needed to be addressed (Marshall et al., 2007;
O’Rourke, 2014) and that successful conservation projects required effective
integration of the immediate society (Mascia et al., 2003). Public consultation is
now an integral feature of the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) reintroduction guidelines (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Carnivore reintroduc-
tions also require consideration for conservation plans over large spatial scales
(Kaczensky et al., 2012), creating a demand for wide-scale consultation.
Wilson (2004) identified that attitudes to reintroductions (and particularly
reintroductions of carnivores) tended to be favourable among the general pub-
lic, but negative among those likely to be adversely affected. For example, the
illegal persecution of lynx in Switzerland is the legacy of a reintroduction pro-
gram in the 1970s that excluded and disenfranchised sheep farmers and hunt-
ers (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2004). Switzerland was the first
country to authorize the reintroduction of lynx to the Alps following the rati-
fication of a Swiss federal government resolution in 1967 (Breitenmoser and
Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2004). However, the subsequent releases were clandes-
tine and initially denied in public. Furthermore, the founder population animals
 A community divided 101
were not radio-collared, and no post-release monitoring was undertaken (Bre-
itenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten, 2004). The lack of public consultation
and covert nature of the releases created conflict within rural communities and
VetBooks.ir

resulted in illegal killing as the most common cause of adult mortality in the
early post-reintroduction period (Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten,
2004; Schmidt-Posthaus et al., 2002).
As a result of such experiences, it is now accepted that in addition to eco-
logical research, reintroduction outcomes are determined by the attitudes and
behaviour of the public and regional stakeholder groups (Marshall et al., 2007;
Thirgood and Redpath, 2008). Therefore, a broad-based public consultation is
an essential tool to reveal contentious issues and identify perceived or actual
threats to the interests of any party. These findings will enable conflict medi-
ators to acknowledge concerns and seek solutions through an inclusive and
transparent approach to public engagement.
With this in mind, the authors undertook consultation activities in relation
to a trial reintroduction of lynx in the Kielder Forest area of Northumber-
land, UK. This chapter aims to evaluate public opinion regarding the socioeco-
nomic and environmental impacts of the trial, based on these activities. Here
we present background information and outline the methods used and interim
results, and examine the lessons learned, with the intention of informing future
projects.

Background
A national survey (Smith et al., 2015a) was conducted during 2015–2016 to
investigate the public desirability of a lynx reintroduction project, and this work
identified broad public support for such a project. In October 2015 the LUKT
announced its proposal for a ‘controlled, scientific and monitored trial rein-
troduction of lynx’ to England and/or Scotland. Smith et al. (2015b, 2015c)
outline the proposed consultation process and details on the feasibility, benefits
and opportunities, risks and impacts, and potential mitigation measures. These
documents made extensive use of and reference to knowledge and experience
gained from mainland European lynx reintroduction projects. It was through
these documents and associated consultation activities that an open invitation
was extended for all stakeholders to actively participate in a transparent, acces-
sible, unbiased and constructive process of discussion and collaboration.
A subsequent national stakeholder consultation exercise based on the con-
tent of these documents (Smith et al., 2016), sought views on pre-project desir-
ability and feasibility; socio-economic and ecological considerations; location
of trial sites; planning, preparation and release stages; and post-release activities.
The LUKT initially identified five potential trial sites as worthy of further
investigation. Of these, three (Cumbria, Thetford Forest and Kintyre Peninsula)
were excluded after feedback from national stakeholders identified them as less
preferred due to concerns including higher road density, a wider range and
higher density of livestock species, and, in the case of the Kintyre Peninsula,
 102  Steven Lipscombe et al.
added pressure on farmers with existing concerns that reintroduced sea eagles
are predating lambs (White et al., 2016a).
After more detailed socio-ecological focused work (including site size and
VetBooks.ir

connectivity, woodland cover/density, prey availability, human density, road

networks and potential for economic development) on the remaining two
sites, the Kielder Forest area, an extensive forest block that straddles the border
between England and Scotland, was identified as the most suitable location for
further investigation (White et al., 2016a). Consultation activities were con-
ducted in Kielder during August 2016 to April 2017 as a precursor to a project
licence application being submitted by LUKT to Natural England and Scot-
tish Natural Heritage. The proposed reintroduction was presented as a time
limited, five-year trial of a small number of individuals with the stated aim
of establishing the information necessary to support a decision regarding full
reintroduction.

The Kielder community consultation process

Convery et al. (2016) set out a detailed plan for local consultation and engage-
ment activities. In brief, open community meetings, informal pub drop-in ses-
sions, door-to-door visits and attendance at local parish meetings were planned
and delivered with the aims of introducing the project and giving members of
the community a chance to ask questions. For most of these activities a ques-
tionnaire was used to collect community members’ opinions on the key risks
and benefits of the proposed trial. These were used to provide context and
statements to develop a Q methods approach. Further focus group meetings
were planned with key groups likely to be impacted (business, farming and
forestry communities), in order to get input on the development of key areas of
project policy and to establish a communications platform for ongoing engage-
ment work. These were only partly delivered at the time of writing. It was also
our intention to undertake validation meetings with focus groups representa-
tive of the wider communities.
The aim was to complete consultation activities set out in the plan by
March 2017 in order to inform the licence application to Natural England.
However, due to the approach, which put an emphasis on flexibility and
responding to community needs and requests, our timeline inevitably changed
and at the time of writing, key areas of the consultation plan (in particular
farmer engagement regarding compensation for livestock depredation) had not
been addressed, though a licence application had been submitted to Natural
England by LUKT. As a previously resident native species, the lynx is a spe-
cies of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor
to Great Britain in a wild state and is therefore a species which may not be
released in Great Britain under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
(1981). However, a licence for such a release may be issued under section 16
of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA, 1981) and the assessment of an
 A community divided 103
application for such a licence will usually be based on the requirements of the
IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations.
The design and implementation of the Kielder-based lynx reintroduction pro-
VetBooks.ir

ject was closely aligned to the IUCN requirements for wide ranging biological
and socio-economic feasibility studies and risk assessments. The licence was
supported by a project plan which positioned the reintroduction within legal
and policy frameworks, a statement of the project rationale and a list of reports
as appendices including, amongst others, National Consultation Reports (Smith
et al., 2015a; Smith et al., 2016), Cost-benefit Analyses (White et al., 2015), a
Site Selection Report (White et al., 2016a), and a Disease Risk Assessment
(Mayhew et al., 2017, unpublished).
At the time of developing the consultation strategy, the LUKT was consider-
ing release sites within the Kielder Forest block (Figure 6.1), which sits largely
in the English county of Northumberland, with some segments in the Scottish
Borders region (White et al., 2016a). This area had been identified by Heth-
erington et al. (2008) as a potential lynx habitat network covering 1980 km2
(White et al., 2016a). Spatially, a zoned approach to consultation work was
adopted, comprising a primary zone and a secondary zone (Figure  6.1). The
primary zone comprised communities or individuals identified as most likely
to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the presence of the lynx.The sur-
rounding secondary zone included communities less likely to be affected but
which should nevertheless be engaged with and members given the opportu-
nity to respond to the consultation process. In addition, it was stipulated that
if a population self-identified as being a relevant stakeholder, then engagement
could increase to meet such need.
Direct discussion with the local community was achieved through a number
of routes, with the aims of explaining the reintroduction proposal and the con-
sultation process, recording or addressing any initial concerns, collecting data
on perceived risks and benefits, and to build local contacts.

Community discussion routes

Parish council meetings

Three Parish Councils were located in the primary zone. Of these, two accepted
an invitation to discuss the proposals, resulting in one closed Parish Council
meeting and one meeting open to the public.

Open public meetings and drop-in sessions

Open public meetings were held in the main centres of habitation within the
primary and secondary zones. Drop-in sessions were held at a centrally located
pub or held after public meetings allowed for longer discussions on a one-to-
one basis.
 VetBooks.ir

Figure 6.1 Location of Kielder forest within the UK and zoned approach to community engagement, indicting
primary inner zone (inner cycle) and secondary zone (outer cycle).
© Crown Copyright and Database Right 2018, Ordnance Survey (Digimap Licence)
 A community divided 105
Door-to-door
Door-to-door consultation focused within the identified primary zone, with
VetBooks.ir

some closely neighbouring residential areas falling within the secondary zone
also visited. In addition, any further residents within the secondary zone request-
ing participation were also visited. Approximately 12 volunteers from LUKT,
the University of Cumbria Centre for Wildlife Conservation and/or AECOM
participated in activities over a period from October 2016 to June 2017. These
included daytime and early evening calls on both weekdays and weekends. We
aimed to visit all households within the primary zone; however, at the time
of writing, these activities had not been completed by the authors due to the
cessation of their involvement with the consultation activities. If the resident(s)
were at home, we offered a brief introduction to the project as well as an
opportunity to ask questions. We also asked to collect information through the
risks/benefits questionnaire, which was optional. Where there was no answer,
an information leaflet was left, along with contact details to request a visit or
further information.

Farming community engagement

A combined approach of individual farm visits and a farm focus group was used
to enable detailed discussion and constructive dialogue to inform the licence
application in the pre-licencing period and with the intention of establishing a
farmer-led forum to contribute to project management in the post-licencing
period.Three focus group meetings were held, one including the attendance of
the local auctioneer, to focus on the evaluation of practical, site-specific man-
agement prescriptions to mitigate lynx predation on livestock and to design
a retrospective compensation/conservation payments scheme. Following these
initial meetings, the authors’ consultation activities ceased, and follow-up meet-
ings did not occur to our knowledge.

Business community engagement

Attendance at three local and regional business forums enabled detailed dis-
cussion about the benefits and risks of the project specific to local businesses.
Local businesses were also visited to allow for lengthier personal conversations,
resulting in a tourism-related business event to discuss opportunities and threats
to the local tourism trade. At this meeting, the businesses in attendance showed
interest in forming a business forum to enhance the potential benefits of the
project. However, the authors’ consultation activities ceased, and further com-
munication with this group did not occur to our knowledge.

Friends of the lynx

In response to requests from supportive members of the community, a ‘Friends
of the lynx’ group was established to discuss in more depth the ecology of the
 106  Steven Lipscombe et al.
lynx and the reintroduction rationale. This gave supporters a forum to discuss
how best to voice their support and to commit to specific activities. However,
this work did not continue when the authors’ consultation activities ceased,
VetBooks.ir

and further communication with this group did not occur to our knowledge.

Supplementary activities
Further activities were undertaken when opportunities arose to raise awareness
of the consultation and increase participation. These included presentations to
local groups such as the Natural History Society and visits to a local school.
Efforts were also made to obtain fair coverage in the local press.

Data collection
Data collected throughout the consultation process includes meeting notes
and transcripts, interview transcripts and sorts from the Q study (n = 15), and
information collected from individuals through an open-ended risk/benefits
questionnaire (n = 130) developed in order to provide a snapshot of key com-
munity concerns and to feed in to the development of other consultation and
project plans.

Q methodological study
Q methodology (QM) is a research tool designed to explore individual values,
opinions and beliefs regarding a specific subject area. It is particularly useful in
community engagement with smaller groups and has proven particularly use-
ful in identifying ‘common ground’ in conflict management situations and in
capturing interesting, informative and relevant viewpoints relative to the ques-
tion (Watts and Stenner, 2012). In environmental and conservation research,
QM has been used in a wide range of contexts, including wind farm develop-
ment, public opinion on shale gas, afforestation schemes, wildlife management
and landscape restoration. QM typically involves a 1–1.5-hour interview in
which the participant ranks a set of statements relevant to the topic depend-
ing on how strongly they feel about each. A Q set of statements (Annex 6.1)
was extracted from the national and local consultation activities, including an
online public survey, notes and recordings from local consultation meetings, and
questionnaires.We have completed 15 interviews to date, including participants
of various ages and occupations and of varying degrees of support for the pro-
ject residing in the primary zone. It is recommended that a Q study includes
approximately 40–60 participants (Watts and Stenner, 2005). Factor analysis
would then be undertaken to interrogate the data set. It is therefore premature
to do a full factor analysis on the resultant data and the participant set is too
small to make any conclusions. However, an initial examination of the 15 sorts
and accompanying interviews does result in some interesting initial findings
 A community divided 107
Table 6.1  Questionnaire administration and number of questionnaires selected

Questionnaire administration Number (n = 130)

VetBooks.ir

Door-to-door 86
Open meeting: Tarset  5
Open meeting: Newcastleton  3
Open meeting: Langholm  7
Presentation: Borders Natural History Society 17
Presentation: Bellingham Business Forum 12

and emergent themes which may be of value to future projects, and we there-
fore include these in our discussion below.

Open-ended risk/benefits questionnaire

The open-ended risk/benefits questionnaire included basic demographic data
and asked participants to list what they believed to be the key risks and benefits
of the proposed lynx reintroduction, as well as an open comments field and the
option to give contact details in order to be contacted by the project team in
the future. In total, 130 people have completed the questionnaire to date, dur-
ing either door-to-door activities or after a consultation meeting (Table 6.1).
Demographically, the current sample has accurate gender representation but
is under-representative of ages 24 and younger, reflects the 25–64 age group
well, and is over-representative of those aged 65 and older, in comparison to
demographic data for Bellingham ward (Northumberland County Council,
2011), which includes the Kielder, Tarset and Greystead communities.

Emergent themes from the Kielder

community consultation
At the time of writing, the authors were unable to progress with consultation
activities relating to the proposed lynx reintroduction, and therefore our data is
incomplete. However, we present our interim findings here as the data points
to emergent themes which we believe should be addressed in ongoing project
activities and because they would be of value to similar projects. These themes
have been extracted from the data collected through the risks/benefits ques-
tionnaires (n = 130), the Q sorts and interview transcripts (n = 15), and notes
and transcripts from meetings.
To create a snapshot of responses from the risks/benefits questionnaire, we
grouped comments into themes under risks (15 themes) and benefits (nine
themes) (Figures 6.2 and 6.3). Community members were given the opportu-
nity to elaborate more fully on these themes during meetings and in Q inter-
views. Below we present and discuss the most prevalent of these themes.
 108  Steven Lipscombe et al.

Number of menons of risk theme on quesonnaires n=130

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
VetBooks.ir

Risks to farming acvies

Risks to welfare of lynx

Risks to domesc animals

Negave impact of increased tourism

Other negave economic impacts

Concerns over LUKT project management

Negave impact on conservaon

Rewilding 'slippery slope'

Figure 6.2  Key risks raised on community questionnaires.

Number of menons of benefit theme on quesonnaires n=130

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Tourism and related benefits

Environmental benefits
Deer management
Conservaon awareness
Non-tourism-related benefits to local area
Lynx conservaon
Predator control
Intrinsic value
To science/knowledge

Figure 6.3  Key benefits raised on community questionnaires.

Farming
Our data reflected that hill farming formed an integral part of the culture,
economy, landscape and overall sense of place in the Kielder area. Consequently,
this theme was prevalent throughout the consultation process and was a talk-
ing point among almost all participants, whether for, undecided or against the
proposed trial reintroduction.
Given the risk of lynx-related livestock predation, the farming community
was considered by project partners as a key stakeholder group to engage.
However, during the early stages of the local consultation, members from the
farming community expressed their disapproval of the project by refusing
to talk to team members at door-to-door visits or by voicing their anger at
 A community divided 109
public meetings. Common themes expressed by farmers at public meetings
included a lack of trust and transparency in the LUKT, the potential for lynx
to threaten their livelihoods and the need for a compensation scheme, the
VetBooks.ir

inability of farmers to control growing lynx populations and a sense of dis-

empowerment that the reintroduction would be imposed on them regardless
of their views.
Risks listed on risks/benefits questionnaires were predominately focused
around risks to farming (Figure 6.2). This theme includes comments related to
‘risks to livestock’ (including predation and worrying; for example, ‘no guarantee
that they won’t attack sheep’), negative impacts on farmer livelihoods, risks that
compensation will not be easily accessible and the impacts on farmer workloads
due to compensation or mitigation measures.
During Q sorts, there was strong agreement for the statements ‘it is important
that adequate compensation agreements are in place, should the lynx cause any destruc-
tion’ (Annex 6.1, statement 12), ‘I am concerned that lynx will be a threat to livestock
during the trial’ (Annex 6.1, statement 8) and ‘I am concerned that the lynx will cause
economic suffering to farmers and/or countryside managers’ (Annex 6.1, statement 9;
one participant strongly disagrees with this statement). This shows that even
supporters of the proposal see the need for engaging with the farming com-
munity and mitigating possible negative impacts on farming practices. On the
risks/benefits questionnaire this is also reflected, as many of those respondents
who were ‘for it’ could ‘still see the point of view of farmers’.
Accompanying Q interviews, however, indicate a polarity in support for
farmers. It is worth noting that none of the 15 participants were directly
involved in farming activities. Some individuals were very supportive of farm-
ers and made efforts to justify their concerns:

There’s a feeling that comes across from the Lynx Trust about thinking that
farmers don’t care about their natural environment . . . or about their sheep
but they do passionately.
(Q participant 8, primary zone)

The big concern is that people, if their livestock is a target, that there will
be compensation. People don’t want to be seen as money-grabbing farm-
ers that just want the money. It’s not about that. It is a livelihood and it is
something that could go wrong.
(Q participant 12, primary zone)

A lot of the farmers in this area are very much on the edge of being able
to earn a living, in the first place. Quite a lot of them are tenants, and not
landowners themselves. . . . They’ve got very little possibility of buying
somewhere if they retire, if they ever retire.They tend to be quite an elderly
population, farming well into their 70s and what they get at market for a
lamb just about covers the cost.
(Q participant 6, primary zone)
 110  Steven Lipscombe et al.
Others expressed displeasure about how dominant farming is in the area, par-
ticularly in decision-making:
VetBooks.ir

The only thing that really concerns me is the intransigence of the NFU
[National Farmers’ Union]. . . . They just think ‘right we’re not talking to
you’ rather than that we can come to some kind of arrangement where if
it does go ahead we can continue the conversation. Farmers I’ve spoken
to and asked whether this is a money issue and they’ve said ‘no because
we love our animals so much that we just can’t bare them being eaten
or even taken’. They’re farming because they want money so at the end
of the day it is about money. . . . I am concerned there is a no-go area
which is why should we reintroduce anything that’s going to harm their
animals.
(Q participant 1, primary zone)

The 40 farmers who live in this area are a minority . . . they got £3.6 mil-
lion in subsidies last year.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)

However, even those who were less supportive of farmers saw the value in
compensation as a method for protecting the welfare of the lynx:

The major industry around here is . . . hill farming, and they’re certainly
going to need to be persuaded that if they make any losses then they will
be compensated, otherwise . . . people are just going to shoot [the lynx].
(Q participant 4, primary zone)

I don’t think it’s that important for farmers, but I care about the welfare
of the lynx. And without adequate compensation agreements in place the
farmers are just going to shoot them aren’t they, or poison them. That’s the
way they think. . . . I don’t like to see farmers compensated because they
get enough elsewhere. And they will just scam it. . . . I’m surprised that they
don’t see it that way . . . that it’s another cash cow for them.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)

Several other participants raised concern about the possibility of corruption

around compensation claims or issues with management and enforcement of a
compensation scheme:

Who’s going to calculate whether a lamb that is three weeks old is going
to be a prize-winning tup? The farmer will have some idea but whether
that will hold any weight . . . we’re looking at over £1000 or more for a
prize-winning tup against a lamb which is £30/£40. I think it’s an abso-
lute nightmare of how on earth it’s ever going to be sorted. How do you
calculate and compensate for potential?
(Q participant 6, primary zone)
 A community divided 111
Tourism
The polarised views on the potential increase in tourism in Kielder further
VetBooks.ir

supported the theory that urban-to-rural migration, and changing economic

activities (Woods et al., 2012) may be the source of much of the conflict among
the community. On risk/benefits questionnaires, the potential for tourism and
related economic benefits was predominant (Figure 6.3), with respondents list-
ing, for example, ‘tourism and recreation income’, ‘the project will ‘bring in tourism, [it
will be] great for the local economy’, with the potential to ‘put Kielder on the map as
a destination’ and ‘raise profile of Kielder for ecotourism’.
However, others thought that the case for tourism was overstated: ‘possible
jobs in the area, case not proven’ or that tourists would cause problems locally by
‘clogging up the roads’.The negative impact of tourists was frequently mentioned:
‘increase in tourism not necessarily desirable [it could] adversely affect the environment
and community’. Simultaneously, there were concerns that the reintroduction
would ‘scare tourists off’. One respondent noted that:

we do not live in a Transylvanian forest or a theme park. People who

choose to live, work and take holidays here do so because it is a quiet,
domesticated, typically English landscape.
(questionnaire respondent; primary zone)

This polarisation was reflected in the Q sorts with both strong agreement and
disagreement for the statement ‘Lynx could beneficially add to the rural economy
through eco-tourism’ (Annex 6.1, statement 13). Those that disagreed with the
statement could not see the potential for tourism due to the shy nature of lynx:

Certain people go on and on about millions of pounds coming into the

community but we can’t see how or why. And certain people don’t want
thousands of people streaming in. It’s supposed to be a national park that’s
quiet and peaceful and not too busy. There is a balance between people
who want tourists and people who don’t.
(Q participant 8, primary zone)

It won’t add to the tourism.That was one thing that annoyed me when they
[volunteers] came to the door you see, because I’d been saying I was scared
about them killing [squirrels] and I was saying this to them and they said ‘oh
you’ll never see them, they never come out of the forest’. So what are tour-
ists going to come and see? It’s contradictory. They can’t have it both ways.
(Q participant 14, primary zone)

A place for lynx in our landscape and socio-ecological system

Our data reflected that there are conflicting views over whether lynx would fit
in the landscape, with concerns raised over habitat suitability, landscape suitabil-
ity and risks to humans, pets and native wildlife.The potential for landscape and
 112  Steven Lipscombe et al.
ecosystem restoration was recognised by some. Environmental benefits listed
on the risks/benefits questionnaires (Figure 6.3) largely focused on the ‘overall
benefit to the ecosystem’ and the potential of lynx to act as ‘an ecosystem engineer,
VetBooks.ir

improving the quality of native woodland’, with the reintroduction being ‘the first
step in creating a functioning, diverse ecosystem!’ There was also emphasis on return-
ing a native species – ‘it seems right to have them back where they belong’, ‘they have
more of a right to be here than us’ – and the potential ‘to increase biodiversity, Kielder
is a monoculture’.
The fact that lynx are an ‘apex predator [with] long term benefits [to the] preda-
tor/prey balance’ and the potential to ‘keep deer population under control’, including
‘reducing [the risk of] car accidents’, was also prevalent. The potential to control
numbers of other species, such as fox, was also mentioned. The intrinsic value
was recognised, too, such as the ‘cultural/spiritual effects of a rewilded landscape’ and
‘creating the sense of the wild’.
However, comments also included concerns about ‘interfering with nature’,
such as ‘every time man interferes in ecosystems there are unexpected side effects and
more times than no they are unwanted’.
There were conflicting views over whether Kielder would provide suitable
habitat for the lynx. The Q sorts indicated there was strong disagreement for
the statement ‘I do not think this area is suitable for the lynx’ (Annex 6.1, statement
28), indicating that some people felt the habitat in the Kielder area may be suit-
able. Several comments during interview supported this, such as:

I imagine once you release the lynx into that [forest] they’re just going to
retreat into it and you’ll never see them again. I don’t see any problems
with that forest at all.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)

However, this contradicted some concerns raised in the questionnaires about

plantation forests being unsuitable habitat for lynx, as well as other comments
made during the accompanying interviews, such as:

This is a man-made forest, not a natural forest, and there are species that
weren’t here in the first place.
(Q participant 6, primary zone)

It seems to me that there isn’t enough space for them to survive, it’s not a
very attractive place to be honest, very thick horrible forest and . . . so dense
nothing could possibly live in there.
(Q participant 8, primary zone)

At a larger scale, there was direct conflict about the statement ‘the British coun-
tryside is no longer a suitable place for a sustainable lynx population’ (Annex 6.1, state-
ment 2), with two participants strongly agreeing, and two strongly disagreeing
with the statement. The interviews suggested that those in agreement were not
necessarily against the proposed reintroduction:
 A community divided 113
It’s no longer suitable for most things.The lynx project should be alongside
a much bigger commitment to reforestation and a deep look at the farming
practices in this country.
VetBooks.ir

(Q participant 1, primary zone)

The British countryside . . . well it needs so much work really. The farmers
have really ruined it.
(Q participant 10, primary zone)

There were also inconsistent views over the statement ‘Lynx are not compatible
with our society today’ (Annex 6.1, statement 16), with three participants strongly
disagreeing with and two strongly agreeing with the statement. Comments
around this topic in interview reflected the polarisation, but largely focused on
landscape issues and people’s perception of nature’s place within their landscape.
Many comments emphasised the need to reform and restore nature within the
landscape, with a focus on people’s perceptions of nature as part of that process:

It’s a landscape issue. People don’t understand a wild landscape here, they
think it’s too messy.
(Q participant 1, primary zone)

If we’re talking about putting ecosystems back then we should be talking

about a completely different landscape. We wouldn’t have this sort of forest
in the first place and the weather would be different and everything else
would be different. So it’s tinkering at the edges of it. It’s not really a possi-
ble option. Do we go back to woolly mammoths or do we go back beyond
that again? We need to look at what we’ve presently got and whether it’s
viable and in some cases if it’s not viable then we just need to accept it
rather than throwing more money and efforts at it.
(Q participant 6, primary zone)

No, they’re not compatible with the way we live. And with the wildlife –
that must have changed a lot over the years. I just don’t think they fit
in. I don’t think you should go back in history, you can’t repeat what’s
gone. . . .Things evolve, we’ve evolved, the animals evolve, not always in the
right way probably but it is evolution isn’t it?
(Q participant 14, primary zone)

However, some did point to acceptance of the current landscape being able to
support lynx:

I don’t think there’s going to be any major problems, lynx have been in this
landscape before and we can look at other landscapes and see how the lynx
functions in those and they don’t seem to have any problems so I don’t see
there being any problems.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)
 114  Steven Lipscombe et al.
Supporters largely expressed excitement at the potential for ecological restora-
tion, and the resultant increase in tourism, for example:
VetBooks.ir

I’m quite passionate about the introduction of wild species into our
landscape. I think it has to be a suitable landscape, and I think here, in
and around Kielder, we should really be proud that we have a landscape
where they can be reintroduced. If the research has been done and
they could flourish here then that would be absolutely amazing. I’m
really passionate about the fact that it would create an exciting sense
of wilderness . . . I also think it’s important in terms of ecosystems and
landscape management to actually have wild space and everything that
goes with it.
(Q participant 10, primary zone)

On risks/benefits questionnaires, concerns were raised about lynx being ‘wild

animals’ that are difficult to control (Figure 6.2) and that it would be ‘hard to
track the young’, as well as over the expanding lynx population becoming ‘out of
control’; ‘everything that gets introduced then has to be culled’.
Another recurring theme was the concern for the impact of lynx on native
wildlife, with red squirrels most frequently mentioned, along with the Kielder
wild goat population, ground-nesting birds and the recently reintroduced water
voles. On risks/benefits questionnaires respondents conveyed fears that lynx
could cause the ‘downfall of indigenous rarities’.
In Q sorts, there was strong agreement with the statement ‘I am concerned that
the lynx will pose a threat to our native wildlife during the trial’ (Annex 6.1, statement
6; only one respondent strongly disagreed with the statement). This was also a
common theme in accompanying interviews, with statements such as:

I’m concerned very much about the wildlife that is already there and that
everybody is desperately trying to preserve – squirrels, black grouse, hen
harriers. A lot of us are very concerned about that.
(Q participant 8, primary zone)

with some understanding that:

native wildlife includes roe deer and other species they will prey on, but
that’s the natural order of things.
(Q participant 1, primary zone)

There were also concerns regarding possible lynx attacks on children; ‘the safety
of families living on remote farms, especially with babies or young families.’
In Q sorts, there was strong disagreement across the participant group to
the statement ‘I am concerned that the lynx will be a threat to people during the trial’
(Annex 6.1, statement 22; nine participants strongly disagreeing). However,
two participants strongly agreed with the statement. Throughout the trial, the
 A community divided 115
consultation team communicated that there has been no account of a healthy,
wild lynx ever attacking a human being.While the participants, including those
for and against the trial, generally accepted this as evidence that lynx were not
VetBooks.ir

a threat to humans, there was still some reluctance within the community and
therefore further evidence should be sought. One possibility for allaying these
concerns further is Gehr et al.’s (2017) ‘landscape of coexistence’, which sug-
gests that apex predators will avoid human contact, in a similar way to a ‘land-
scape of fear’ altering prey behaviour.
The concern that lynx will be ‘a danger to dogs’ and they may ‘come into the
village, eating pets, cats’ was more prevalent. Other people felt reassured by the
information provided by LUKT: ‘I was scared of walking with dogs at first, but I’m
not worried about this anymore.’

Divisiveness in the local community

As the consultation progressed a risk that began to emerge from the risks/ben-
efits questionnaire was that of divisions in the local community (Figure 6.2),
with the project ‘causing social divisions in the community’ (‘I’ve been criticised by
locals for being positive’, ‘alienating the farming community’), or within households
(‘I’m for it but my wife is against’). During Q interviews, where participants were
given the opportunity to reflect on this in more detail, it became clear that
this division was largely based on polarity of views around farmers’ rights, land
ownership and land use.These two examples extracted from Q interviews sum-
marise some of these arguments:

I think there’s a lot of the people in this area who are not farmers born and
bred and not closely connected with that culture, there’s quite a number of
them that already don’t quite fit in and don’t understand, and don’t accept
that they are coming in to one of the biggest factories there is – a mutton
and lamb producing factory. They don’t like the mud on the roads, they
don’t like the fact that the gates are shut at certain times of the year. They
came for the pretty countryside but they don’t actually like the reality of it.
There’s people who don’t understand the hunting, shooting, fishing aspects
and therefore certainly struggle to understand, unless they actually saw a
lamb or sheep that had been killed. They’ve got this sort of fluffy pretty
image of nature, and nature isn’t like that.
(Q participant 6, primary zone)

in comparison to:

Your project isn’t creating divisions in the community, those divisions were
already there and I think your project has highlighted the notion that those
that farm the land should be able to dictate what goes on everywhere. It’s
an outdated sense of ownership that they have over the landscape and it
doesn’t exist in our modern classless society. But they’re so removed from
 116  Steven Lipscombe et al.
all the social movements that have created an open and cohesive society
that they still think they’re living in a feudal landscape and . . . I think
most sections of the community are for it, it’s just some of the lobbyist
VetBooks.ir

movement that represents the farmers and landowners is so vocal and very
organised, to the point that they will intimidate everybody else into either
not speaking or coming forward, or towing the line with their views. And
it’s with threats and intimidation.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)

Woods et al. (2012) described urban-to-rural migration and diversification of

economic activity in rural areas as potential causes for this type of conflict. Pro-
posing to reintroduce a carnivore within this context may have exacerbated this
divide and instigated the extreme views we encountered.

Welfare of the lynx

Our data indicate that concerns for the welfare of the lynx is high (Figure 6.2),
with concerns over lynx being harmed in road traffic accidents, an ‘increase in
illegal poisoning’ (questionnaire respondent) and the risk that farmers might
‘club together to shoot lynx’ (questionnaire respondent). During Q interviews,
the causes for concern included the threat of conflict with farmers, which links
to comments related to the need for a robust compensation scheme to reduce
this risk:

I’d like the project to be introduced, and the welfare and safety of the lynx
I think that’s the biggest threat to your project. It only takes one or two
idiots with a gun or some poison to destroy the whole project. I can see
how much money and time and effort’s been put into it and the actions
of one disgruntled landowner with some poison would in effect destroy
hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of work, and all those man hours,
and the welfare of that animal. So I think some serious consideration needs
to be given to how you’re going to ensure those animals aren’t trapped or
poisoned. It’s going to take a lot of security.
(Q respondent 9, primary zone)

Other concerns included placing lynx in an unsuitable habitat and the pros-
pects of the lynx ending up in captivity or being exterminated if the trial were
unsuccessful:

Where do the lynx go and what happens to them? Even if they are suc-
cessfully rehomed, what impact does that have on them and on wherever
they go next?
(Q participant 6, primary zone)
 A community divided 117
Concerns about project and consultation management
Due to the high-profile nature of the project within the community, the con-
VetBooks.ir

sultation process itself has been under intense scrutiny and has become a talk-
ing point among community members. On risks/benefits questionnaires, some
concerns were raised regarding consultation activities (Figure 6.2), ‘your consul-
tation seems to have been seriously lacking’ and various aspects of the project plan
(e.g., ‘six [trial lynx] is a low number – what if they die soon, will the project be over
before it is started?’).There were also concerns about a lack of funding and ‘fund-
ing being eaten up by compensation payments’. Risks to the ‘reputation of conservation
in general’ and the ‘potential to prevent future reintroductions of lynx or other species’
were also raised.
There were also concerns raised regarding the public meetings; for example,
following the Tarset public meeting one attendee commented that: ‘I object to
your patronising and high-handed methods in trying to force your project onto the com-
munity. I’m not confident that your consultation or research are impartial.’ Similarly,
another attendee stated that ‘this proposal seems to be a product of fanatical lynx
enthusiasts. It is being imposed on us.’
Throughout activities, members of the community highlighted the need for
scientific rigour and transparency over plans and decision making. In Q sorts,
for example, importance was placed on the ‘use of biological data and sound sci-
ence in this trial of introducing lynx’ (Annex 6.1, statement 7), with five partici-
pants strongly agreeing and no participants strongly disagreeing. There was also
strong agreement for the statement ‘all aspects of the trial must be transparent and
open for all’ (Annex 6.1, statement 19) from three participants, with no strong
disagreement.
Simultaneously, there was a general sense that people were unable to make
an informed decision due to a ‘general lack of knowledge’; ‘ignorance is the main
problem, we don’t know anything about lynx’ (both quotes extracted from ques-
tionnaires).There was also increasingly a concern about ‘misinformation’ causing
‘fear without knowledge’.
The authors themselves encountered misinformation during consultation
activities, such as:

I had heard rumours, or maybe it was in the paper, that if a lamb was found
a certain distance from the farm there wouldn’t be any compensation.
(Q participant 13, primary zone)

Having talked to you last time we were talking about the six lynx for five
years [the proposed number of released lynx], which I was okay with, that
sounds amazing. But when I talked to [my neighbour] who made it to one
of your meetings, she said apparently there was actually going to be more
than 50.
(Q participant 2, primary zone)
 118  Steven Lipscombe et al.
Several probable causes for this were raised by community members during the
consultation, including unsuitable communication methods used in consulta-
tion leading to misinterpretation of information presented, and misinformation
VetBooks.ir

being spread by different parties:

It’s not been communicated to the people around here. If you [don’t] peo-
ple will take their own ideas and their ideas will become defacto truths.
(Q participant 4, primary zone)

I’m concerned that our politician, Guy Opperman, has become involved
and waded in. That he’s just representing a very minor section of the com-
munity and making claims that 90% of the community are against the lynx
and if anything he’s done a little bit of anecdotal research.
(Q participant 9, primary zone)

The miscommunication of the level of local support in local (Hexham Cou-

rant, 2017) and national press (e.g., Halliday and Parveen, 2017) further exacer-
bated these concerns and highlighted the difficulty of basing communications
on quantifiable and methodically produced evidence when tensions and pas-
sions run high.
The aims during early stages of the consultation were to gather opinions,
share information on the proposal and build a network of contacts within the
community. However, initially at least, discussions at open public meeting were
dominated by those who had very strong concerns, which were often expressed
in anger, and mutually informative discussions often became impossible. The
initial introduction of the project to the community at a public meeting in
Kielder in August was particularly heated, with strong representation from
National Sheep Association representatives at both a national and local level.
Comments in the press (Hexham Courant, 2016) and from members of the
public throughout the consultation indicate that this event set the tone for
much of the consultation process and it was difficult to overcome the hostil-
ity generated by this event, which played a significant part in slowing progress
towards consultation aims:

I don’t trust the Lynx Trust, because they put a big report in about how the
meeting at Kielder had been invaded by people bussed in, like it was the
middle of London which is just ridiculous. But I’ve asked the people up
there about that and they said no, it was just farmers from outlying places
that had come in, so that was a complete lie. You can’t win an argument
with a lie.
(Q participant 14, primary zone)

Smaller meetings were more effective and inclusive, as were discussions dur-
ing door-to-door visits, but the amount of resource needed to undertake this
exercise meant that progress was slow and all homes were not visited. However,
 A community divided 119
data collected through questionnaires during these activities did highlight risks
which were useful in planning the ongoing consultation and informing the
plan for the trial reintroduction. In hindsight, focused contact with individual
VetBooks.ir

stakeholders and small groups would have been more suitable at the start of the
process, and this is reiterated by concerns raised by members of the community
during the consultation:

It hasn’t been terribly well managed so far, people haven’t been listened
to and there’s a feeling that we know everything and you know nothing.
The chief ecologist in the forest hasn’t been asked or listened to . . . or the
wildlife officer who worked here for years. [He] was at the meeting but
was quashed. . . . There are people here who actually know quite a lot and
people have been looked down on.
(Q participant 8, primary zone)

I personally feel it’s gone back to front. I would have liked to see it go the
other way with questions with the Forestry Commission and the big boys
first.
(Q participant 3, primary zone)

The perceived lack of information being communicated about the proposal, and
the sense of the project being imposed from outside the community, were most
likely related to these unsuitable methods of communication. Berkes (2004)
highlights the importance of incorporating local knowledge and perspectives
along with scientific information in community-based conservation. Through-
out the consultation, evidence from Eurasian lynx present in Europe was used –
for example, on sheep predation (White et al., 2015) and increased ecotourism
(White et al., 2016b) – to inform the community on potential impacts of the
proposal. There is, however, evidence that such a scientific knowledge-based
approach can lead to alienation of stakeholders and increased lobbying against
reintroductions, resulting in polarisations between a ‘science-based technocratic
worldview, and its “populist” counterpart that portrays local actors as the vic-
tims of external intervention’ (Arts et al., 2012). Similarly, Von Essen (2017)
highlights the challenges that ‘contested knowledge’ creates in controversial
species reintroductions. Using the example of wolf reintroductions in Sweden,
she demonstrates how scientific knowledge can be viewed as hegemonic and
patronising from the perspective of rural residents and she argues for a public
platform of communication.
A further obstacle in creating avenues for disseminating information that
reinforced the purpose of the trial was that many supporters felt unable to
express their support. This was a recurrent theme in interviews with more sup-
portive members of the community; for example:

There is a whole section of the community that is afraid to talk. . . . It’s

made people go, “wait a minute, why can’t I speak out?” And people have
 120  Steven Lipscombe et al.
realised they can’t because their boss, or landlord, is so against it that they
can’t say a word. It’s frightening really. I haven’t been to the village hall
since voicing my opinion, because . . . you’d get shunned.
VetBooks.ir

(Q participant 10, primary zone)

This further exacerbated the slow progress with the consultation and made it
difficult for those undertaking the consultation work, as well as members of
the community, to get an accurate picture of the level of support for the trial.
This has eventually resulted in the creation of the “Friends of the Lynx” group.

Discussion and conclusion

The importance of understanding and incorporating social impacts in conser-
vation has long been established (Kaplan-Hallam and Bennet, 2017), and are
integral to the IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation
Translocations (IUCN/SSC, 2013). The main focus of this work has been to
examine community attitudes towards the proposed reintroduction. However,
although the consultation plan centred on a community-based approach, there
were several factors which constrained public participation, information shar-
ing and transparent communications integral to this (Arts et al, 2012, IUCN/
SSC, 2013). This chapter presents a reflection on the methods used and data
collected from an incomplete community consultation, and provides an oppor-
tunity to consider the lessons learnt from the methodological approach.
Reintroductions of charismatic species are often accompanied by vehe-
ment controversy (Arts et al., 2012), and the preliminary findings presented
in this chapter speak to the polarised nature of the debate around a trial lynx
reintroduction. This pattern mirrors responses to elements of both the initial
national public survey (Smith et al., 2015a) and the national stakeholders survey
(Smith et al., 2016). Strong opinions, both for and against, were held by com-
munity members, which demonstrates the strong emotional component to the
decision-making process.While this discussion has focused largely on the nega-
tive aspects of the consultation process, there was also support and a change
in consultation strategies saw the beginnings of constructive, informative dia-
logue particularly through focused business and farming meetings by invitation
and Q interviews. The themes presented here are those most prevalent within
the data and should therefore be addressed in ongoing project activities. These
themes provide a possible structure around which to approach conversations
with more focused stakeholder groups going forward, so that the community
can be represented in decisions and solutions to the issues they themselves have
highlighted.
IUCN guidelines clearly indicate the need for social support in relation
to reintroduction and translocation projects. Annex 6.2, therefore, maps the
IUCN guidelines against the consultation activities undertaken to date and
provides recommendations on how to address problems by those parties taking
the project forward.
 A community divided 121
Identifying and understanding the structure of a community to work with
is challenging and, as Berkes (2004) indicates, community-based conservation
‘failure’ may be due to the implementation rather than any weakness or imprac-
VetBooks.ir

ticality of the concept. Clear devolution of authority and responsibility (Son-

gorwa, 1999; Murphree, 2002) is vital alongside identifying the scale appropriate
(Berkes, 2004) in a multi-stakeholder environment. Such an approach takes
time, commitment and honesty, and is often messy and complex, but ultimately
necessary for conservation success.

Acknowledgements
At the time of developing the consultation plan and collecting data, the authors
were working with the LUKT.
 Annex 6.1  Q set of statements
VetBooks.ir

No. Statement

 1 The presence of lynx is crucial for the health of forest’s ecosystems

 2 The British countryside is no longer a suitable place for a sustainable lynx
population
 3 I feel the resources spent on the trial could be better directed to those
species already present in the UK
 4 Lynx should be introduced as a natural control of deer
 5 Lynx should be introduced to the UK and any uncertainties can and must be
dealt with
 6 I am concerned that the lynx will pose a threat to our native wildlife during
the trial
 7 It is critical to use biological data and sound science in this trial of
introducing lynx
 8 I am concerned that lynx will be a threat to livestock during the trial
 9 I am concerned that the lynx will cause economic suffering to farmers and/
or countryside managers
10 I trust the conservationists and scientists behind this trial proposal
11 It is important that the trial has a well-defined exit program in place, which
guarantees reversibility
12 It is important that adequate compensation agreements are in place, should
the lynx cause any destruction
13 Lynx could beneficially add to the to the rural economy through eco-
tourism
14 Having lynx in the countryside would make it more interesting
15 I am happy and excited for the trial to go ahead
16 Lynx are not compatible with our society today
17 A well-designed and regulated trial could help inform decisions on whether
lynx should be introduced or not in the future
18 There is too much uncertainty about control measurements during the trial
19 All aspects of the trial must be transparent and open for all
20 The trial’s plan of introducing six lynx for five years is too low to be
scientifically sustainable
21 Public education and outreach programs for the public should have high
priority
22 I am concerned that the lynx will be a threat to people during the trial
23 The trial must engage, consult and involve local communities and
stakeholders
 No. Statement
24 We have an obligation to try and restore our natural ecosystem as much as
VetBooks.ir

possible. The trial is one step towards that

25 The welfare and safety of the lynx is of highest importance, both during the
trial and at the end of the trial
26 There is not enough funding within the trial to implement what needs to
be done
27 A clear vision on what the long-term management plans beyond the trial are
vital
28 I do not think this area is suitable for the lynx
29 The trial would have negative impacts on my personal situation
30 I believe the trial will have a positive impact on the local community
31 Having lynx in this area would help put Kielder on the map
32 I believe having lynx here, although rarely seen, would create and exciting
sense of wilderness
33 I am concerned that the lynx will be a threat to pets during the trial
34 I believe the local community could come to enjoy having lynx here. But it
would take a long time
35 I am concerned that the lynx will disperse from the trial release area
36 I believe the lynx will offer more opportunities for employment to the
younger generation in particular
37 Lynx would have a negative impact on the venison and/or deer stalking
industry
38 I do not know how to voice my opinion to the Lynx UK Trust
39 I have read the trial proposal document
40 I am happy with the way the consultation has been carried out
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 6.2 Mapping consultation activity against the 10

IUCN Social Feasibility Guidelines
IUCN Social Feasibility Guideline (IUCN/SSC, Lynx consultation  Implications and further initiatives to be undertaken 
2013)

5.2.1. Any conservation translocation proposal Stakeholder consultation has been The approach taken with governmental stakeholders
should be developed within national and managed in accordance with should continue. The full consultation plan, with
regional conservation infrastructure, recognising national conservation infrastructure. a focus on national to regional consultation,
the mandate of existing agencies, legal and policy Dialogues were open with Defra, was logical in conception but with hindsight
frameworks, national biodiversity action plans or the Scottish government, Scottish this approach alienated key regional non-
existing species recovery plans.  Natural Heritage and Natural governmental stakeholders. Ongoing plans
England as well as other relevant should seek to involve regional stakeholders in
governmental bodies, and there was community conversations.
discussion regarding the approach
taken during the consultation.
5.2.2. Human communities in or around a Data collected reflect the extreme Complexity in several attitudes and values, especially
release area will have legitimate interests in any polarity in a series of crucial aspects diverging views on nature, needs to be further
translocation. These interests will be varied, of lynx reintroduction, which has investigated. Data collection should continue,
and community attitudes can be extreme been often voiced in a polemical using more focused discussion, in order to
and internally contradictory. Consequently, fashion. ensure data represents a wide range of views.
translocation planning should accommodate The planning and implementation of any project
the socio-economic circumstances, community after completion of further data collection must
attitudes and values, motivations and directly address community attitudes and values
expectations, behaviours and behavioural change, and this must translate into the execution of any
and the anticipated costs and benefits of the reintroduction rather than being a desk-based or
translocation. Understanding these is the basis ‘on paper’ exercise.
for developing public relations activities to
orient the public in favour of a translocation.
 VetBooks.ir

IUCN Social Feasibility Guideline (IUCN/SSC, Lynx consultation  Implications and further initiatives to be undertaken 
2013)
5.2.3. Mechanisms for communication, This is particularly key for the farming It is essential that the farming community is fully
engagement and problem-solving between community, who are most likely involved in the development in key areas of project
the public (especially key individuals most to be adversely affected by the management such as compensation for livestock
likely to be affected by or concerned about the proposal. Methods used initially predation, mitigation measures to prevent livestock
translocation) and translocation managers should to attempt to engage the farming predation, monitoring protocols, measures of
be established well in advance of any release. community were not widely success and exit strategy. This work has started, and
received; however, more recent focus there were some signs of trust and engagement
groups have tentatively opened lines developing. Perceived lack of information among
of communication. the wider community also indicates the need
for improved forms of communication. Lack of
continuity of personnel would tend to undermine
this process so a familiar team should be established
for the long term to combat this.
5.2.4. No organisms should be removed or Data collection during initial Further data collection and engagement activities
released without adequate/conditional consultation activities have should be undertaken to ensure that all concerns
measures that address the concerns of relevant highlighted a number of stakeholder have been uncovered; to understand how concerns
interested parties (including local/indigenous concerns in the Kielder area. can be adequately met, or whether there are
communities); this includes any removal as part opportunities for negotiation; and that stakeholders
of an exit strategy. have been fully involved in the development of
key project areas. Primary areas identified to date
include compensation and mitigation, welfare
issues, exit measures and measures of success. 
5.2.5. If extinction in the proposed destination This is a relevant issue with the trial Based on the data collected, this is a key issue which
area occurred long ago, or if conservation as lynx have been absent from this needs to be addressed in ongoing consultation
introductions are being considered, local landscape for over 1300 years. Thus activities. The project needs to make a much
communities may have no connection to species far, the case for reintroduction has stronger case to the local community, based on
unknown to them, and hence oppose their largely been based on examples extensive ecological feasibility work, for how lynx
release. In such cases, special effort to counter from Europe, the potential will fit into the wider Kielder socio-ecological
such attitudes should be made well in advance of economic benefits through tourism landscape. The theory of the ‘landscape of
any release. and the potential for trophic coexistence’ should be investigated as a possible
cascades to control deer numbers mechanism for allaying concerns regarding
and encourage ecosystem restoration human-lynx conflict.
(with added benefits to biodiversity).

(Continued )
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 6.2 (Continued)

IUCN Social Feasibility Guideline (IUCN/SSC, Lynx consultation  Implications and further initiatives to be undertaken 
2013)

5.2.6. Successful translocations may yield economic A strong case has been made for the This work requires further refinement, specifically in
opportunities, such as through ecotourism, potential net economic benefits of relation to the Kielder socio-economic landscape.
but negative economic impacts may also the trial, based on a desktop cost- Linked to 5.2.3., this should include a greater
occur; the design and implementation stages benefit analysis modelling approach focus on those most likely to be adversely affected.
should acknowledge the potential for negative conducted by AECOM.  After this, such work must translate into genuine
impacts on affected parties or for community attempts to include targeted aspects in the project
opposition; where possible, sustainable economic plan addressing this point.
opportunities should be established for local
communities, and especially where communities/
regions are challenged economically.
5.2.7. Some species are subject to multiple Good lines of communication were Communication and sharing of experiences should
conservation translocations: In these situations, established with other European continue, with the network widening to include
inter-project, inter-regional or international countries where lynx are present further knowledge and skills.
communication and collaboration are (e.g., the Harz mountains project
encouraged in the interests of making best and Sweden, the proposed location
use of resources and experiences for attaining for the source population), other
translocation goals and effective conservation. UK conservation projects (e.g., the
pine marten reinforcement project
run by Vincent Wildlife Trust) and
several academic institutions. 
5.2.8. Organisational aspects can also be critical A national forum, targeting national The national stakeholder forum should continue,
for translocation success: Where multiple bodies, stakeholder organisations, created a with concerted efforts to expand membership,
such as government agencies, non-government mechanism for sharing information as well as continued communication with
organisations, informal interest groups (some and expertise. The intention was governmental agencies. It is also important to
of which may oppose a translocation) all have to create a similar local stakeholder ensure that those involved are objective and
statutory or legitimate interests in a translocation, forum open to any type of body reasonable when dealing with a broad spectrum of
it is essential that mechanisms exist for all parties or individual. Given the legal interests and agendas.
to play suitable and constructive roles. This may implications of the project, there
require establishment of special teams working was a separate dialogue with the
outside formal, bureaucratic hierarchies that can government as per 5.2.1.
guide, oversee and respond swiftly and effectively
as management issues arise.
 VetBooks.ir

IUCN Social Feasibility Guideline (IUCN/SSC, Lynx consultation  Implications and further initiatives to be undertaken 
2013)
5.2.9. The multiple parties involved in most Agreements were never Structure and governance of the project and/or the
translocations have their own mandates, formalised between project participating organisations should be transparent.
priorities and agendas; unless these are aligned partner organisations, and it
through effective facilitation and leadership, was disagreement over project
unproductive conflict may fatally undermine governance that concluded in the
translocation implementation or success.  cessation of consultation activities
by the authors.
5.2.10. A successful translocation can contribute to Data from the consultation highlights Detailed ecological feasibility and cost-benefit
a general ethical obligation to conserve species that ecological feasibility and impact analyses specific to the proposed area should be
and ecosystems; but the conservation gain from on native wildlife and human completed and published, and should inform
the translocation should be balanced against interests are key concerns among project plans and any licence application(s).
the obligation to avoid collateral harm to other the community. Detailed ecological
species, ecosystems or human interests; this is and feasibility work was planned,
especially important in the case of a conservation but remains incomplete to our
introduction. knowledge.
 128  Steven Lipscombe et al.
References
Andelman, S. J., and Fagan, W. F. (2000) ‘Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation sur-
VetBooks.ir

rogates or expensive mistakes?’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, vol 97, no 11, pp5954–5959.
Angst, C., and Breitenmoser, U. (2003) ‘Eurasian lynx depredation on livestock in
Switzerland – A lasting controversy 30 years after the reintroduction’, Environmental
Encounters, vol 58, pp59–60.
Arts, K., Fischer, A., and van der Wal, R. (2012) ‘Common stories of reintroduction: A dis-
course analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland’, Land Use
Policy, vol 29, no 4, pp911–920.
Basille, M., Herfindal, I., Santin-Janin, H., Linnell, J. D. C., Odden, J., Andersen, R., Hogda, K.
A., and Gaillard, J. M. (2009) ‘What shapes Eurasian lynx distribution in human dominated
landscapes: Selecting prey or avoiding people?’, Ecography, vol 32, no 4, pp683–691.
Berkes, F. (2004) ‘Rethinking community-based conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 18,
no., 3, pp621–630.
Breitenmoser, U., and Breitenmoser-Würsten, C. (2004) ‘Switzerland’, in M. von Arx, C.
Breitenmoser-Würsten, F. Zimmermann and U. Breitenmoser (eds) Status and conservation
of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe in 2001, Kora, Muri.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andren, H., Lopez-Bao, J.
V., Adamec, M., Alvares, F., Anders, O., Balciauskas, L., Balys,V., Bedo, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J.
C., Breitenmoser, U., Broseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder,
T., Fuxjager, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremic,
J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S.,
Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majic, A., Mannil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F.,
Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis,Y., Myslajek, R. W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J.,
Palomero, G., Paunovic, M., Persson, J., Potocnik, H., Quenette, P.Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt,
I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori,V., Skrbinsek,T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J. E., Szemethy, L.,
Trajce, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Vana, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wofl, M., Wolfl,
S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. (2014) ‘Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, no 6216, pp1517–1519.
Convery, I., Smith, D., Brady, D., Hawkins, S., Iversen, S., Mayhew, M., and Eagle, A. (2016)
‘Lynx UK trust consultation brief: Kielder’, http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3453,
accessed 4 December 2017.
Gehr, B., Hofer, E. J., Muff, S., Ryser, A., Vimercati, E., Vogt, K., and Keller, L. F. (2017) ‘A
landscape of coexistence for a large predator in a human dominated landscape’, Oikos, vol
126, pp1389–1399.
Griffith, B., Scott, J. M., Carpenter, J.W., and Reed, C. (1989) ‘Translocation as a species con-
servation tool: Status and strategy’, Science, vol 245, no 4917, pp477–480.
Halliday, J., and Parveen, N. (2017) ‘Plan to return the lynx splits friends and families in
Kielder Forest community’, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/03/plan-to-
introduce-lynx-to-kielder-forest-angers-farmers, accessed 4 December 2017.
Hetherington, D. (2006) ‘The lynx in Britain’s past, present and future’, Ecos, vol 27, no 1,
pp66–74.
Hetherington, D. A., Miller, D. R., Macleod, C. D., and Gorman, M. L. (2008) ‘A potential
habitat network for the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in Scotland’, Mammal Review, vol 38, no
4, pp285–303.
Heurich, M., Most, L., Schauberger, G., Reulen, H., Sustr, P., and Hothorn,T. (2012) ‘Survival
and causes of death of European Roe Deer before and after Eurasian Lynx reintroduction
 A community divided 129
in the Bavarian Forest National Park’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 58, no 3,
pp567–578.
Hexham Courant (2016) ‘Chaos erupts at lynx meeting’, www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/
VetBooks.ir

bellingham/Chaos-erupts-at-lynx-meeting-45677f1c-956b-414b-8cb0-8dd0e426a85b-
ds, accessed 4 December 2017.
Hexham Courant (2017) ‘Debate continues over plans to release lynx at Kielder’, www.hex
ham-courant.co.uk/features/Debate-continues-over-plan-to-release-lynx-at-Kielder-
26f9ef29-431e-4906–94b6–1d7a15a0de7e-ds, accessed 4 December 2017.
IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations, IUCN
Species Survival Commission, Gland.
Jobin, A., Molinari, P., and Breitenmoser, U. (2000) ‘Prey spectrum, prey preference and
consumption rates of Eurasian lynx in the Swiss Jura Mountains’, Acta Theriologica, vol 45,
no 2, pp243–252.
Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andren, H., and Linnell, J. (2012) ‘Sta-
tus, management and distribution of large carnivores – Bears, lynx, wolf & wolverine –
In Europe’, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/
conservation_status.htm, accessed 10 November 2017.
Kaplan-Hallam, M., and Bennett, N. J. (2017) ‘Adaptive social impact management for con-
servation and environmental management’, Conservation Biology, epub ahead of print,
doi:10.1111/cobi.12985.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez
Lazpita, J., and Gibon, A. (2000) ‘Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe:
Environmental consequences and policy response’, Journal of Environmental Management,
vol 59, no 1, pp47–69.
Marshall, K.,White, R., and Fischer, A. (2007) ‘Conflicts between humans over wildlife man-
agement: On the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict manage-
ment’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 16, no 11, pp3129–3146.
Mascia, M. B., Brosius, J. P., Dobson, T. A., Forbes, B. C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M. A., and
Turner, N. J. (2003) ‘Conservation and the social sciences’, Conservation Biology, vol 17, no
3, pp649–650.
Mayhew, M., Chantrey J., and Morphet, N. (2017) Disease and Welfare Risk Assessments for the
Reintroduction of Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx) from Sweden to Kielder Forest, Northumberland,
UK (Unpublished).
Milanesi, P., Breiner, F. T., Puopolo, F., and Holderegger, R. (2017) ‘European human-
dominated landscapes provide ample space for the recolonization of large carnivore popu-
lations under future land change scenarios’, Ecography, vol 40, no 12, pp1359–1368.
Murphree, M.W. (2002) ‘Protected areas and the commons’, Common Property Resource Digest,
vol 60, pp1–3.
Nilsen, E. B., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Schofield, L., Mysterud, A., Stenseth, N. C., and Coulson,
T. (2007) ‘Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: Public attitudes and consequences for red deer
management’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol 274, no
1612, pp995–1003.
Northumberland County Council (2011) ‘Northumberland knowledge 2011 census
factsheet’, www.northumberland.gov.uk/NorthumberlandCountyCouncil/media/
Northumberland-Knowledge/NK%20place/Parishes%20and%20towns/Parish%20
fact%20sheets/FactSheetParishBellingham.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
Odden, J., Linnell, J. D. C., and Andersen, R. (2006) ‘Diet of Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, in the
boreal forest of southeastern Norway: The relative importance of livestock and hares at
low roe deer density’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 52, no 4, pp237–244.
 130  Steven Lipscombe et al.
Odden, J., Nilsen, E. B., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2013) ‘Density of wild prey modulates Lynx kill
rates on free-ranging domestic sheep’, PLoS ONE, vol 8, no 11, ppe79261, doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0079261.
VetBooks.ir

O’Rourke, E. (2014) ‘The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: People and
wildlife’, Land Use Policy, vol 38, pp129–137.
Rackham, O. (2001) Trees and Woodlands in the British Landscape, W&N, London.
Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A.,
Gutiérrez, R. J., Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sand-
ström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A., Young, J.,
and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘Don’t forget to look down – Collaborative approaches
to predator conservation’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, no 4, pp2157–2163.
Schmidt-Posthaus, H., Breitenmoser-Wörsten, C., Posthaus, H., Bacciarini, L., and Breiten-
moser, U. (2002) ‘Causes of mortality in reintroduced Eurasian lynx in Switzerland’, Jour-
nal of Wildlife Diseases, vol 38, no 1, pp84–92.
Sergio, F., Newton, I., Marchesi, L., and Pedrini, P. (2006) ‘Ecologically justified charisma:
Preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation’, Journal of Applied Ecology,
vol 43, no 6, pp1049–1055.
Sieber, A., Uvarov, N. V., Baskin, L. M., Radeloff, V. C., Bateman, B. L., Pankov, A. B., and
Kuemmerle, T. (2015) ‘Post-Soviet land-use change effects on large mammals’ habitat in
European Russia’, Biological Conservation, vol 191, pp567–576.
Simberloff, D. (1998) ‘Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé
in the landscape era?’, Biological Conservation, vol 83, no 3, pp247–257.
Smith, D., O’Donoghue, P., Convery, I., Eagle, A., and Piper, S. (2015a) ‘Reintroduction of
the Eurasian Lynx to the United Kingdom: Results of a public survey’, http://lynxuk.
org/publications/lynxinterimsurvey.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
Smith, D., O’Donoghue, P., Convery, I., Eagle, A., Piper, S., White, C., and Van Maanen, E.
(2015b) ‘Application to natural England for the trial reintroduction of Lynx to England’,
http://lynxuk.org/publications/EngLynxConsult.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
Smith, D., O’Donoghue, P., Convery, I., Eagle, A., Piper, S., White, C., and Van Maanen,
E. (2015c) ‘Application to Scottish Natural Heritage for the trial reintroduction of
lynx to Scotland’, http://lynxuk.org/publications/ScotLynxConsult.pdf, accessed 4
December 2017.
Smith, D., O’Donoghue, P., Convery, I., Eagle, A., Piper, S., and White, C. (2016) ‘Lynx UK
Trust – A national stakeholder consultation: An interim consultation document’, http://
lynxuk.org/publications/lynxinterimdoc.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
Songorwa, A. N. (1999) ‘Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are
the communities interested?’, World Development, vol 27, no 12, pp2061–2079.
Soulé, M., and Terborgh, J. (eds) (1999) Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of
Regional Reserve Networks, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Thirgood, S., and Redpath, S. (2008) ‘Hen harriers and red grouse: Science, politics and
human-wildlife conflict’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 45, no 5, pp1550–1554.
Trouwborst, A. (2010) ‘Managing the carnivore comeback: International and EU species
protection law and the return of Lynx, Wolf and bear to Western Europe’, Journal of Envi-
ronmental Law, vol 22, no 3, pp347–372.
van Heel, B. F., Boerboom, A. M., Fliervoet, J. M., Lenders, H. J. R., and van den Born, R. J.
G. (2017) ‘Analysing stakeholders’ perceptions of wolf, lynx and fox in a Dutch riverine
area’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 26, no 7, pp1723–1743.
von Essen, E. (2017) ‘Whose discourse is it anyway? Understanding resistance through the
rise of “Barstool Biology” in nature conservation’, Environmental Communication, vol 11,
no.4, pp470–489.
 A community divided 131
Wagner, C., Holzapfel, M., Kluth, G., Reinhardt, I., and Ansorge, H., (2012) ‘Wolf (Canis
lupus) feeding habits during the first eight years of its occurrence in Germany’, Mammalian
Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, vol 77, no 3, pp196–203.
VetBooks.ir

Watts, S., and Stenner, P. (2005) ‘Doing Q methodology:Theory, method and interpretation’,
Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol 2, no 1, pp67–91.
Watts, S., and Stenner, P. (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research:Theory Method and Interpreta-
tion, SAGE Publications, London.
White, C., Almond, M., Dalton, A., Eves, C., Fessey, M., Heaver, M., Hyatt, E., Rowcroft,
P., and Waters, J. (2016b) ‘The economic impact of lynx in the Harz mountains’, http://
lynxuk.org/publications/lynxharz.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
White, C., Convery, I., Eagle, A., O’Donoghue, P., Piper, S., Rowcroft, P., Smith, D., and Van
Maanen, E. (2015) ‘Cost-benefit analysis for the reintroduction of lynx to the UK: Main
report’, www.aecom.com/uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cost-benefit-analysis-for-
the-reintroduction-of-lynx-to-the-UK-Main-report.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
White, C., Waters, J., Eagle, A., O’Donoghue, P., Rowcroft, P., and Wade, M. (2016a) ‘Rein-
troduction of the Eurasian Lynx to the United Kingdom: Trial site selection’, http://
lynxuk.org/publications/lynxsiteselection.pdf, accessed 4 December 2017.
Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) ‘Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981’, www.legislation.
gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/contents, accessed 4 December 2017.
Wilson, C. J. (2004) ‘Could we live with reintroduced large carnivores in the UK?’, Mammal
Review, vol 34, no 3, pp211–232.
Woods, M., Heley, J., Richards, C., and Watkins, S. (2012) ‘Rural people and the land’, in I.
Convery, G. Corsane and P. Davis (eds) Making Sense of Place: Multidisciplinary Perspectives,
Boydell Press, Woodbridge.
 7 Heterogeneity in perceptions
of large carnivores
VetBooks.ir

Insights from Sanjay Gandhi

National Park, Mumbai,
and Ladakh
Sunetro Ghosal

Introduction
Large carnivore conservation cuts across disciplinary boundaries and thematic
processes. It is contextualised within biological, social, political, economic, and
geographical processes.Thus, it requires participation from different groups and
sub-groups that have their own interests and unique interactions and relation-
ships with the large carnivore in question, which determines their perception
and inter-group interactions. Humans and large carnivores have a complex
history in their complex and dynamic relationship that dates back several thou-
sands of years (Cavallo and Blumenschine, 1989; Cavallo, 1990). Heterogeneity
in stakeholder perceptions is a reflection of the dynamism and the multiplic-
ity of factors that influence human-carnivore interactions. It is also influenced
by different bodies of knowledge accessed by social actors to interpret, adapt,
influence, and resist each other’s rationale and actions. Knowledge types are
neither static nor holistic and often diffuse, compete with, or intersect each
other. In addition, there is variability in terms of political economy and man-
aging resources in the landscape, in terms of decision-making and influence
over policy. Ecological processes are another important dimension in configur-
ing relationships between people and large carnivores. All the previously men-
tioned factors are crucial for the behavioural adaption that humans and large
carnivores employ to adapt to each other’s presence in the landscape.
Given the complexity of all these processes, there are several inherent con-
tradictions, contestations, and challenges in understanding and reconciling this
diversity of perceptions. Acknowledging the diversity in stakeholder positions
remains a key requirement for biological conservation at large, and is an issue
that needs to be integrated in any process for large carnivore conservation. The
heterogeneity of stakeholder relationships and perceptions may present both
opportunities and threats.These equations have played out in their unique ways
in different sites across the world, including lions in Africa, wolves in Europe
and North America, and lions, leopards, and tigers in South Asia. Over the last
few years, several case studies have emerged that exemplify the diversity of
interactions between humans and leopards in India (see Athreya and Venkatesh,
2013; Ghosal et al., 2013; Ghosal and Kjosavik, 2015). Understanding this
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 133
heterogeneity of perceptions, and their localised dynamics, is the first step in the
process that later includes dialogues, negotiations, and actions to enable humans
and large carnivores to share space and resources. In this chapter, I examine
VetBooks.ir

examples that illustrate the interaction between people and large carnivores
in India by taking into account the local context. This includes a setting with
people and leopards (Panthera pardus fusca) in a metropolitan landscape in subur-
ban Mumbai (Bombay) and Thane, and a second setting in high-altitude steppe
and mountain systems of the Indian Trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh, where
people share the landscape and its resources with wolves (Canis lupus chanco)
and snow leopards (Panthera uncia).
In the summer of 2014, a leopard entered a school premises in the eastern
suburbs of Mumbai, located along the border of Sanjay Gandhi National Park.
The school was on holiday, but the leopard’s presence caused a large ripple in
the city circles.The leopard was soon located in the school hall, as conservation
managers tried to devise a way to trap it. Outside, media persons and curious
onlookers gathered to witness the proceedings. The media carried spiced up
reports of leopards ‘straying’ out of the park and entering human areas.Various
residents in the neighbourhood expressed fear of leopards that were using the
area. As an elderly gentleman watched the proceedings of the leopard rescue
operation and the crowds that had gathered, from his high-rise apartment that
shared a wall with the school, he commented nonchalantly: “I do not see the
need for all this fuss. Leopards are nothing new. They have always lived in this
area.”There were very diverse perceptions and reactions to large carnivore pres-
ence evident in the metropolitan city of Mumbai, where an estimated 20,925
people share space with leopards that live in and along the peripheral regions of
the 103 km2 national park (Deol, 2011).
In the high altitude region of Ladakh in the Indian Trans-Himalayas, wolves
(Canis lupus chanco) and snow leopards (Panthera uncia) share the landscape with
livestock herders, farmers, and security agencies. There were many herders and
farmers who regarded large carnivores as a menace and repeatedly claimed
that they should be eliminated. At the same time, there were numerous oth-
ers in these communities who took a more benign view of large carnivores
and treated them with respect, while acknowledging the reciprocity in the
relationship between humans and non-humans. The heterogeneity of stake-
holder attitudes toward large carnivores and varying degrees of tolerance and
antagonism towards these species transcended rural vs. urban dichotomies. This
diversity was illustrative of the complexity and dynamism of human-carnivore
interactions, which were influenced by a wide array of factors and are subject
to continuous change.

Site descriptions
The Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) landscape is located in the suburbs
of Mumbai, Maharashtra State. It is spread across 103 km2, of which 56 km2 are
within the municipal limits of Mumbai, while the remaining area is located in
Thane urban area. Immediately north of the park is the 90 km2 Tungareshwar
 134  Sunetro Ghosal
Wildlife Sanctuary, which is primarily located in rural Thane district. The
SGNP landscape is surrounded by suburban Mumbai with an average popula-
tion density of 20,925/km2 (Deol, 2011).The human population is very diverse
VetBooks.ir

with variations across ethnicity, class, period of residence, political affiliations,

awareness, and physical proximity to the national park. A minimum of 35 indi-
vidual leopards have been identified in SGNP through a camera-trapping exer-
cise carried out in 2015 (Surve, 2015). This is an exceptionally high number
of leopards for the 103 km2 protected area. However, the number is not sur-
prising given the high population density of prey animals such as feral dogs,
which form a significant part of the diet of Mumbai’s leopards (Punjabi, 2013a,
2013b; Surve, 2015). The geography of the interactions between humans and
leopards include shrines dedicated to Waghoba (large cat deity), conservation-
priority zones, development-priority areas, and forested areas where some
developmental activities are allowed (stables for livestock, roads, police training
centres, and, more recently, a metro car shed). The region has a long history
of human-leopard interactions. In 2003–2004, conflicts between humans and
leopards peaked.This intensification has been linked to trapping and translocat-
ing leopards, which was practiced earlier (Athreya et al., 2010, 2011), and which
is now understood to have been counter-productive as it traumatised individual
animals (which tried to return to their home range when relocated), played
havoc with the local social structure of leopards, and removed a resident animal
familiar with the area to create an opening for a less dominant animal that was
unfamiliar with the area (Athreya et al., 2010, 2011). After 2011 and the estab-
lishment of guidelines for managing human-leopard interactions (Ministry of
Environment and Forests, 2011), conflict has decreased substantially as resident
leopards have remained in the area. The Forest Department initiated a project
called Mumbaikars for SGNP to conduct research into leopard ecology, under-
stand human-leopard conflict, and engage in dialogue with various stakeholders
to facilitate human-leopard coexistence in and around Mumbai.
At the other end of the rural-urban spectrum, we have human-wildlife inter-
actions in Ladakh, especially Chanthang in Jammu and Kashmir State. Ladakh
marks the western edge of the Tibetan plateau, and is one of the most sparsely
populated areas in India with an estimated two persons/km2. It is characterised
by its undulating mountainous landscape with high altitude steppe in the east,
an arid climatic system (being in the rain shadow of the main Himalayan range)
and extreme temperatures that range from −45o C in the winter to 30o C dur-
ing the summer. Ladakh is located at the altitudinal threshold and above for
agriculture at these latitudes. Thus, agro-pastoralism remains the cornerstone
of the Ladakhi economy, which brings people into sharp conflict with large
carnivore species in the area. These include wolves (Canis lupus chanco) and
snow leopards (Panthera uncia).There are no records of attacks on humans, while
human-large carnivore conflicts in Ladakh are over livestock depredation. In
retaliation, people have been killing snow leopards and wolves. Some govern-
ment departments, such as the Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department, have
been promoting an increase in production of wool and other products that
the herders can sell. At the same time, numerous large protected areas have
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 135
been established across Ladakh, while conservation practice has been based on
landscape-level management that focuses on augmenting human livelihoods
to encourage conservation through provision of alternate sources of income,
VetBooks.ir

use of renewable energy technology to reduce natural resource extraction, etc.

(Takpa, 2017). Unlike other parts of India, people have not been excluded from
protected areas and were integrated as the main beneficiaries of conservation
measures. This has reduced conflicts between managers and residents, and ena-
bled tolerance towards large carnivores.
The two sites were very different, one being urbanised and at sea-level with
a high density of humans and leopards, and the other being rural and at the
altitudinal threshold of human habitation (Table 7.1). In addition, there was
a history of leopard attacks on humans and domesticated animals in Mum-
bai, while in Ladakh wolves and snow leopards only attacked domestic ani-
mals. However, both sites have several factors in common in that they have a
diversity of stakeholder groups sharing the area with large carnivores that are
managed by the same formal policy framework for conservation management.
Jammu and Kashmir has a special status in India and is governed by a differ-
ent constitution, which is largely based on the Indian constitution. The main
conservation-related policy in India is the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act
(1972) with subsequent amendments, whose equivalent in Jammu and Kashmir
is the Jammu and Kashmir Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1978 (amended in 2002).

Table 7.1  Local context and attitudes in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Changthang, India

Sanjay Gandhi National Park; Changthang; eastern part of the

suburban Mumbai (Bombay) and Indian Trans-Himalayan region of
Thane, Maharashtra State Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir State

Large carnivores Leopard Wolf; snow leopard

Local context • Feral dogs form a significant • A high altitude cold desert
part of the diet of Mumbai’s region that marks the western
leopards and sustain a edge of the Tibetan plateau
population of a minimum 35 • One of the most sparsely
individuals leopards in the populated areas in India with
103 km2 protected area an estimated two persons/km2
• Very diverse human • Jammu and Kashmir has a
population (e.g., ethnicity, special status in India and
class, period of residence, is governed by a different
political affiliations, constitution, which is
awareness, and physical largely based on the Indian
proximity to the national constitution
park) exist around the park;
in 2011 the density of human
population around the park
was 20,925 people/km2
• Numerous shrines dedicated
to Waghoba (large cat deity)

(Continued)
 136  Sunetro Ghosal
Table 7.1 (Continued)

Sanjay Gandhi National Park; Changthang; eastern part of the

VetBooks.ir

suburban Mumbai (Bombay) and Indian Trans-Himalayan region of

Thane, Maharashtra State Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir State

Main dimensions • Human-leopard conflicts • Landscape-level management

of governmental peaked mainly due to a focused on provision of
policy counter-productive practice alternate sources of income
of trapping and translocating and use of renewable energy
leopards, which stopped after to reduce natural resource
2011 extraction
• The Forest Department • Unlike other parts of India,
initiated a research project people have not been excluded
on leopard ecology, human- from protected areas and
leopard conflict, stakeholder are integrated as the main
consultation, and engagement beneficiaries of conservation
measures
Local attitudes • Leopards’ presence and • Younger herders and farmers
towards large frequent attacks cause much regard large carnivores as a
carnivores concern menace and claim that they
• Residents who have stayed in should be eliminated
the area longer believe that • Elder people acknowledge
leopards belonged there the reciprocity in the human-
carnivore relationship
Main drivers of local • History of leopard attacks on • Resource-poor region with
attitudes humans limited alternative livelihoods
• National park bordering an • Human-large carnivore
urban area conflicts in Ladakh are
• Dualist perspective between primarily over livestock
humans and nature depredation
• Tension catalysed by media
discourse
Main drivers of • In-migration since the 1990s • Push to increase production of
attitudes • Insecurity of land tenure livestock
• Existing conflicts with the • Promotion of ecotourism
government development
• Lack of access to information
about leopards

Data collection and analysis

Fieldwork has been carried out in the two sites at different periods. In Changth-
ang, data collection started in the summer of 2005 and continued in the winter
of 2014 to be concluded in the summer of 2017. In Mumbai, fieldwork started
in 2011 and continued until 2014. Data collection included interviews with
representatives of different stakeholder groups. The respondents were identi-
fied using snowball sampling (i.e., each respondent suggested other interview-
ees). The interviews were conducted with the use of a semi-structured guide
that ensured that specific topics were covered but did not impinge on the
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 137
order in which they were asked and allowed interviewees to expand on themes,
whenever they wished to do so. In total, 150 respondents were interviewed
in Mumbai and another 120 respondents were interviewed in Ladakh. For
VetBooks.ir

some respondents, follow-up interviews were conducted to clarify points that

emerged during data analysis. Interviewees represented a cross-section of vari-
ous stakeholder groups and sub-groups, taking into account several factors such
as livelihood patterns, class, age, gender, education, access to political decision-
making processes, and conservation-related roles such as managers, activists, etc.
Interviews were recorded if the respondent gave his or her consent by means of
an audio-recording device. Where they refused permission to use a recording
device, handwritten notes were taken during the interview. During many of the
interviews, other people would join the discussion and the interviews would
turn into ‘natural’ focus groups rather than ‘formal’ focus groups arranged
according to predefined categories (Frey and Fontana, 1993). The interviews
were conducted in different languages, including English, Urdu, Hindi, Marathi,
and Ladakhi. All participants were guaranteed anonymity and therefore, their
names have been withheld on purpose. Analysis concentrated on the various
‘meanings’ attributed by individuals and groups to large carnivores and issues
related to sharing resources with large carnivores, which is the primary focus
for the present chapter. About 15% of all interviews in each site was selected
randomly to be analysed by an independent researcher using the same coding.
After inter-coder reliability between the author and the independent coder
reached over 85%, mismatches were discussed and used to re-analyse parts of
the interview corpus, when this was needed. Insights gained from interviews
were correlated with data collected through participant observation and gen-
eral discussions in both sites.
In addition to interviews, participant observation was used to understand
different behavioural patterns of humans and large carnivores. This included
observation of human activities and large carnivores in the two landscapes. It
also included participation in various activities in the two sites, which pro-
vided insights to various social-cultural practices and ecological processes. Data
regarding populations of leopards and their prey based in and around SGNP
have been collected from projects that are underway. Notes on large carnivores
and other wildlife, as well as domesticated livestock and human communities in
Ladakh, have been collected from different sources such as the District Admin-
istration and other research projects in the area.

Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores

The perceptions of large carnivores among stakeholder groups were hetero-
geneous as they were influenced by a diversity of factors, which exerted their
effect on human-carnivore relationships. For instance, conservation managers
were part of an institutionalised value system with a specific conceptualisa-
tion of large carnivores, which was quite different from that of indigenous
groups that shared the same landscape with large carnivore species (Ghosal
 138  Sunetro Ghosal
and Kjosavik, 2015). This was especially true in both sites in India, where a
top-down approach to policy formulation has been followed. Differences in
the value system inherent in conservation policy, on the one hand, and value
VetBooks.ir

systems that shaped perceptions and actions of local communities, on the other,
have often led to clashes and resistance anytime policy implementation was
introduced and local people have reacted, with large carnivores often getting
dragged into contests between such contrasting worldviews (see Ghosal et al.,
2013, for a discussion of the value systems that shape research on, and policy
towards, large carnivores in India).

Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai

Humans and leopards have shared a long history in Mumbai with periodic and
intense episodes of conflict, such as the one in 2002–2004, when 84 attacks on
humans were reported and at least 96 leopard trappings were recorded (Athreya
and Venkatesh, 2013). It is now understood that the trapping and relocation of
leopards had contributed to spike in the attacks on humans as has been also
reported by previous research (Linnell et al., 2001, 2009; Athreya et al., 2011;
Athreya and Venkatesh, 2013).
Mumbai is home to tribal communities such as the Warli and Mahadeo
Kolis – but not in other local communities – who perceive leopards as a per-
sonification of the deity, Waghoba (Ghosal, 2013; Ghosal and Kjosavik, 2015).
This form of socially accepted institutional relationship between leopards and
humans in some communities enshrines moral prescriptions and knowledge of
leopard ecology and precautions to avoid conflicts. One member of the Warli
community explained: “The leopard is our god and we know its habits. We
have lived together for very long and we both know how to avoid conflicts.”
While there are exceptions, most members of these communities were respect-
ful towards leopards and practiced various precautions to reduce the risk of
attacks by leopards.
At the other end of the spectrum are individuals from other local com-
munities who regarded the leopard as a dangerous animal and whose presence
was perceived to be a threat to humans. During interviews, these respondents
justified their fear based on ideas of leopards as man-eaters that dominated
certain narratives in popular culture including the writings of Jim Corbett that
were popular among urban residents and sensationalised media coverage (Ath-
reya and Venkatesh, 2013). This has been further strengthened by conservation
policies that were based on the assumption of a dualism between humans and
non-humans (Ghosal et al., 2013). Such a view of leopards logically leads to
the conclusion that they were ‘out of place’ in an urban landscape, where they
posed a threat to humans and had to be physically removed.
Many adherents to this dualist perspective have moved into the landscape
around SGNP since the 1990s or so, and they have not yet adapted their ideas
to the reality of having to live with leopards. Their concern that the largely
nocturnal leopards are present in the landscape has increased since 2011 with
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 139
the installation of closed circuit TVs in these areas. This group included people
in the middle and upper classes, who generally reacted with panic and self-
righteous outrage at the presence of leopards. This angst was articulated by a
VetBooks.ir

resident who exclaimed at a meeting: “The leopard is affecting our way of life.
We demand that it be removed from the area immediately!” However, there
have been some instances of members of this group changing their perception
based on dialogue with researchers and managers, and after an improved access
to information about the history of the landscape, human-leopard interactions,
and the behaviour of leopards in the area.
Another set of residents have lived in the area for five decades or more, and
this has enabled them to become familiar with leopards. However, the rela-
tionship between members of this group and leopards can be disrupted by the
insecurity of land tenure. This was evident in several interactions with residents
of the areas immediately east of SGNP after the state government’s revenue
department declared 117 acres of built-up area in 2006 as private forest land,
which has affected nearly 500,000 residents.The case was only resolved in 2014,
after the Supreme Court of India directed the State Government to regularise
the buildings after affected residents deposited a penalty. This insecurity over
land tenure surfaced during interviews, where discussion on leopards would
veer towards the uncertainty that these individuals were experiencing in the
area till the issue was finally settled. At a meeting between managers and resi-
dents, a resident casually commented: “In any case, we have encroached into the
leopard’s area and must learn to live with them.” Some of the other residents
present became agitated with this comment and started shouting: “What do
you mean ‘encroached? We have all paid for these houses with our hard-earned
money! . . . It is not our fault that the government gave permission for these
houses initially and is now saying that it is illegal!”
In addition to the inter-group diversity discussed so far, there was diversity
of perceptions even within groups owing to individual differences and access
to competing forms of knowledge. For instance, conservation managers (For-
est Department) are legally responsible for the conservation of leopards in
India, both inside and outside protected areas. In general, these officials receive
little training in updated knowledge of leopard ecology and behaviour. Their
perception of leopards is largely drawn from popular notions, mixed with
institutionalised but outdated knowledge of leopards and wildlife, in general.
For instance, one official commented: “Well, each leopard requires a territory
of 40 [square kilometers] and the main problem we have in the national park is
that of over-crowding.” This ignores more recent discovery of social structure
and territoriality of leopards, wherein territory sizes can vary in relation to
the availability of prey. Further, it reflects inadequate or insufficient efforts to
update the knowledge base on which conservation managers operate. Another
official in 2011 said: “Yes, leopards should not be coming to housing colonies
as they pose a threat to humans. We have no option but to trap such leopards.”
In contrast, there were conservation managers who were also members of
local tribal communities and who described leopard ecology and behaviour
 140  Sunetro Ghosal
in great detail, including individuality among leopards. When asked about the
source of their knowledge, one official explained: “We have grown up here
and our elders knew a lot about leopards and tigers. Now, this knowledge
VetBooks.ir

helps me manage human-leopard interactions as I am able to explain differ-

ent behaviour and help people take necessary precautions.” Since 2011, the
Ministry of Environment and Forests has adopted formal guidelines to man-
age human-leopard interactions. In addition, officials at SGNP initiated in
2011 the project Mumbaikars for SGNP, which included workshops for Forest
Department personnel on leopard behaviour and ecology. This has increased
awareness about the impact of earlier practices of trapping and relocation of
leopards.

Changthang
Diversity in attitudes towards large carnivores was also evident in Changthang.
For instance, there were individuals who viewed wolves and snow leopards
as essential elements of the landscape. They argued that the absence of these
large carnivores would ecologically, socially, and economically impoverish the
area, its human community included. This was best illustrated by an elderly
Changpa nomad who explained that wolves were essential for the existence
of human society: “As a result, we herd livestock even if we lose animals occa-
sionally due to depredation. If wolves were absent, we would become lazy and
our livestock would soon become feral. This would undermine our economic
and social systems.” When asked about the source of this idea, the elderly gen-
tleman explained that he learnt this from his parents and went on to explain
that humans were part of nature and needed to be responsible in their actions
towards other species.
However, other members in the same nomadic community did not share
this perception of large carnivores, especially younger people. Many of them
demonised wolves – the most common large carnivore in their area – as well
as their hunting strategies and their negative impact on their livestock. These
members characterised the wolf as a villainous beast, which needs to be elimi-
nated from the landscape.When asked how the wolf harmed them, one middle-
aged man explained: “We struggle here in the extreme cold to raise these herds.
The wolves just come and take what they want!” This must also been seen
in the context of the effort to increase herd sizes and maximise returns from
sale of wool and goat hair (pashm, which is used to make pashmina or cashmere
products), which has been promoted by government departments such as the
Animal and Sheep Husbandry Department – a shift that has occurred since the
1970s and 1980s (Ghosal and Ahmed, 2017). There were anecdotal and uncon-
firmed reports of younger local people killing wolf pups to control their popu-
lation (see Herda-Rapp and Goedeke, 2005, for similar trends in Europe and
elsewhere). When asked about these reports, respondents expressed ignorance
but said this is how they controlled wolf numbers in the past. It was not difficult
to justify lethal action to control wolf population based on the perception that
wolves were intruders.
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 141
In other parts of Ladakh, local residents expressed a degree of tolerance
towards snow leopards. In one case that occurred in 2015, a snow leopard had
entered a livestock pen, killed 14 sheep and got stuck inside. The following
VetBooks.ir

morning, conservation managers anesthetised the snow leopard and removed

it from the pen. The whole village, including members of the household in
which the pen was located, gathered to watch the operation and when the
snow leopard was finally brought out, the villagers were curious but displayed
no antagonism. In fact, a mother placed a small child in front of the cage as
they both wished to get closer to the anesthetized snow leopard. One resident
explained that this has not always been the case:

Till recently, we lived at the mercy of the snow leopard and never knew
when our herd would be attacked. They often kill the whole herd in their
blood-thirsty frenzy. Now, we have tourists coming to see snow leopards in
the winter, which provides us with an additional income source to offset
possible losses to depredation.

The promotion of ecotourism development as a management intervention in

the area has been documented by Takpa (2017).
There was a small group of individuals who held relatively romanticised
views of snow leopards and wolves in Ladakh. These individuals expressed the
idea of large carnivores being noble beasts that embody the spirit of wilderness
on a fast-changing planet. They were engaged in semi-institutionalised efforts
to conserve wildlife and often described themselves as guardians of wild ani-
mals in Ladakh: “We regard wild animals like snow leopards and wolves as our
family members and will do everything in our power to ensure that they are
conserved,” explained one such interviewee. Many of these individuals worked
in the tourism sector, while at least one person worked as a conservation man-
ager. They did hold meetings in various places to talk about the importance of
conservation and also held clean up drives for waste. However, this group was
still in its nascent stage.
Also, similar to the SGNP landscape, conservation managers in Ladakh were
a diversified group, since they were drawn from local communities as well as
from the state and national forest services, which required qualification through
highly competitive public exams. There were some who regarded large carni-
vore management as part of their job profile and approached conservation as
part of their official duty. Others took a more active interest in understanding
human-carnivore interactions. One such manager explained:

We need a new approach to conservation in India. We cannot rely on the

protected area model alone for conservation in places like Ladakh. Instead,
we need to develop landscape-level models that integrate the improvement
of human lives and biodiversity conservation.

These managers took personal interest to expand and update the scope of the
current conservation policy framework in India, in their management practices
 142  Sunetro Ghosal
on the ground – a framework which had been centred in the past on protected
areas excluding people.
VetBooks.ir

Understanding heterogeneity in perceptions

of large carnivores
It is important to note that multiple factors intersect within and between differ-
ent stakeholder groups increasing stakeholder heterogeneity, overall (see Cronon,
1995 for similar heterogeneity in relation to human-nature relations in the US,
and Saberwal and Rangarajan, 2003, for a similar discussion in India). While
there is a common denominator that holds each stakeholder group together
and influences their perception of large carnivores, there are variations due
to individual personality and experience, as well as cross-group membership.
A person may belong to a herding community and that same person may also
be part of the government machinery or choose to participate in ecotourism-
based initiatives for development.
The sources of information and knowledge are another important element
that adds to heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores. These sources
include mythology, popular culture, literature, institutionalised knowledge, tra-
ditional ecological knowledge, media, and localised rumours. The impact of
these forms of knowledge is contextual and dynamic. For instance, the use of a
label such as ‘man-eater’ has a certain connotation in Mumbai with its history
of leopard-related human fatalities that may not have the same implications in
Ladakh, where there is no history of attacks by snow leopards and wolves on
people. On the other hand, traditional ecological knowledge that identifies
leopards as a deity or wolves and snow leopards as neighbours provides spe-
cific time-tested moral and behavioural prescriptions to facilitate coexistence
between humans and large carnivores.
Another factor which has influenced perceptions of large carnivores was
acknowledgment of behavioural reciprocity. Science has traditionally been
structured around Cartesian dualisms, which did not recognise agency for non-
humans. Actor network theory has critiqued the reductionism inherent in such
dualism and proposed an alternative definition of agency, namely, the ability to
influence the actions of other actors (Latour, 2004). This definition allows the
idea of agency to be extended to nonhumans, without getting ensnared in con-
troversies surrounding the notion of self-awareness and intentionality. Another
approach called ethno-ethology argues for the integration of the behaviour of
nonhumans and the manner in which this behaviour is perceived by society
as well as the factors that influence these perceptions (e.g., Lescureux, 2006).
These ideas have been applied to research on human-nature relations by Cal-
lon (1986), Cloke and Jones (2004), and Lescureux (2006), which has opened
new avenues of inquiry into human-nature interactions by extending agency
to nonhumans. The idea of mutual behavioural reciprocity provides space for
negotiation in these interactions, and has given root to the idea of large carni-
vores as agents responding to human actions and, in turn, influencing human
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 143
actions. The recognition or denial of reciprocity is an important factor that
shaped different value systems. Indeed, many long-term residents around SGNP
and members of the previous generation in Ladakh recognised this agency and
VetBooks.ir

referred to it in order to negotiate coexistence with large carnivores.

Management practices also influence perceptions of leopards, and in turn,
the latter shape management strategies for leopards. Under Indian wildlife
laws (including Jammu and Kashmir State policies in the case of Ladakh), all
wild animals and biodiversity are regarded as the ‘property’ of the government.
Enforcement of these laws and compensation for losses has been detrimental
to traditional ecological knowledge in many areas as the animals are then seen
as a property of the government (Ghosal and Kjosavik, 2015). In Mumbai,
past management strategies for leopards are known to have affected leopard
behaviour and worsened conflicts (Athreya and Venkatesh, 2013). Individual
animals trapped in other parts of the state were relocated to SGNP, based on
the assumption that a leopard only needs a forest and prey to survive. However,
it has been found that many of these animals, already traumatised by the trap-
ping process, attempted to return to their home ranges and re-engaged into
conflict with human communities as they attacked people along the way (Ath-
reya et al., 2010). The intense conflict in 2003–2004 strengthened the popular
myth of leopards as dangerous man-eaters, especially through sensationalised
media reports. The failure to tackle human-leopard conflicts and new research
on the impacts of trapping and relocation of leopards prompted the Ministry
of Environment and Forests to release management guidelines in 2011, which
prohibited random trappings with strict protocols to manage human-leopard
interactions (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2011).
In the past, Forest Department officials were not instructed to consult and
engage local communities to generate support for conservation. As a result,
there was a divide between management practices and general perceptions of
leopards. However, in 2011, the department initiated efforts to engage in dia-
logue with various stakeholders in and around SGNP to reduce the pressure
to trap leopards and mitigate conflicts between people and leopards as well. In
Ladakh, the Department of Wildlife Protection and civil society groups have
been working with local communities in conservation management practices
by promoting eco-tourism and reducing dependence of natural resources
through the use of renewable energy technology (Takpa, 2017). These efforts
have helped develop a synergy between different stakeholder groups to improve
conservation efforts.
While traditional ecological knowledge systems in both sites did recognise
behavioural reciprocity, other knowledge systems were also exploring this factor,
which has enabled a shift in perception from antagonism to coexistence. This is
most evident in Mumbai as housing colonies spring up in the SGNP landscape
along the periphery of the national park. The common response of new resi-
dents on discovering leopards in their neighbourhood is one of fear, outrage,
and demands to trap and relocate leopards. However, dialogues initiated by the
Forest Department have helped people take precautions and learn to live with
 144  Sunetro Ghosal
leopards by reducing risks of attacks. As a result of this process, many residents
have started to express respect towards leopards. A similar process is also evident
in Ladakh. In the past, members of resident communities shared a reciprocal
VetBooks.ir

relationship with large carnivores in the landscape, though this would often be
tinged with a degree of hostility. However, in many parts of Ladakh, wildlife-
centred tourism has become popular and the local government and some civil
society groups have supported the development of home-stays, wherein tourists
stay in village homes during their travel. In addition, village youth have been
trained to act as tourist guides to earn additional income from tourism. At
the same time, conservation managers have also provided support to improve
livestock pens to ensure that large carnivores are not able to enter them. These
measures have not only helped villagers reduce livestock depredation rates; it
has also enabled them to earn money from the presence of large carnivores in
the region to offset any losses from depredation.

Conclusion
Human-carnivore relations are embedded in socio-ecological processes, which
are complex and dynamic. As respondent input in the two sites has illustrated,
there are site-specific characteristics in perceptions of large carnivores, largely
dependent on the local context, as well as common features, which transcend
differences in local history and synthesis of species diversity. Research findings
also underline the importance of engaging with this heterogeneity through
dialogue and interventions with a primary aim to understand the causes of
contestations and then attempting to mitigate conflict. Moreover, the research
reported highlights the need for inter-disciplinary research on human-large
carnivore relations. Such a perspective would avoid the pitfalls of disciplinary
blind spots, while providing a more holistic understanding of the issues in ques-
tion, provided that a coherent theoretical framework will be used. Future efforts
to further develop such a framework can draw valuable insight from actor net-
work theory and ethno-ethology.

Acknowledgements
The research in Mumbai was partly supported by Maharashtra Forest Depart-
ment. The research in Ladakh was partly funded by Rufford Small Grants and
supported by Wildlife Protection Department, Ladakh region.

References
Athreya,V. R., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., and Karanth, K. U. (2010) ‘Translocation as a tool
for mitigating conflict with Leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India’, Conserva-
tion Biology, vol 25, pp133–141.
Athreya,V. R., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., and Karanth, K. U. (2011) ‘Translocation as a tool
for mitigating conflict with Leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India’, Conserva-
tion Biology, vol 25, no 1, pp133–141.
 Heterogeneity in perceptions of large carnivores 145
Athreya,V. R., and Venkatesh,V. (eds) (2013) Mumbaikars for SGNP, 2011–2012: Report Sub-
mitted to Director and Chief Conservator of Forests, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some elements of the sociology of translation: Domestication of the scal-
VetBooks.ir

lops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc bay’, in J. Law (ed) Power, Action and Belief: A New
Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge, London.
Cavallo, J. A. (1990) ‘Cat in the human cradle’, Natural History, February 1990, pp53–60.
Cavallo, J. A., and Blumenschine, R. J. (1989) ‘Tree-stored leopard kills: Expanding the homi-
nid scavenging niche’, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 18, pp393–399.
Cloke, P., and Jones, O. (2004) ‘Turning in the graveyard: Trees and the hybrid geographies
of dwelling, monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery’, Cultural Geographies, vol 11,
pp313–341.
Cronon,W. (ed) (1995) Uncommon Ground:Towards Reinventing Nature,W.W. Norton and Co.,
New York.
Deol, R. S. (2011) Census of India 2011: Provisional Population Totals (Maharashtra), Govern-
ment of India, New Delhi.
Frey, J. H., and Fontana, A. (1993) ‘The group interview in social research’, in D. L. Morgan
(ed) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. SAGE Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
Ghosal, S. (2013) ‘Cats in the city: Narrative analysis of the interactions between people and
leopards in the SGNP landscape, Mumbai’, in V. R. Athreya and V. Venkatesh (eds) Mum-
baikars for SGNP, 2011–2012: Report Submitted to Director and Chief Conservator of Forests,
Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
Ghosal, S., and Ahmed, M. (2017) ‘Pastoralism and wetland resources in Ladakh Changthang
plateau’, in H. H. T. Prins and T. Namgail (eds) Bird Migration Across the Himalayas, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ghosal, S., Athreya, V. R., Linnell, J. D. C., and Vedeld, P. O. (2013) ‘An ontological crisis?
A review of large felid conservation in India’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 22, no 11,
pp2665–2681.
Ghosal, S., and Kjosavik, D. J. (2015) ‘Living with Leopards: Negotiating morality and moder-
nity in Western India’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 29, pp1092–1107.
Herda-Rapp, A., and Goedeke, T. L. (eds) (2005) Mad About Wildlife: Looking at Social Conflict
Over Wildlife, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden.
Latour, B. (2004) The Politics of Nature: How to Bring Science into Democracy, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lescureux, N. (2006) ‘Towards the necessity of a new interactive approach integrating eth-
nology, ecology and ethology in the study of the relationship between Kyrgyz stockbreed-
ers and wolves’, Social Science Information, vol 45, pp463–478.
Linnell, J. D. C., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., et al. (2009) ‘Recovery of
Eurasian lynx in Europe: What part has reintroduction played?’, in M. W. Hayward and M.
J. Somers (eds) Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E., and Anderson, R. (2001) ‘Predators and people: Conservation
of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable’,
Animal Conservation, vol 4, pp345–349.
Ministry of Environment and Forests (2011) Guidelines for Human-Leopard Conflict Manage-
ment, April 2011, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, http://
envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/moef-guidelines-2011-human-leopard-conflict-manage-
ment.pdf.
Punjabi, G. (2013a) ‘Assessing free-roaming dog (Canis familiaris) abundance in a mark-
resight framework in Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai’, in V. R. Athreya and V.Venkatesh (eds)
 146  Sunetro Ghosal
Mumbaikars for SGNP, 2011–2012: Report Submitted to Director and Chief Conservator of
Forests, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
Punjabi, G. (2013b) ‘Distribution and abundance of herbivores in SGNP, Mumbai’, in V.
VetBooks.ir

R. Athreya and V. Venkatesh (eds) Mumbaikars for SGNP, 2011–2012: Report Submitted to
Director and Chief Conservator of Forests, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
Saberwal, V., and Rangarajan, M. (eds) (2003) Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics of
Conservation, Permanent Black, New Delhi.
Surve, N. (2015) Ecology of Leopard in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra with Special
Reference to Its Abundance, Prey Selection and Food Habits, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra
Dun and Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
Takpa, J. (2017) ‘Ecotourism: A new livelihood alternative and conservation opportunity in
Hemis National Park,Western Himalaya, India’, in S. Ghosal and T. Dolkar (eds) Proceedings
of Sustainable Mountain Development Summit – V: Water Security and Skills for Development in
the Mountains, Integrated Mountain Initiative and Ladakh Snow Leopard Foundation, Leh.
 8 Considering wolves as active
agents in understanding
VetBooks.ir

stakeholder perceptions
and developing management
strategies
Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret

Introduction
Humans and grey wolves (Canis lupus) have been sharing the same landscape,
the same habitats and even some similarities in their hunter’s way of life for a
long time (Olsen, 1985; Clutton-Brock, 1995). However, it is quite probable that
the domestication of ungulate species (cattle, sheep, and goats), which started
around 11,500 BC and spread across Eurasia through the neolithisation process
(Zeder, 2008;Vigne et al., 2011; Zeder, 2011) drove to keep wolves at distance
from human settlements (Clutton-Brock, 1995; Sablin and Khlopachev, 2002;
Verginelli et al., 2005).
From this period on, wolves became a potential threat to livestock. They
appear as one of the most conflictual species wherever they occur and overlap
with herding activities. This conflict has probably been responsible for moti-
vating the past reduction in the number and distribution of large carnivores
worldwide (Mech, 1995; Breitenmoser, 1998; Kaczensky, 1999). Nowadays, in
many countries, land abandonment, drastic changes in rural land use, and con-
servation legislation are leading to the recovery of large carnivores in multiple-
use landscapes (Linnell et al., 2001; Falcucci et al., 2007; Chapron et al., 2014),
and accordingly, many conflicts are currently appearing or increasing in several
countries (Skogen et al., 2008; Dressel et al., 2015; Garde, 2015; Mech, 2017).
Some authors, considering large carnivore economic impacts at the national
level and risks to human safety being low, have been proposing that conflicts
with large carnivores reflect the long-term persistence of misconceptions and
negative perceptions from earlier times (Clark et al., 1996; Kellert et al., 1996;
Fritts et al., 2003). On the one hand, however, economic impacts vary accord-
ing to the considered scale (Kaczensky, 1999) and cannot be reduced to killed
or injured livestock. Wolf attacks do also influence livestock productivity and
impair the breeder’s selection process, as well as the herd production and struc-
ture. Wolf attacks also imply additional working load, induced stress, and psy-
chological trauma for livestock breeders and shepherds. On the other hand,
several studies have shown that risks to human safety used to exist in Europe
and still exist in some developing countries (Rajpurohit, 1999; Comincini et al.,
2002; Linnell et al., 2003; Löe and Røskaft, 2004; Moriceau, 2007). Some recent
 148  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
cases, even if rare, also implied wolves coming close to people and even mauling
or killing people in North America (McNay, 2002; Grooms, 2007; Butler et al.,
2011; Mech, 2017). Therefore, it appears actual conflicts probably find their
VetBooks.ir

root in negative aspects of human-wolf relationships rather than in misconcep-

tions. It has also been suggested that prolonged sympatry can lead to a form
of coexistence where compromises are made by both species and conflicts are
not perceived as being so intense (Mech and Boitani, 2003). Such dynamic and
interactive vision is supported by the ability of wolves to adapt their behav-
iour to the environment (Packard, 2003; Peterson and Ciucci, 2003), including
human activities and infrastructure (Ciucci et al., 1997;Theuerkauf et al., 2003).
The impact wolves can have on humans has been addressed through studies
about wolves in history, mythology, and narratives (see e.g., Lopez, 1978; Bobbé,
1998; Coleman, 2004; Walker, 2005), as well as sociological analysis of wolf
impacts on human society (Mauz, 2005; Skogen et al., 2008; Doré, 2010). In
most social science studies, animals were generally considered as passive objects.
Their ability to influence or be influenced by human practices was rarely taken
into account (Brunois, 2005). Yet, the existence of animal agency was already
suggested in the 1950s when J. Von Uexküll assessed animals have their own
world or Umwelt (1956). Progress in ethology, behavioural ecology and cogni-
tion drove to reconsider existence of animal personalities (Dall and Griffith,
2014) as well as animal ability to adapt their behaviour, facing fast chang-
ing human-modified environments (Griffin et al., 2017). Canine cognition
has been the subject of numerous studies asserting their abilities in problem-
solving (Miklósi and Kubinyi, 2016). Following anthropological perspectives
in the relationship between nature and society (Descola and Pálsson, 1996;
Ellen and Katsuyoshi, 1996) and in sociology of science (Latour, 1993), animals
have been increasingly recognized as actors and active agents able to influence
human social life (Ingold, 2000; Brunois, 2005; Lestel et al., 2005; Descola,
2013).This recognition has permitted the development of new interdisciplinary
approaches to human-large carnivore relationships spanning both scientific and
local knowledge, thus revealing the influence large carnivore behaviour can
have on human perceptions and providing insights into the interactive and
dynamic character of human-wolf relationships (Lescureux, 2006; Lescureux
and Linnell, 2010, 2013).
If human-wolf relationships are dynamic and may be modified by alterations
in either part of the relationship, then social, economic, and political transitions
in human society should result in changes to the human-wolf relationship.
The rapid social changes like the ones which have occurred in most Eastern
European and Central Asian countries at the beginning of the 1990s provided
an opportunity to assess the dynamic and interactive nature of human-wolf
relationships. Indeed, social changes can have a direct impact on wolf ecol-
ogy and behaviour through the modification in hunting and livestock hus-
bandry practices, for economic or regulatory reasons. Rapid social changes also
create a new ecological and socio-economical context in which the human
 Considering wolves as active agents 149
perception of wolves and their place will be affected, all the more as ecol-
ogy and behaviour of wolves are adapting to these transformations. In turn,
the changes in human perceptions of wolves will influence wolf hunting and
VetBooks.ir

livestock husbandry practices. Similarly, the return of the wolves in countries

from which they have been away for decades should influence their behaviour
since they are confronted with different ecological, social, and legal contexts.
In addition, the return of the wolves will provoke changes in several human
practices, notably husbandry and hunting practices, which will in turn influ-
ence wolf behaviour.
The comparison between three different countries which underwent either
rapid social changes through different processes (Kyrgyzstan and Former Yugo-
slav Republic of Macedonia1), or had to deal with the return of the wolves
after decades of absence (France) allows us to explore how different contexts
have influenced the way human-wolf relationships changed along with these
different ecological and social dynamics. Thanks to a combination of historical,
geographic, and ethnographic data, as well as data on wolf damages, our analysis
shows that changing social and ecological contexts influence wolf behaviour
and human-wolf relationships in a dynamic way. Indeed, if the behaviour of
one of the agents – human or wolf – is modified, then this modification will
directly alter the behaviour of the other agent, and this alteration will soon
influence back the first agent. Therefore, it appears that wolves have to be con-
sidered as active agents able to adapt their behaviours to human practices. We
then propose to take into account wolf ability to adapt when defining and
implementing wolf management strategies and conflict management strategies.
If wolves are adapting their behaviour to human practices, then it is probably
possible to develop practices aiming at changing wolf behaviour. Quite often,
conflict management strategies have been focused only on protecting livestock
from wolves based on the assumption that human and livestock guarding dog
(LGD) presence are sufficient to deter wolf attacks.They have not been directed
towards wolves in order to influence their behaviour towards livestock, dogs,
and humans, notably associating them with real danger.

From respected enemies to unwanted pests:

wolves in Kyrgyzstan2
At the time of the Russian revolution, Kyrgyzstan was mainly occupied by
nomadic livestock breeders and Russian colonists. After the restitution of colo-
nists’ land to the Kyrgyz people in 1921–1922, a process of collectivisation and
the creation of kolkhozes was initiated from 1925–1932, which was accom-
panied by the settlement of the nomads (Jacquesson, 2004). The systems of
kolkhozes persisted until the collapse of the USSR. Our investigations high-
lighted that the institutional and economic crisis following this collapse had a
strong impact on livestock breeding and hunting activities, which were mainly
dependent on the state (Lescureux, 2006).
 150  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
A reorganisation of livestock breeding and hunting activities
Sheep breeding was the agricultural activity most affected by this crisis. Before
VetBooks.ir

the transition, all of the land was state property and most of the sheep (77%) were
owned by the state and collective farms (Van Veen, 1995). At the beginning of
the transition process, many flocks were sold or sent to slaughter houses (Jacques-
son, 2004) and between 1992 and 2004, the number of sheep was reduced to
one-third in Kyrgyzstan, followed by a slight increase after that year (FAO, 2012).
Private farms gradually replaced collective and state farms (Giovarelli, 1998).
Intensive livestock farming has been abandoned and changes in the distribution
of livestock also occurred. Previously, part of the livestock remained for months
in high pastures above 3,000 m, called sïrt, kept by salaried shepherds, cut off from
villages and sometimes supplied by helicopter. Now, villagers’ livestock tend to
graze around the villages because of transhumance costs and the pastures furthest
away from the villages are less densely occupied than before (Jacquesson, 2004).
The impact of post-soviet upheaval on hunting was quite strong. During
the Soviet era, wolf hunting was highly organized at the state level and sub-
sidized. Wolves were considered pest animals and trapped, captured in dens,
poisoned, and hunted from planes or helicopters in open areas (Bibikov et al.,
1983). The economic and logistical means supporting this intensive wolf hunt-
ing were no longer available after the collapse of the USSR. In Kyrgyzstan,
each kolkhoz used to have its professional hunters, and shepherds were also
equipped with rifles. Hunting was partly an economic activity providing meat,
fat, and fur. As a consequence, it is highly probable that the hunting pressure
on wolves decreased after the independence of Kyrgyzstan, as in other former
Soviet countries (e.g., Belarus; cf., Sidorovich et al., 2003). In addition, mem-
bers of hunting associations dramatically decreased in Kyrgyzstan from 25,900
in 1990 to 8,617 in 2002 as a consequence of Russian emigration. Despite the
existence of knowledgeable wolf hunters in the villages and wolf bounty, local
people have neither the means nor the time to hunt wolves on a regular basis.

Perceived changes in behaviour of the wolves

During our ethnographic fieldwork in Kyrgyzstan, many informants reported
that the wolves have changed their behaviour since the fall of the USSR (Les-
cureux, 2007). Not only had wolves become more numerous, but they were
also bolder and approached the villages. This drawing closer of the predator
was explained in two ways. First, the partial abandonment of high pastures and
the regrouping of domestic animals around the villages in winter could drive
wolves to approach the villages in order to find their prey. Second, hunting pres-
sure on wolves had decreased. Without rifles, shepherds were no longer able to
frighten them. Indeed, the overall presence of armed shepherds in the landscape
was perceived as ensuring that wolves had to withdraw back into areas with less
human activity instead of coming down to villages. As a consequence, villagers
were hardly surprised that wolves were less fearful and no longer hesitated to
approach villages and even to attack flocks in broad daylight (Lescureux, 2006).
 Considering wolves as active agents 151
Wolves as one of the main threats to the capital of Kyrgyz villagers
In Kyrgyz villagers’ view of the world, there were no strong borders between
VetBooks.ir

the human world and the animal world, and wolves were considered as intel-
ligent, conscious, and even useful animals, removing carrion and killing sick
ungulates. Kyrgyz villagers had a well-shaped view on the fact wolves should
not be eradicated since predators belonged to nature and were regarded as hav-
ing a sanitary role. The wolf was thus perceived as an alter ego engaged in recip-
rocal relationships with humans (Lescureux, 2006, 2007). However, Kyrgyzstan
had to face a hard and dramatic transition process. Many people complained
about the economic situation and all the advantages they lost with the collapse
of the Soviet Union (cf. Anderson and Pomfret, 2000). With the loss of social
security and very low pensions and salaries, livestock became a vital form of
capital and most villagers had a few sheep, one or two cows, and sometimes a
few horses. Sheep were mainly kept as a form of capital, which could be sold
in case of inflexible expenses (school and university fees, hospitalization, etc.).
Under these conditions, villagers were always trying to increase the size of their
flocks. As a consequence, when wolves attacked livestock, they were threatening
the capital of villagers, who had the feeling they could not effectively control
wolves anymore. The actual lack of control over wolves was viewed as a loss
of reciprocity and a breakdown in the balance of the human-wolf relationship.
Changes in human practices in the context of the Kyrgyz transition to the
market economy have had a clear impact on human-wolf relationships. It has
made livestock breeders more vulnerable to wolf attacks and more prone to be
highly affected by these attacks, since each domestic animal was more valuable
than before. The view on the ecological and sanitary role of the wolf was now
contested and could be even more contested if this unbalanced relationship
persisted. For many villagers, wolves were no longer perceived as a respectable
“enemy” they had to regulate, but as an “invader”, preventing the increase of a
herder’s capital and even threatening the future of pastoralism and economy in
the country:

Outside, yaks are eaten by wolves. So we have to keep them in enclosures,

like sheep, like horses. So you see neither horses, nor yaks, nor cows outside.
So if we don’t eliminate the wolves, what do we do with them? The state
could give means. If not, where are we going?
(Shepherd from Korgondu-Bulak, 12/2005)

Wolves as an additional threat to a highly weakened

activity in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia3
The collapse of Yugoslavia had a strong impact on livestock breeding and hunt-
ing activities. However, the socio-economic context was quite different from
Kyrgyzstan. Indeed, in Yugoslavia, an economic and cultural policy of centrali-
zation as well as an accelerated industrialization starting in the 1960s led to
an exodus from the countryside to towns and a concomitant decrease in the
 152  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
agricultural sector (Hadživuković, 1989). Shepherds also went to work in other
countries, like in Italy, where their knowledge was appreciated (Pardini and
Nori, 2011). The rural population growth rate started to be negative as early as
VetBooks.ir

the 1960s in Yugoslavia. The proportion of the population living in rural areas
in Macedonia dropped from 76.6% in 1950 to 27.7% in 2010 (FAO, 2012), and
Macedonia became mainly urban as early as the 1970s. As a consequence, there
has been a strong rural abandonment and a continuous decrease of the rural
population (FAO, 2012).

A collapse of sheep breeding and a disorganization of hunting

Sheep breeding in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was quite dif-
ferent from the Kyrgyz one. Even before transition, 90% of the sheep were pri-
vately owned even if state or collective farms (Agro-Kombinat) had large flocks
ranging between 1,000 and 25,000 sheep (MAFWE, 2003). Sheep breeding
was highly affected by the transition process. The number of sheep was halved
between 1992 and 2006, notably because of a EU ban on the import of lamb
meat from the country following the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in
1996 (Dimitrievski and Ericson, 2010). Moreover, between 1995 and 2007,
the domestic consumption of lamb and mutton meat decreased from 10.1 kg
to 3.3 kg per household per year and the domestic consumption of ewe milk
and cheese decreased from 15,643 to 11,291 tonnes per year.  According to
livestock breeders, the market for lamb meat was not stable and exposed them
to economic risks when they did not manage to sell their lamb in time. Subse-
quently, the low prices of meat, milk, and wool combined with the high prices
of fodder and concentrate feed, as well as the rising of labour cost, pushed
the sheep breeders to reduce their flock size (Dimitrievski and Ericson, 2010).
Despite the fact that livestock breeding still remains a relatively important eco-
nomic activity in the country, accounting for 24% of the total agricultural
output in the period 1995–2007 (Dimitrievski and Ericson, 2010), livestock
breeders are not numerous. Compared to Kyrgyzstan, livestock breeding and
especially sheep breeding appears to be a more commercial (rather than subsist-
ence) activity in northwestern Macedonia, focused on cheese and lamb pro-
duction in a highly seasonal manner.
The impact of the transition process on the organization of hunting was
probably less dramatic in former Yugoslavia than in Kyrgyzstan. Macedonia is
divided into 249 hunting grounds, and apart from the state hunting grounds, an
open competition was held in 2002 to award concessions to the highest bid-
ders (Petkovski et al., 2003). According to Petkovski et al. (2003), hunters were
largely unsatisfied since they had to pay for expensive management plans when,
at the same time, the legal system did not ensure the punishment of poachers.
Therefore, many users were not paying their membership fees and poaching
was considerably higher than before independence (Former Yugoslav Repub-
lic of Macedonia became independent from Yugoslavia in 1991) as a result of
the lack of an organized game warden service. A report from the Ministry of
 Considering wolves as active agents 153
Environment and Physical Planning (2003) also bemoaned the fact that, despite
the existence of hunting management plans and a public enterprise for game
wardens and hunting inspections, poaching remained at a high level. The num-
VetBooks.ir

ber of wolves reported as being killed has slowly increased since the 1960s and
although there are no statistics for the transition period between 1988–1992, it
jumped from 200 wolves killed in 1987 to 460 in 1994 (Melovski and Godes,
2002), showing that hunting pressure on wolves did not decrease at that time
period. Current harvests (2008–2010) have been between 108 and 188 wolves
killed per year (Kaczensky et al., 2012).

Wolves as harmful and uncontrollable animals

Macedonian hunters and livestock breeders did not notice any major changes
in wolf behaviour after the collapse of Yugoslavia (Lescureux and Linnell, 2013).
However, in a difficult context for Macedonian livestock breeders, wolves were
perceived as harmful animals. The way wolves were perceived was strongly
influenced by their behaviour and the various encounters between humans
and wolves. Notably, interactions with wolves seem to be particularly linked to
livestock. Thus, even if wolves were hidden in the deep forest during the day,
they often approached humans when attacking sheep in night-time enclosures
on summer pastures. They could even come into the villages, notably to attack
dogs in winter, boldly crossing physical and symbolic borders that other preda-
tors never crossed (cf. Lescureux and Linnell, 2010). The fact that wolves often
killed several sheep per attack strengthened the negative perception and many
interviewees considered that they enjoyed killing. The reputation of the wolf
for excessive killing was widespread and gave rise to some idioms like “the wolf
will kill 99 sheep and die at the hundredth” (Elsie, 2001; Lescureux and Lin-
nell, 2010). When the encounter was not linked to livestock, like when hunters
encountered wolves, it was often because the later were attacking dogs and thus
initiating the interaction. Not only were such hunting dogs highly valuable
for hunters, but hunters also noticed the determination of the wolves when
attacking dogs. The perceived voracity of wolves did not seem to be limited to
domestic animals. Interviewees also blamed them for damage to populations of
game animals. Contrary to the bears, to which they were often compared by
informants, they were perceived as a rather homogenous population and their
harmful characteristics were attributed to the entire species. Because of their
perceived damage to wild and domestic animals, and harmfulness to nature in
general, wolves were described as “unprofitable monsters” (Lescureux and Lin-
nell, 2010).
Not only were the wolves perceived as harmful animals for both livestock
and game animals, but they were also perceived as animals very difficult to con-
trol. Even if hunting wolves was authorized and encouraged by the state, it was
their behaviour and ecology which made them difficult to hunt. Indeed, even
though the informants regarded wolves as being territorial in nature, they also
reported that they were always on the move, following their prey or looking for
 154  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
livestock, moving to pastures during the summer and to the vicinity of villages
in winter. Hard to localize, wolves were not possible to individualize due to
their group living, and they also benefited from a high reproductive rate. Per-
VetBooks.ir

manent shepherding and LGDs seem to be widely used in the Former Yugo-
slav Republic of Macedonia (Keçi et al., 2008) and relatively efficient against
wolves. However, these mitigation measures were experienced as economic
and time constraints by livestock breeders, and they did not function effectively
in all cases such as in cases of fog or when wolves managed to slip past LGDs.
As a consequence, human relationships with wolves appeared to be rather
unbalanced. On the one hand, these animals often came to take several sheep
at a time and their damage could be relatively important at farm or regional
levels. In addition, the repeated and fatal intrusions of wolves into domestic
space created the impression of an animal that was disrespectful of borders and
norms. On the other hand, it was difficult for humans to insure any reciprocity
with wolves. The difficulties inherent to wolf hunting in steep, forested habitats
hindered the effective implementation of the hunting right.

Redefining the place of the wolf in a changing

socio-economic and environmental context
In Macedonia, sheep were not the main capital for most villagers, but rather
the resource and occupation of a few professional livestock breeders and their
employees. Looking at the results of our investigations, it appears that livestock
breeders were mainly complaining about the difficulties inherent to economic
activities linked with the transition process and its impact on livestock breeding.
Their first complaint was often about the lack of access to markets. There was
a widespread view among livestock breeders that it was better before the col-
lapse of Yugoslavia, when the state bought cheese, meat, and wool, paid people
to work on pastures, and even provided fertilizers. Extensive herding of sheep
had become a marginal activity in the country. Livestock breeders had the feel-
ing they were marginalized and that they were not given proper attention by
the state, the politicians, or public opinion in general. As a consequence, there
was a complete lack of confidence in the future. Many livestock breeders had
the feeling that their activity was coming to an end, and that only the biggest
and richest livestock owners having access to subsidies and to the market would
survive. As a striking consequence of this downward economic situation, most
breeders could not invest in or develop their activity, as this man put it:

But if we would have more sheep, we would have more expenses! In this
situation, it would be worse.
(breeder from Dobri Dol, 10/2007)

The transition process was not just affecting livestock breeders economically.
The ongoing rural abandonment process and the crisis in livestock breed-
ing were also affecting the landscape around the villages as well as the social
 Considering wolves as active agents 155
structures in the villages and in the countryside. Therefore, the livestock breed-
ers’ perceptions of their social and natural environment were clearly impacted
and also their concerns for the future of their occupation. All the villages in the
VetBooks.ir

study area from the Shara Mountains were surrounded by fields and orchards
which were now mostly abandoned. As a consequence, there was a feeling that
the outskirts of the villages were becoming wild. Thus, pastures were suffering
shrub encroachment; fields were becoming pastures and for villagers, the for-
mer system of order (village, orchard, field, pasture, forest) was being disrupted.
The situation was very similar to what Höchtl et al. (2005) had observed in the
southwestern Alps.
In this context, any further cost was a weight that could not be tolerated, and
the wolf was mainly considered as a burden adding to these costs. Such a cost
may be direct, when the wolf was attacking the flock and taking some sheep.
However, the cost may also be indirect, through the obligation to keep LGDs,
which was also taken into consideration by livestock breeders. Indeed, even if
fed with maize flour or old bread mixed with whey, there was a cost to maintain
LGDs (around €1 per dog per day), especially when livestock breeders often
had to keep five or more dogs per flock.
Wolves were perceived as bloodthirsty and pest animals, destroying livestock,
preying upon dogs and game animals. In the harsh economic and social con-
text of rural Macedonia, wolves were not perceived as the main threat to rural
life, but were regarded as an additional threat, which symbolized rural people’s
loss of control over nature, and therefore had to be eliminated, as wolves were
absolutely useless for them.

France: the return of a protected carnivore

in a pastoral landscape4
In Kyrgyzstan and Macedonia, the upheaval in the socio-economic context drove
to changes in human-wolf relationships, but the situation in France is quite dif-
ferent (Meuret et al., 2017). Indeed, the main change which occurred in human-
wolf relationships was the return of the wolves in the French Southern Alps
in the 1990s, after decades of absence. This return was officialized and greeted
by the French naturalist’s magazine Terre Sauvage (Peillon and Carbonne, 1993).
Under the Bern Convention and the Habitat’s Directive, wolves in France were
placed under strict protection. Meanwhile, despite the low number of wolves in
the 1990s (fewer than 15), livestock breeders quickly saw the number of killed
livestock increase.Wolves were coming back in territories where livestock breed-
ing, and notably sheep breeding, had developed in the absence of predators and
following environmental incentives and production choices at the farm level.

Vulnerable breeding systems

In France, following the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
in Europe in 1992, environmental public policies started to rely strongly on
 156  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
pastoral and agro-pastoral systems to deal with landscape dynamics and wild-
life habitat management plans (Alphandéry and Billaud, 1996). Restoration
and conservation of summer pastures have been largely entrusted to livestock
VetBooks.ir

breeders through five-year contracts, when the latter have been encouraged
by means of economic incentives to graze on encroached lands or woodlands
prone to wildfire (Léger et al., 1996). In the Natura 2000 management plan
for the Alps, livestock grazing had a central role to conserve the biodiversity of
alpine meadows, exactly where the wolf came back. Livestock breeders were
then confronted with a paradox. On the one side they were encouraged and
even funded to redeploy grazing on encroached lands, scrublands, forest edges,
and undergrowth. On the other side, they were urged to protect themselves
from wolves, for which it was easier to attack flocks in such landscapes.
The situation in the French Mediterranean region and Southern Alps also
results from production choices, where free-range livestock breeding systems
are particularly exposed and vulnerable to predation (Garde, 2015). First, almost
half a million hectares are scrublands or encroached woodlands (Garde et al.,
2014). These areas provide cheap resources for well-adapted livestock and
ensure food security and economic robustness for the breeding system (Hubert
et al., 2014). In addition, the low snow cover allows year-round grazing, con-
trary to higher or northern places where livestock can graze outside only for
6–8 months. The combination of scrublands and woody pastures with year-
round grazing makes these breeding systems particularly prone to wolf attacks,
notably when considering important topographic constraints.
Another constraint comes from the breeding system itself and production
choices. In southeastern France, sheep production is dominated by sheepfold
lambs production. Only empty or pregnant ewes as well as she-lambs are graz-
ing outside. As their food requirements are limited, shepherds can practice close
herding along daily grazing circuits and take them back for the night in an
enclosure, or sheepfold. However, other breeding systems are producing older
lambs (“tardons”), with both ewes and their lambs grazing throughout the sum-
mer period. As suckling ewes’ and lambs’ requirements are higher, shepherds
cannot practice close herding and have to let them spread on pasture for longer
time periods during the day. Night enclosure becomes quite constraining in
that case. Yet, this breeding system is widespread in Alpes Maritimes, Var and
Alpes de Haute Provence, regions with the most frequent instances of wolf
depredation in France.

A never-ending increase in livestock damage

From 1994 to 2004, the number of killed or deadly injured animals officially
attributed to wolves gradually grew to reach about 3,000 per year. Fewer than
300 livestock protection contracts were signed during this first period, but the
number quadrupled between 2004 and 2009. Livestock breeders have been able
to employ shepherd assistants and to buy LGDs and electric fences for night
enclosures. Although the number of animal losses reached 4,000 in 2005, it
 Considering wolves as active agents 157
decreased and stabilized around 3,000 per year from 2006–2009.5 This trend let
people assume that protection means were sufficient enough at least to stabi-
lize the situation, even in the case of well-established wolf packs. However, the
VetBooks.ir

following seven years (2009–2016) came to contradict this assumption. Even

though the number of protected flocks grew from 796 to 2,238, the number
of killed or deadly injured animals has tripled, up to 10,000 per year, while the
estimated number of wolves was only increased by a factor of 1.5. How can
one explain these numbers? A possible explanation is wolf colonization of new
territories. Indeed, from 1993–2016, wolves clearly expanded their distribution
(Duchamp et al., 2017). They now occupy the entire French Alps and have
progressed towards northeastern France, south Massif Central and the east-
ern Pyrenees. The mainland French Departments with temporal permanent
wolf presence currently total 39 out of 95. The hypothesis is that wolves colo-
nize new territories where livestock breeders are not prepared to protect their
flocks, which are somehow naïve prey for wolves. However, the number of ani-
mal losses continues to grow even in the Alpes Maritimes department, where
wolves had arrived already in the 1990s, and the first seven departments colo-
nized by wolves still cumulate more than 90% of the losses in 2015. In addition,
about 90% of killed or deadly injured animals belong to protected flocks.These
results strongly question the efficiency of livestock protection measures.

Livestock protection measures showing their limits

For livestock breeders and shepherds, the situation is perceived as a loss of con-
trol despite the money spent in various measures accompanying the return of
the wolf and livestock protection (more than €20 million in 2015). Protection
measures have been quickly promoted and financed by the French State. Con-
ceived and tested in US, Italy, and Sweden (Mech, 1995), these measures have
been based on three postulates:
First, additional human presence – even if not armed – is sufficient to keep
wolves at distance: The shepherd assistant. The shepherd assistant is highly valu-
able. His work consists of helping the main shepherd in supplementary tasks
linked with flock protection. The working load has been evaluated at around
200 hours per month in the case of a collective sheep flock in a summer pasture
(Silhol et al., 2007) and 100 hours in the case of an individual sheep or goat
flock outside a summer pasture (Garde et al., 2007).
Second, an additional obstacle, more attentive and vigilant than humans,
deters bold wolves: The livestock guarding dog (LGD). After a century of
absence in the central and eastern parts of France, LGDs have been introduced
urgently in the French Alps and Provence starting from the end of the 1990s.
LGDs’ efficiency is highly variable according to numerous parameters (land-
scape, breeding system, number of dogs, dog skills, size of the wolf pack, wolf
experience and skills, etc.). In addition, considering that the French Alps are
among the most prominent tourist destinations in Europe, these conditions
require that the dogs be at the same time highly reactive towards wolves and
 158  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
relatively indifferent towards humans, who can be quite numerous (hikers, bik-
ers, hunters, etc.) in and around summer pastures. Therefore, LGDs are becom-
ing a major concern in multi-use landscapes. The number of complaints of
VetBooks.ir

people frightened or injured by LGDs is growing (Vincent, 2011), while some

livestock breeders have been brought before the court due to such conflicting
encounters. Mayors are more and more concerned about dealing with what is
becoming a problem of public safety. In highly touristic places, some mayors
have even forbidden the use of LGDs on their territory.
Third, a flock regrouped and kept in a night enclosure under human and
dog supervision is attacked no more:The night pen.With large night pens with
double enclosure close to LGDs and attentive humans, night penning can be
efficient, if it is feasible in the first place. However, it does not come without
heavy constraints. In hilly or mountainous areas, regular night penning is not
compatible with sustainable grazing resources management (Savini et al., 2014),
prevention of soil erosion (Vincent, 2011), and sheep health. Flock movement
back and forth the night pen can decrease grazing time 15–25%, notably during
the summer heat. In addition, night penning is actually put into question as it
apparently drove wolves to concentrate their attacks within the day.

Wolves adapting to human practices and presence

Considering the continuous and dramatic increase in killed livestock despite
the large scale adoption of protection measures, and also considering that these
measures have proven to be relatively efficient for a few years (2006–2009), we
wonder whether wolves have learnt to deal with these measures or not, and
adapt their behaviour accordingly. Several elements tend to support the ability
of wolves to adapt their behaviour to damage prevention methods. One striking
fact is that wolves are actually transferring their attacks on sheep flocks during
the daytime, after having faced the difficulty of attacking them in night pens. In
2010, only 29% of livestock were killed during daytime, whereas in 2015, this
proportion has reached over 50%.6 In addition, wolf attacks are increasing in
plains and valleys, and some wolves do not hesitate to attack flocks very close
to human settlements.
Apart from their damages on livestock, a recent survey in a village from
Alpes de Hautes Provence has investigated a case study focusing on a pack
of wolves that showed aggressive behaviour towards a teenager (Garde and
Meuret, 2017). During this survey, numerous testimonies from livestock breed-
ers or shepherds reported encounters with wolves showing no fear of humans,
and it appeared that several people had already met this pack at distance but on
the same place several times. In other words, under a strict protection status, it
seems that wolves tend to adapt their behaviour to different protection means.
Even under a strict protection status as in the Italian case, a high level of poach-
ing (Galaverni et al., 2016; Hindrikson et al., 2016) might act as if wolves were
hunted. Once wolves have crossed the border to France, the human pressure has
strongly decreased on them. However, one of the core constituents of livestock
 Considering wolves as active agents 159
protection measures has always been that human presence would deter wolf
attacks on livestock. The crucial question, then, is how long can wolves main-
tain their fear of humans under a strict protection status?
VetBooks.ir

Conclusions and management implications

Through these different examples, we showed that human-wolf relationships
are 1) highly dependent on multiple contexts (e.g., socio-economic, cultural,
political, ecological) and 2) dynamic and prone to change in case of shifting
contexts. In order to understand human-wolf relationships, it is therefore neces-
sary to grasp the broader context as well as its dynamic. In the three countries,
the observed developments have influenced human-wolf relationships in two
ways (Table 8.1). In Kyrgyzstan and Macedonia, the transition process has gen-
erated multiple socio-economic and environmental trends, by which the place
of the wolf has been modified when compared to the previous periods under
the USSR and Yugoslavia regimes. Such changes seem to have been beyond the
scope and reach of most wolf management strategies attempted so far, includ-
ing communication or awareness and outreach campaigns. Indeed, we do not
believe in communication campaigns as an effective means to resolve human-
wolf conflicts. Based on our experience, these conflicts cannot be explained
by so-called lack of knowledge or persistence of misconceptions about wolves
among local people. Therefore, trying to act on knowledge and perceptions
without changing the terms of human-wolf relationships appears to be ineffec-
tive. Instead, it often seems to be instrumental to directly address the human-
wolf relationship itself. As Forbes (2009: 234) put it:

[R]elationships are as fundamental as places and things. Conservationists

made a strategic error in assuming that our work is more a legal act than a
cultural act, in assuming that we can protect land from people through laws,
as opposed to with people through relationships.

The transition processes in Kyrgyzstan clearly affected both livestock breed-

ing and hunting practices, then they influenced the human-wolf relationship,
and consequently, they have altered wolf behaviour, since wolves seem to have
adapted to new practices. The situation is quite different in France, where the
return of the wolf has been the major change affecting hunting and livestock
breeding activities. While several damage prevention methods were employed
to protect flocks from wolves, the damages are still increasing, and it seems that
wolves are adapting one way or another to the different barriers put between
them and the livestock. In addition, some wolves are showing bolder behaviour
under human presence.
In the context of strict protection of the wolf in France or strong decrease of
wolf hunting in Kyrgyzstan, one could address the first postulate, on which pro-
tection measures have been based, i.e., that additional human presence would
be sufficient to keep wolves at distance. Building on the concept of “landscape
 Table 8.1 A synopsis of major socio-economic trends, main drivers of the human-wolf con-
flict, and core challenges and concerns across the three countries studied
VetBooks.ir

Kyrgyzstan Former Yugoslav France, Southern Alps

Republic of Macedonia,
Shara Mountains

Major socio- After the transition Livestock breeders Livestock grazing was
economic period (1992), feeling marginalized promoted (1992)
trends livestock, and sheep, and not given as a central tool
especially, comprises proper attention for conserving
a vital form of by the state, the the biodiversity of
capital for most politicians, or public mountainous and
villagers, which opinion in general; Mediterranean
may be used to lack of confidence pastures (encroached
cover of inflexible in the future and lands or woodlands
expenses (school lack of investment prone to wildfire);
and university fees, in one’s own economic incentives
hospitalization, etc.) activity provided to breeders
through five-year
contracts
Main drivers of The partial Wolves often High and increasing
the human- abandonment of approached humans level of damages
wolf conflict high pastures and when attacking on livestock despite
the regrouping of sheep in night- the generalized
domestic animals time enclosures on use of protective
around the villages summer pastures; methods; landscape
in winter could they could even and farming systems
drive wolves to come into the making livestock
approach the villages to attack highly vulnerable to
villages dogs in winter wolf depredation
Core challenges • Although former • Although not a • Damage prevention
and concerns perceptions of the main threat, wolves methods questioned:
wolf reflected a adding to rural Night enclosures
reciprocal human- problems directly highly constraining
wolf relationship (i.e., through or even non-feasible
and tolerance, lack depredation) or for breeders using
of control over indirectly (e.g., several fenced
wolves viewed as a through a necessary pastures at a time;
loss of reciprocity investment in livestock guarding
and a break-down livestock guarding dogs in conflict
in the balance of dogs); symbolizing with other land
the human-wolf loss of control over uses, e.g., tourism;
relationship nature human presence not
• Wolf depredation • Wolves perceived preventing wolves’
endangering capital as “voracious” attacks, even at
deposited in the and thought to daytime and close to
form of livestock; cross physical and villages
the wolf portrayed symbolic borders • Considerable
as an “invader” that other predators indications that
never did wolves are rapidly
adapting to human
practices and
presence
 Considering wolves as active agents 161
of fear” (cf. Lescureux and Linnell, 2010), which refers to predation risk and any
related anti-predator response, Oriol-Cotterill et al. (2015) have conceptualized
a “landscape of coexistence” for humans and large carnivores, maintained by
VetBooks.ir

means of human-caused mortality risk for large carnivores, through which the
latter would act to avoid encounters with humans, for instance, by spatiotempo-
ral partitioning of their activities. However, the risk of human-caused mortality
is close to zero under strict protection (poaching excepted). So, do wolves fear
human presence in any case? Or do wolves fear humans because there have
been centuries of hunting regulations, or even persecution? What can be the
influence of long-term strict protection of the species on wolf fear of humans?
In the French Alps, there are numerous people sharing the landscape with
wolves. Some are hiking, some are biking, and others are mostly looking for
birds or flowers. Most humans are not a threat to wolves and it could well be
that humans are less and less perceived as such by wolves. For the wolf, the
reward for attacking a sheep flock is quite high: easy and fat meat, and no need
to spend much time in searching, stalking, and chasing prey. Comparatively, the
risks are quite low. Of course, from time to time, wolves are detected and pur-
sued by a few big dogs they can generally outrun, but they are neither injured
nor killed in most of these encounters.
Considering wolves as active agents would entail recognizing their ability to
understand part of the context and the other agents they are confronted with,
and their ability to adjust their behaviour to the context and to the agents.
Livestock protection means are notably based on the assumption that wolves are
afraid of humans, but wolf fear of humans may not be an intrinsic or everlasting
feature of wolf behavioural patterns. It is rather something that has to be main-
tained through associating human presence with real risks of human-caused
injuries to wolves or human-caused mortality. We believe that the efficiency
of most protection means is, indeed, dependent on maintaining wolf fear of
humans and that the combination of lethal and non-lethal measures is prob-
ably the most efficient solution (Bangs et al., 2006). Therefore, we suggest that
wolf control through harassment, chasing, and killing should be part of conflict
management strategies and would reinforce the efficiency of livestock protec-
tion through maintaining risks associated with approaching human settlements,
humans themselves, and livestock.
Some recent studies or reviews have questioned the positive effect of hunting
on the decrease of predation on livestock (Wielgus and Peebles, 2014; Treves
et al., 2016), even though there is rather a lack of correctly designed studies
on that topic (Allen et al., 2017) and the effect of predator control will vary
according to the wolf population numbers and distribution (Mech, 2017). Yet,
hunting could disrupt wolf social structures and potentially drive wolves to an
increase of predation on livestock (Brainerd et al., 2008). Thus, Wielgus and
Peebles (2014) reported a positive correlation between the number of sheep
depredated and the number of wolves killed the previous year. However, their
analysis has been contested in a replication (Poudyal et al., 2016), according to
whom the increase in sheep depredation would be a short-term effect confined
 162  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
within the year when culling takes place, followed by a decrease of expected
cattle and sheep depredation in the next year, for each individual wolf removed
within the previous year. Other studies have shown the effective decrease of
VetBooks.ir

livestock depredation following a full or partial wolf pack removal, notably if

done quickly after depredation (Bradley et al., 2015). As Treves et al. (2016) put
it, predator control should not be “a shot in the dark” and in order to be effec-
tive, it has to be correctly designed, implemented, and evaluated according to
the expected goal, i.e., maintaining distance with wolves, regulating the popula-
tion, applying zoning strategies, etc.
Notably, the context has to be taken seriously into account: The husbandry
system, the landscape, and of course the wolf control means and the way they
will be implemented. To be efficient, wolf control has to be targeted on indi-
viduals or packs known to attack livestock in order to (1) eliminate “problem”
wolves or packs and (2) to counter select bolder animals. Such control has to be
clearly associated with humans so that humans will be associated with injury/
mortality risk by wolves. The creation of a wolf squad (brigade loup) in 2015 by
the French Ministry of Environment is going into that direction.7 This squad
can be quickly operational on the field right after an attack on livestock, and
thus it can specifically target wolves responsible for an attack within hours or
days following the attack.
Direct action on wolves responsible for attacks on livestock may somehow
appear as an act of reciprocity, which has been defined as a condition for coex-
istence between humans and large carnivores (Lescureux, 2006; Lescureux
and Linnell, 2010). Reciprocity means that management of conflicts between
humans and wolves shall imply not only adaptation of humans to wolf presence
through livestock protection means, but also adaptation of wolves to human
presence and activities through maintaining pressure on wolves in order to keep
a distant relationship, when and where it would be necessary.

Notes
1 Editor’s note: Registered as “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” among

United Nations Member States (www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html) and among
EU Candidate countries (https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/countries/
detailed-country-information/fyrom_en).
2 This section is based on results from a 10-month ethnographic survey undertaken between
2003 and 2007 (Lescureux, 2007). Several villages from Naryn and Issyk-Köl regions were
investigated through participant observations and semi-directive interviews (n = 91) using
snowball sampling, and focus was put on local ecological knowledge on animals in general
and wolves in particular.
3 This section is based on the results from seven months of fieldwork in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, undertaken by the first author between 2007 and
2011, and focusing on local knowledge on bears, wolves, and lynxes as well as the
use of livestock guarding dogs. The ethnographic survey took place mainly in Shara
Mountains in the northwestern part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Snowball sampling was used, and 63 hunters and livestock breeders were interviewed
in 33 villages.
 Considering wolves as active agents 163
4 This section is based on regular field and technical work undertaken by L. Garde and
M. Meuret as well as analysis of official data on wolf damages on livestock (Direction
régionale de l’Environnement de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne Rhône
VetBooks.ir

Alpes (DREAL-AURA) and GéoLoup database, a database with restricted access directly
depending on the French Ministry for Environment).
5 Data on wolf damages on livestock come from Direction régionale de l’Environnement
de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne Rhône Alpes (DREAL-AURA) and from
GéoLoup database, a database with restricted access directly depending on the French
Ministry for Environment. Raw data from GéoLoup database were accessed by Centre
d’Etude et de réalisation Pastorales Alpes Méditerranées (CERPAM). Analysis and com-
parison (protected vs. non-protected; daylight vs. night, etc.) have been undertaken by the
authors.
6 Analysis undertaken by CERPAM and based on the national database of Géoloup. Cf.
note 5.
7 Squad of support to livestock breeders against wolf attacks. Their mission is to participate
to livestock protection with defensive shots, to support the agents from the National
Office for Hunting and Wildlife management (ONCFS) in their actions to scare or remove
wolves, and to participate in documenting and evaluating wolf predation on livestock.

References
Allen, B. L., Allen, L. R., Andrén, H., Ballard, G., Boitani, L., et al. (2017) ‘Can we save large
carnivores without losing large carnivore science?’, Food Webs, vol 12, pp64–75.
Alphandéry P., and Billaud, J. P. (1996) ‘Cultiver la nature’. Etudes Rurales, vol 141–142, p238.
Anderson, K., and Pomfret, R. (2000) ‘Living standards during transition to a market econ-
omy: The Kyrgyz republic in 1993 and 1996’, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol 28,
pp502–523.
Bangs, E. E., Jimenez, M. D., Niemeyer, C. C., and Fontaine, J. A. (2006) ‘Non-lethal and
lethal tools to manage wolf-livestock conflict in the Northwestern United States’, in R.
M. Timm and M. O’Brien (eds) Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of
California, Davis.
Bibikov, D. I., Ovsyannikov, N. G., and Filimonov, A. N. (1983) ‘The status and management
of the wolf population in the USSR’, Acta Zoologica Fennica, vol 174, pp269–271.
Bobbé, S. (1998) ‘Du folklore à la science: Analyse anthropologique des figures de l’ours et
du loup dans l’imaginaire occidental’, Ruralia, vol 1998.
Bradley, E. H., Robinson, H. S., Bangs, E. E., Kunkel, K., Jimenez, M. D., et al. (2015) ‘Effects
of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming’, The Journal of Wildlife Management, vol 79, pp1337–1346.
Brainerd, S. M., Andrén, H., Bangs, E. E., Bradley, E. H., Fontaine, J. A., et al. (2008) ‘The
effects of breeder loss on wolves’, Journal of Wildlife Management, vol 72, pp89–98.
Breitenmoser, U. (1998) ‘Large predators in the Alps: The fall and rise of man’s competitors’,
Biological Conservation, vol 83, pp279–289.
Brunois, F. (2005) ‘Pour une approche interactive des savoirs locaux: l’ethno-éthologie’, Jour-
nal de la société des océanistes, vol 120–121, pp31–40.
Butler, L., Dale, B., Beckmen, K., and Farley, S. (2011) Findings Related to the March 2010
Fatal Wolf Attack Near Chignik Lake, Alaska, ADF&G, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Palmer, Alaska.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., et al. (2014) ‘Recovery
of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346,
pp1517–1519.
 164  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
Ciucci, P., Boitani, L., Francisci, F., and Andreoli, G. (1997) ‘Home range, activity and move-
ments of a wolf pack in Central Italy’, Journal of Zoology, London, vol 243, pp803–819.
Clark, T. W., Curlee, A. P., and Reading, R. P. (1996) ‘Crafting effective solution to the large
VetBooks.ir

carnivore conservation problem’, Conservation Biology, vol 10, pp940–948.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1995) ‘Origins of the dog: Domestication and early history’, in J. Serpell
(ed) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, University Press,
Cambridge.
Coleman, J. T. (2004) Vicious: Wolves and Men in America, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Comincini, M., Oriani, A., Morbioli, C., Castiglioni, C., and Martinoli, A. (2002) L’uomo e
la “bestia antropofaga”. Storia del lupo nell’Italia settentrionale dal XV al XIX secolo, Unicopli,
Milan, Italy.
Dall, S., and Griffith, S. (2014) ‘An empiricist guide to animal personality variation in ecol-
ogy and evolution’, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol 2.
Descola, P. (2013) Beyond Nature and Culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Descola, P., and Pálsson, G. (1996) Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives, Routledge,
London.
Dimitrievski, D., and Ericson, T. (2010) Sector Study – Macedonian Agriculture in the Period
1995–2007, University Ss Cyril and Methodius & Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Skopje.
Doré, A. (2010) ‘L’histoire dans les méandres des publics: quand les “méchants loups” ressur-
gissent du passé’, in J.-M. Moriceau and P. Madeline (eds) Repenser le sauvage grâce au retour
du loup. Les sciences humaines interpellées, Presses Universitaires de Caen, Caen.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘A meta-analysis of studies on atti-
tudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 29,
pp565–574.
Duchamp, C., Chapron, G, Gimenez, O., Robert, A., Sarrazin, F., et al. (2017) Expertise col-
lective scientifique sur la viabilité et le devenir de la population de loups en France à long terme,
ONCFS & MNHN, Paris.
Ellen, R., and Katsuyoshi, F. (1996) Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication, Berg,
Oxford.
Elsie, R. (ed) (2001) A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture, New York
University Press, New York.
Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., and Boitani, L. (2007) ‘Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns
in Italy and their implication for biodiversity conservation’, Landscape Ecology, vol 22,
pp617–631.
FAO (2012) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Roma,
Italy.
Forbes, P. (2009) ‘Reciprocity:Toward a new relationship’, in R. L. Knight and C.White (eds)
Conservation for a New Generation. Redefining Natural Resources Management, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Fritts, S. H., Stephenson, R. O., Hayes, R. D., and Boitani, L. (2003) ‘Wolves and Humans’,
in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds) Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Galaverni, M., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., and Randi, E. (2016) ‘One, no one, or
one hundred thousand: how many wolves are there currently in Italy?’, Mammal Research,
vol 61, pp13–24.
Garde, L. (2015) ‘Sheep farming in France: Facing the return of the wolf ’, Carnivore Damage
Prevention News, vol 11, pp17–27.
 Considering wolves as active agents 165
Garde, L., Bacha, S., Bataille, J.-F., Gouty, A. N., and Silhol, A. (2007) ‘Les éleveurs résidents
en zone à loups: Perceptions et stratégies’, in L. Garde (ed) Loup – élevage: s’ouvrir à la com-
plexité. Actes du séminaire des 15 et 16 juin 2006., CERPAM, Manosque.
VetBooks.ir

Garde, L., Dimanche, M., and Lasseur, J. (2014) ‘Permanence and changes in pastoral farming
in the Southern Alps’, Journal of Alpine Research|Revue de géographie alpine, vol 102, http://
rga.revues.org/2416.
Garde, L., and Meuret, M. (2017) Quand les loups franchissent la lisière. Expériences
d’éleveurs, chasseurs et autres résidents de Seyne-les-Alpes confrontés aux loups, CER-
PAM & INRA, Manosque, Montpellier.
Giovarelli, R. (1998) Land reform and farm reorganization in the Kyrgyz Republic, # 96,
Rural Development Institute, Washington, DC.
Griffin, A. S., Tebbich, S., and Bugnyar, T. (2017) ‘Animal cognition in a human-dominated
world’, Animal Cognition, vol 20, pp1–6.
Grooms, S. (2007) ‘Ontario experiences cluster of wolf-human encounters’, International
Wolf, vol 17, pp10–13.
Hadživuković, S. (1989) ‘Population growth and economic development: A case study of
Yugoslavia’, Journal of Population Economics, vol 2, pp225–234.
Hindrikson, M., Remm, J., Pilot, M., Godinho, R., Stronen, A.V., et al. (2016) ‘Wolf popula-
tion genetics in Europe: A systematic review, meta-analysis and suggestions for conserva-
tion and management’, Biological Reviews.
Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S. and Konold, W. (2005) ‘ “Wilderness”: what it means when it
becomes reality - a case study from the southwestern Alps’, Landscape and Urban Planning,
vol 70, pp85–95.
Hubert, B., Deverre, C., and Meuret, M. (2014) ‘The rangelands of southern France: Two
centuries of radical change’, in M. Meuret and F. D. Provenza (eds) The Art and Science of
Shepherding, Acres USA, Austin, TX.
Ingold, T. (2000) ‘From trust to domination: An alternative history of human-animal rela-
tions’, in T. Ingold (ed) The Perception of Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill,
Routledge, London and New York.
Jacquesson, S. (2004) ‘Au coeur du Tian Chan: Histoire et devenir de la transhumance au
Kirghizstan’, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale, vol 11/12, pp203–244.
Kaczensky, P. (1999) ‘Large carnivore predation on livestock in Europe’, Ursus, vol 11,
pp59–72.
Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., et al. (2012) Status, manage-
ment and distribution of large carnivores – Bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – In Europe,
European Commission, Brussels.
Keçi, E., Trajçe, A., Mersini, K., Bego, F., Ivanov, G., et al. (2008) ‘Conflicts between lynx,
other large carnivores, and humans in Macedonia and Albania’, in Proceedings of the III
Congress of Ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with International Participation, 06–09 Octo-
ber 2007 (pp. 257–264), Struga, Macedonia.
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Reid Rush, C., and Bath, A. J. (1996) ‘Human culture and large
carnivore conservation in North America’, Conservation Biology, vol 10, pp977–990.
Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Léger, F., Meuret, M., Bellon, S., Chabert, J.-P., and Guérin, G. (1996) ‘Elevage et territoire :
quelques enseignements des opérations locales agri-environnementales dans le sud-est de
la France’, Rencontre Recherches Ruminants, vol 3, pp13–20.
Lescureux, N. (2006) ‘Towards the necessity of a new interactive approach integrating eth-
nology, ecology and ethology in the study of the relationship between Kirghiz stockbreed-
ers and wolves’, Social Science Information, vol 45, pp463–478.
 166  Nicolas Lescureux, Laurent Garde, and Michel Meuret
Lescureux, N. (2007) Maintenir la réciprocité pour mieux coexister. Ethnographie du récit kirghiz des
relations dynamiques entre les hommes et les loups, PhD thesis. Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris (France).
VetBooks.ir

Lescureux, N., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2010) ‘Knowledge and perceptions of Macedonian hunt-
ers and herders: The influence of species specific ecology of bears, wolves, and Lynx’,
Human Ecology, vol 38, pp389–399.
Lescureux, N., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2013) ‘The effect of rapid social changes during post-
communist transition on perceptions of the human – Wolf relationships in Macedonia and
Kyrgyzstan’, Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, vol 3, p4.
Lestel, D., Brunois, F., and Gaunet, F. (2005) ‘Etho-ethnology and ethno-ethology’, Social Sci-
ence Information, vol 45, pp155–177.
Linnell, J. D. C., Solberg, E. J., Brainerd, S. M., Liberg, O., Sand, H., et al. (2003) ‘Is the fear of
wolves justified? A Fennoscandian perspective’, Acta zoologica Lituanica, vol 13, pp34–40.
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E., and Andersen, R. (2001) ‘Predators and people: Conservation
of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable’,
Animal Conservation, vol 4, pp345–349.
Löe, J., and Røskaft, E. (2004) ‘Large carnivores and human safety: A review’, Ambio, vol 33,
pp283–288.
Lopez, B. H. (1978) Of Wolves and Men, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
MAFWE (2003) Country Report on the State of the Animal Genetic Resources in Republic of
Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy,
Skopje.
Mauz, I. (2005) Gens, cornes et crocs, Inra-Quae, Paris, Grenoble.
McNay, M. E. (2002) ‘Wolf-human interactions in Alsaka and Canada: A review of the case
history’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 30, pp831–843.
Mech, L. D. (1995) ‘The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations’, Conser-
vation Biology, vol 9, pp270–278.
Mech, L. D. (2017) ‘Where can wolves live and how can we live with them?’, Biological Con-
servation, vol 210, Part A, pp310–317.
Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. (2003) Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Melovski, L., and Godes, C. (2002) ‘Large carnivores in the “Republic of Macedonia” (recog-
nised by Greece as: “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)’, in S. Psaroudas (eds)
Protected areas in the Southern Balkans – Legislation, Large Carnivores, Transborder Areas, Arc-
turos and Hellenistic Ministry of the Environment, Physical Planning, and Public Works,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
Meuret, M., Garde, L., Moulin, C.-H., Nozières-Petit, M-O., and Vincent, M. (2017) ‘Élevage
et loups en France: historique, bilan et pistes de solution’, INRA Productions animales, vol
30, pp465–478.
Miklósi, Á., and Kubinyi, E. (2016) ‘Current trends in canine problem-solving and cogni-
tion’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 25, pp300–306.
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (2003) Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for
the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje.
Moriceau, J.-M. (2007) Histoire du méchant loup. 3 000 attaques sur l’homme en France, Fayard, Paris.
Olsen, S. J. (1985) Origins of the Domestic Dog: The Fossil Record, The University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Oriol-Cotterill, A., Valeix, M., Frank, L. G., Riginos, C., and Macdonald, D. W. (2015)
‘Landscapes of Coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: The ecological consequences of
being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans’, Oikos, vol 124,
pp1263–1273.
 Considering wolves as active agents 167
Packard, J. M. (2003) ‘Wolf behavior: Reproductive, social, and intelligent’, in L. D. Mech and
L. Boitani (eds) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation,The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London.
VetBooks.ir

Pardini, A., and Nori, M. (2011) ‘Agro-silvo-pastoral systems in Italy: Integration and diver-
sification’, Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, vol 1, p26.
Peillon,V., and Carbonne, G. (1993) ‘Bienvenue aux loups’, Terre Sauvage, vol 73, pp23–42.
Peterson, R. O., and Ciucci, P. (2003) ‘The wolf as a carnivore’, in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani
(eds) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Petkovski, S., Smith, D., Petkovski, T., and Sidorovska, V. (2003) Study on Hunting Activities
in Macedonia: Past, Present and Future, Society for the Investigation and Conservation of
Biodiversity and the Sustainable Development of Natural Ecosystems (BIOECO), Skopje.
Poudyal, N., Baral, N., and Asah, S. T. (2016) ‘Wolf lethal control and livestock depredations:
Counter-evidence from respecified models’, PLoS ONE, vol 11, ppe0148743.
Rajpurohit, K. S. (1999) ‘Child lifting:Wolves in Hazaribagh, India’, Ambio, vol 28, pp162–166.
Sablin, M.V., and Khlopachev, G. A. (2002) ‘The earliest ice age dogs: Evidence from Eliseevi-
chi 1’, Current Anthropology, vol 43, pp795–799.
Savini, I., Landais, E.,Thinon, P., and Deffontaines, J.-P. (2014) ‘Taking advantage of an expe-
rienced herder’s knowledge to design summer range management tools’, in M. Meuret
and F. D. Provenza (eds) The art and Science of Shepherding, Acres USA, Austin, TX.
Sidorovich,V. E., Tikhomirova, L. L., and Jędrzejewska, B. (2003) ‘Wolf canis lupus numbers,
diet and damage to livestock in relation to hunting and ungulate abundance in northeast-
ern Belarus during 1990–2000’, Wildlife Biology, vol 9, pp103–111.
Silhol, A., Bataille, J.-F., Dureau, R., Garde, L., and Niez, T. (2007) ‘Evaluation du schéma de
protection des troupeaux en alpage: coût, travail, impact’, in L. Garde (ed) Loup – élevage:
s’ouvrir à la complexité. Actes du séminaire des 15 et 16 juin 2006, CERPAM, Manosque.
Skogen, K., Mauz, I., and Krange, O. (2008) ‘Cry wolf!: Narratives of wolf recovery in France
and Norway’, Rural Sociology, vol 73, pp105–133.
Theuerkauf, J., Jedrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., and Gula, R. (2003) ‘Spatiotemporal Segrega-
tion of wolves from humans in the Bialowieza forest (Poland)’, Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment, vol 67, pp706–716.
Treves, A., M. Krofel, and J. McManus. (2016) ‘Predator control should not be a shot in the
dark’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 14, pp380–388.
Van Veen, T. W. S. (1995) ‘The Kyrgyz sheep herders at a crossroad’, Pastoral Development Net-
work Series, vol 38, pp1–14.
Verginelli, F., C. Capelli,V. Coia, M. Musiani, M. Falchetti, et al. (2005) ‘Mitochondrial DNA
from prehistoric canid highlights relationships between dogs and South-East European
wolves’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol 22, pp2541–2551.
Vigne, J.-D., Carrère, I., Briois, F., and Guilaine, J. (2011) ‘The early process of mammal
domestication in the near east: New evidence from the pre-neolithic and pre-pottery
neolithic in Cyprus’, Current Anthropology, vol 52, ppS255–S271.
Vincent, M. (2011) Les alpages à l’épreuve des loups, Quae & MSH, Montpellier.
Von Uexküll, J. (1956) Mondes animaux et mondes humains, Denoël, Paris.
Walker, B. L. (2005) The Lost Wolves of Japan, University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Wielgus, R. B., and Peebles, K. A. (2014) ‘Effects of wolf mortality on livestock depredations’,
PLOS One, vol 9, ppe113505.
Zeder, M. A. (2008) ‘Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean basin:
Origins, diffusion, and impact’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol 105,
pp11597–11604.
Zeder, M. A. (2011) ‘The origins of agriculture in the near east’, Current Anthropology, vol 52,
ppS221–S235.
 9 Attitudes towards large
carnivore species in the
VetBooks.ir

West Carpathians
Shifts in public perception and
media content after the return
of the wolf and the bear
Miroslav Kutal, Petr Kovařík, Leona Kutalová,
Michal Bojda, and Martina Dušková

Introduction
The recovering populations of large carnivores in Europe have shown a remark-
able ability to live in human-dominated landscapes, mostly outside large pro-
tected areas, where they share the space with people (Chapron et al., 2014). The
co-existence in a cultural landscape inevitably leads to some degree of conflicts,
especially with animal farming and hunting (Breitenmoser, 1998).These conflicts
are not new in the Carpathians, where traditional methods such as the use of live-
stock guarding dogs have been applied by farmers for centuries to prevent attacks
by large carnivores. However, due to the decline of large carnivore populations
in some parts of the Carpathians and the introduction of significant changes in
the farming system, many of these practices were abandoned. As a consequence,
only 16% of Slovak farmers are now familiar with non-lethal methods to prevent
attacks (Rigg et al., 2011). At the same time, sheep farming has nearly disap-
peared from many areas of Central Europe during recent decades (Niznikowski
et al., 2006; Martinát et al., 2008) and public attitudes towards wolves have much
improved, resulting also in better environmental-law enforcement (Mech, 1995).
These forces and socio-demographical changes have led to divergent attitudes of
rural and urban people (Kleiven et al., 2004; Blekesaune and Rønningen, 2010).
The use of appropriate spatial scale – with a focus on the local level where core
conflicts are most likely to occur – is therefore needed to improve our knowledge
of attitudes of people living in the same areas with large carnivores (Ericsson
et al., 2006). The acceptance of concerned groups is crucial especially for viable
populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos) and grey wolf (Canis lupus) in the West
Carpathians, at the edge of the Carpathian range of these two species.
Wolves and bears are currently regarded as flagship species of the Carpathian
Mountains. By the 1930s, their populations were driven to extinction in many
parts of the West Carpathian range, including the Czech Republic (Hell and
Slamečka, 1999; Hell, 2003; Anděra and Červený, 2009). In recent decades,
 Shifts in public perception and media content 169
these populations have been recovering, mainly due to improved legislative
protection and a decline in extensive livestock farming (Martinát et al., 2008;
Chapron et al., 2014). This offers an exceptional opportunity for studying how
VetBooks.ir

different groups of people perceive large carnivores and how their opinions
and attitudes change over time. The goals of our study were to describe: (1)
the attitudes and opinions of two major groups of people – local people and
visitors – towards wolves and bears, focusing on overall acceptance, fear and
the level of relevant knowledge; (2) socio-demographic parameters determin-
ing these attitudes, such as age, education, occupation, relations with hunters
and livestock breeders, and source of information about wolves and bears; and
(3) the shift of local people’s opinions and media coverage over time.

Methods

Study area
The West Carpathian Mountains, situated at the Czech-Slovak-Polish border,
are the western edge of continuous wolf and bear occurrence in the Carpathi-
ans (Chapron et al., 2014; Kutal et al., 2016). On the Czech side of the border,
a large forested area with altitudes ranging from 350–1324 m above sea level is
designated as the Protected Landscape Area (PLA) Beskydy. Despite the 72%
forest cover, the area is intensively used by people, as is typical for the Car-
pathian landscape. Average human density is approximately 100 inhabitants/
km2, with most people being concentrated in towns and villages in valleys and
river basins. However, many activities are situated up in the mountains. In addi-
tion to forestry and hunting practices, there is a moderate impact of tourism,
including a number of ski lifts, ski and bike routes, hiking trails, recreational
cabins, and chalets. The Beskydy Mountains are also a traditional area of sheep
farming in the Czech Republic. In the three districts comprising our study
area (Vsetín, Nový Jičín, and Frýdek-Místek), a total of 19,896 sheep were held
on 1,770 farms in 2011 (Kovařík et al., 2014). Average sheep density in the
Beskydy region (6.15 sheep/km2) is more than twice the national average in
the Czech Republic (3.01 sheep/km2) (Kovařík and Kutal, 2014).
By the beginning of the 20th century, wolves were exterminated from the
Czech part of the West Carpathians (Anděra and Červený, 2009) and the
northwest of Slovakia (Hell and Sládek, 1974). After a period of absence, wolves
were again recorded in the Czech Carpathians, in the area of Beskydy, in 1994
(Bartošová, 1998), with 1–3 wolf packs being registered in each of the follow-
ing years until 2003 (Anděra et al., 2004). Intensive monitoring during the
period 2003–2012 did not, however, detect any reproducing pair, since only
occasional wolf occurrence was recorded (Kutal et al., 2016).
Similarly, bears were wiped out in the Beskydy Mountains by the end of the
19th century. After the Second World War, rising numbers of bears in central Slo-
vakia contributed to the expansion of the distribution of the species to moun-
tains in western Slovakia, adjacent to the mountain ranges on the Czech side of
 170  Miroslav Kutal et al.
the border. As a result, bears started to appear regularly in the Czech Carpathians,
too, especially in the Beskydy and Javorníky ranges, and in the northern part of
the White Carpathians. The first modern record dates back to 1946, but regular
VetBooks.ir

observations do not appear until the 1970s (Červený et al., 2004). Across the
border, on the Slovak side of the Javorníky Mountain Range, bears were more
frequently reported already in 1968 (Janík et al., 1986). Although there were
some reports of bears with cubs from time to time, no evidence of bear repro-
duction was available until 2014 (Bojda et al., 2014), and the occurrence of bears
has remained sporadic in Beskydy. Further, any damage caused by bears has been
rare (Kovařík et al., 2014). The only exception was a bear, which had probably
escaped or was illegally released from captivity.The origin of the animal was not
confirmed, but the behaviour of the animal, later trapped and removed from the
wild, indicated signs of strong habitation toward humans (Červený and Koubek,
2003). The bear caused damage of about 6500 EUR, an amount significantly
higher than the total compensation paid for damages caused by bears to all local
farmers in the previous 28 years.This case received considerable media attention
(Pavelka and Trezner, 2001; Červený and Koubek, 2003).

Data collection and analysis

Attitude of local people and visitors towards wolf and bear presence
(2009–2010)
To investigate attitudes towards wolf and bear presence, we collected data by
means of a questionnaire (see items in Annex 9.1) administered by face-to-face
on-site interviews in the Beskydy Mountains in 2009–2010. There were two
groups of respondents: residents of local villages (n = 158), and visitors to the
Beskydy Mountains (n = 156). The survey of local residents was conducted in
21 villages randomly selected from all the 77 villages situated wholly or partly
within the boundaries of the Beskydy PLA. The third author personally visited
local residents, who were chosen by random selection of house numbers. The
visitors were randomly approached at 13 popular sites.
We focused on four topics: (1) if respondents believed that large carnivores
belonged in PLA Beskydy; (2) if they thought large carnivores were causing
too much damage; (3) if they saw large carnivores as potentially dangerous to
humans; and (4) how accurate was their estimation of large carnivores’ numbers
in the Czech Republic. Except for the estimates of wolf and bear numbers, the
questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice questions. We also recorded socio-
demographic variables such as age, education, size of place of residence, and
respondent’s relationships with sheep farming and hunting.

Shift in the attitude of local people towards wolf and bear presence
(2000; 2009–2010)
To compare the development of attitudes of local people towards wolf and bear
presence over time, we used results from a survey administered by Friends of
 Shifts in public perception and media content 171
the Earth Czech Republic in 2000 in the same region, using the same method
(questionnaire administered by means of face-to-face on-site interviews) and
some identical questionnaire items as the study presented here. A total of 177
VetBooks.ir

respondents participated in the survey that took place in 2000, following a one-
year intensive awareness campaign as a part of the pilot project “Preservation
and recovery of large carnivores in the West Carpathians” (Bartošová and Genda,
2001). At the time, wolves were regularly present in the survey area (Beskydy).
Since then, many education and public awareness activities took place in the
region, including discussion forums with local people, communication with
media, distribution of educational materials and lectures at schools. For example,
in 2005–2009, Friends of the Earth Czech Republic communicated its posi-
tion on large carnivores through 119 media outputs (press releases, interviews,
comments, etc.). In 2007–2009, it organized lectures for 119 school classes and
produced approximately 50,000 copies of educational materials for distribution
in the Beskydy region. The questionnaire survey that took place in 2009–2010
(described previously) was undertaken after 10 years of intensive communication
work. Because the first study in 2000 involved only local residents, the presented
comparison includes only answers of local residents from both time periods.

Shift in the perspective of media content (1996–2000; 2005–2009)

We searched in the media database Anopress for all available Czech articles con-
taining the keywords “medvěd” (bear) and “vlk” (wolf) published in the years
1996–2000 and 2005–2009, which correspond to five-year periods preceding
our questionnaire surveys. Anopress is one of the most comprehensive Czech
databases, offering a possibility to search print, broadcast, and online media
outputs dating back to 1996. The database contains both regional and national
media sources, but since the Beskydy region was, at the time of survey, the
only region where wolves and bears occurred, all relevant search results were
related to Beskydy. After declining articles with uses of keywords not related to
wildlife (e.g., surnames) and articles that informed about animals kept in cap-
tivity (e.g., zoos and circuses), we obtained 263 and 227 articles about wolves
and bears, respectively, from the period 1996–2000, and 215 and 297 articles
on wolves and bears, respectively, from the period 2005–2009. We evaluated
how media portrayed each species on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
a “purely negative” perspective (no positive aspect for large carnivore species
included), through “mainly negative” (negative, unfavourable connotations
dominated), and “balanced” perspectives (positive and negative aspects equally
represented or no positive/negative aspects mentioned) to “mainly positive”
(positive, favourable connotations dominated) and “purely positive” perspec-
tives (no negative aspect for large carnivore species included).

Statistical analyses
We analysed data from questionnaires in JMP 5.0.1 (SAS, 2007) using the gener-
alized linear model and likelihood ratio test to explore the relationship between
 172  Miroslav Kutal et al.
responses and different socio-demographic variables such as age, education, and
relationship with sheep farming and hunting. Time trends were analysed by
two-sample test for equality of proportions without continuity correction in
VetBooks.ir

software R 3.3.0 (R Core Team, 2016).

Results

Attitudes of local people and visitors (2009–2010)

Comparison of attitude towards wolf and bear presence between

local people and visitors
Local people and visitors differed significantly in their attitudes towards wolf and
bear presence in the study area (data for wolves presented in Table 9.1: χ2 = 50.34,
p < 0.001; data for bears presented in Table 9.2: χ2 = 45.92, p < 0.001; n = 314).

Table 9.1  Attitude of local people and visitors towards wolf presence (2009–2010)

“How do you feel about the Percentage of local people Percentage of visitors Difference
presence of wolves in (n = 158) (n = 156)
the region?”

“It bothers me and I am not  5.7  1.3  -4.4

ready to accept it”
“It bothers me but I can 14.6  4.5 -10.1
accept it”
“I do not care”  8.2  2.6   -5.6
“I do not mind” 56.3 42.9 -13.4
“It makes me happy” 15.2 48.7 +33.5
Note: χ2 = 50.34; p < 0.001.

Table 9.2  Attitude of local people and visitors towards bear presence (2009–2010)

“How do you feel about the Percentage of local people Percentage of visitors Difference
presence of bears in (n = 158) (n = 156)
the region?”

“It bothers me and I am 4.4 0.6 -3.8

not ready to accept it”
“It bothers me but I can 17.1 7.7 -9.4
accept it”
“I do not care” 8.9 1.9 -7.0
“I do not mind” 54.4 43.6 -10.8
“It makes me happy” 15.2 46.2 +31
Note: χ2 = 45.92; p < 0.001.
 Shifts in public perception and media content 173
Although the highest percentages for both target groups were recorded for neu-
tral responses, visitors endorsed the presence of large carnivore species (48.7%
and 46.2% for the wolf and the bear, respectively, for the item “It makes me
VetBooks.ir

happy”) more than local people (15.2% for the both wolf and the bear, for the
item “It makes me happy”). How long had local people lived in the Beskydy
region also proved to be a significant factor. Local residents who had lived in the
area longer were more likely to have a negative attitude towards large carnivores
(wolves: χ2 = 32.53, p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 29.54, p < 0.01; n = 158).

Illegal killing of large carnivores

Local people opposed illegal hunting less often than visitors (wolves: χ2 = 25.02,
p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 20.72, p < 0.001; n = 314) and showed lower willing-
ness to report these cases to competent authorities (wolves: χ2 = 8.41, p < 0.01;
bears: χ2 = 7.72, p < 0.01; n = 314). It is noteworthy that respondents holding
a negative or indifferent opinion on the presence of large carnivores would
seem to endorse illegal killing of large carnivores (response “I would be glad”
for the item “If you learned that someone you know has illegally killed a wolf
or bear, how would you react?”) (for wolves: χ2 = 32.19, p < 0.001; for bears:
χ2 = 35.59, p < 0.001; n = 314). At the same time, these respondents showed less
interest in getting more information about large carnivores than the rest of the
sample (wolves: χ2 = 32.19, p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 35.59, p < 0.001; n = 314).

Damage caused by large carnivores

Respondents commonly held the view that large carnivores did not belong in
the Beskydy Mountains, and they were believed to be causing too much dam-
age to livestock and wild game. These attitudes were particularly pronounced
in relation to wolves, where 67% of local people and 44% of visitors believed
that wolves caused a lot of damage to livestock. Respondents’ attitudes did not
seem to align with actual figures for damages, though: On average, there were
only 16 sheep killed by wolves per year (2001–2009), which is negligible as
a magnitude of losses considering that there were nearly 20,000 sheep in the
Beskydy region. In addition, the number of attacks decreased considerably since
2001 (Kovařík et al., 2014). Damage caused by bears was perceived as being
significantly lower: Only 30.4% of locals and 17.3% of visitors agreed with the
previously mentioned statement in relation to bears. Despite the lower percent-
ages as compared to wolves, respondent attitudes once again stood in contrast
to actual damage recorded, with just four sheep killed during four documented
bear attacks during the period 2001–2009 (Kovařík et al., 2014).

Fear of large carnivores

Another major issue appeared to be the deep-rooted perception of large carni-
vores as a threat to humans. Many respondents regarded an encounter with large
 174  Miroslav Kutal et al.
carnivores, bears in particular, as dangerous for humans (69.1% and 89.5% for
wolves and bears, respectively; n = 314). Interestingly, those who relied mainly
on TV for information were significantly more likely to consider an encounter
VetBooks.ir

with a wolf or bear to be slightly or highly dangerous (wolf: χ2 = 8.14, p < 0.05;

bear: χ2 = 9.82, p < 0.05; n = 314). A similar relationship was not found among
respondents who relied mainly on other sources of information (newspapers,
radio broadcast).

Estimates of large carnivore numbers

Fear of possible attacks on humans might have been amplified by the fact that
most respondents overestimated actual numbers of large carnivores in the region.
Therefore, most respondents may have exaggerated the potential impact of large
carnivores on human safety. Indeed, respondents who overestimated the num-
bers of wolves and bears were more likely to consider the encounter with these
animals to be highly dangerous (wolves: χ2 = 16.92, p < 0.01; bears: χ2 = 20.13;
p < 0.01; n = 314). On the contrary, people who realistically estimated the
numbers of large carnivores were more likely to express tolerance towards their
presence (wolves: χ2 = 32.81, p < 0.01; bears: χ2 = 21.37, p < 0.01; n = 314).
The tendency to overestimate the abundance of carnivores was especially
pronounced in the case of wolves. Indeed, this has been the case, despite the
fact that the number of wolves in the Czech Republic was extremely low at
the time of the survey, ranging between 0–5 individuals, which have most prob-
ably crossed the border with neighbouring countries. In contrast, 31.8 % of
respondents (n = 314) estimated that there were several hundred wolves in the
country. Overall, 86.9% of the total sample overestimated wolf numbers. In the
case of the bear, at the time of the survey, the population numbered between
0–2 individuals. Almost a half of the sample (44.6 %; n = 314) gave a more
realistic estimate of up to 10 animals, as compared to wolf estimates. Still, 52.4%
of all respondents overestimated bear numbers. There was no significant differ-
ence between locals and visitors in their estimates, but respondents with higher
education were more likely to give a more realistic estimate of bear numbers
(χ2 = 14.08, p < 0.05; n = 314). Respondents with hunting interests of social
and kin networks with hunters were also significantly better in estimating the
numbers of wolves (χ2 = 9.12, p < 0.05; n = 314).

Effect of socio-demographic characteristics on attitudes towards

large carnivore presence
There was a significant variation among respondents according to the popu-
lation of their place of residence. People living in large municipalities were
more likely to endorse large carnivore presence than inhabitants of small vil-
lages (wolves: χ2 = 12.97, p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 8.73, p < 0.01; n = 314).
The effect of the size of municipality was not significant when local people
and visitors were tested separately. There was a significant effect of age and
 Shifts in public perception and media content 175
education on attitudes towards large carnivore presence. Older respondents
(wolves: χ2 = 25.03, p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 21.86, p < 0.001; n = 314) and
those with lower education had more negative attitudes (wolves: χ2 = 71.71,
VetBooks.ir

p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 71.16, p < 0.001; n = 314). The latter were also much
more tolerant of illegal hunting of these species (wolves: χ2 = 20.86, p < 0.001;
bears: χ2 = 20.46, p < 0.001; n = 314).
Livestock breeders and their relatives and acquaintances formed a special
group of respondents. These groups showed highly negative attitudes towards
large carnivore presence in the region compared to other respondents. The
attitudes of livestock breeders towards wolves and bears were significantly more
negative than those of other respondents (wolves: χ2 = 28.57, p < 0.001; bears:
χ2 = 26.75, p < 0.001; n = 314), and the same also applied for their relatives
(wolves: χ2 = 18.15, p < 0.001; bears: χ2 = 15.7, p < 0.01; n = 314). In the case
of people acquainted to a livestock breeder, their negative attitudes stood out in
terms of wolves, but not bears (wolves: χ2 = 11.49, p < 0.05; bears: χ2 = 4.65,
p > 0.05; n = 314). Differences between these groups were not significant when
tested separately among local people and visitors, with an exception of visitors’
relatives, holding more negative views towards bears, but not towards wolves
(wolves: χ2 = 5.83, p = 0.21; bears: χ2 = 10.4, p < 0.05; n = 156).

Shift in the attitude of local people towards wolf and

bear presence (2000; 2009–2010)
The comparison of results from 2000 and 2009–2010 showed that there was a
significant change in the attitudes of local people towards wolf and bear pres-
ence (Tables 9.3 and 9.4, respectively). The number of local people who would
not welcome wolf presence (“it bothers me and I am not ready to accept
it”; Table 9.3) decreased from 13% to 5.7%. A decrease was also recorded for
those who would be bothered by wolf presence but who would nevertheless
accept it (from 24% in 2000 to 14.6% in 2009–2010). The same trends were
also observed for bears (Table 9.4). Those who not welcome wolf presence (“it
bothers me and I am not ready to accept it”) dropped from 19% to 4.4%, and

Table 9.3  Shift in the attitude of local people towards wolf presence

“How do you feel about the Percentage in 2000 Percentage in 2009– Change
presence of wolves in the region?” (n = 177) 2010 (n = 158)

“It bothers me and I am not 13.0 5.7 -7.3

ready to accept it”
“It bothers me but I can 24.0 14.6 -9.4
accept it”
“I do not care” 7.0 8.2 +1.2
“I do not mind” 43.0 56.3 +13.3
“It makes me happy” 13.0 15.2 +2.2
Note: χ2 = 12.23; p = 0.016.
 176  Miroslav Kutal et al.
Table 9.4  Shift in the attitude of local people towards bear presence

“How do you feel about the presence Percentage in 2000 Percentage in 2009– Change
VetBooks.ir

of bears in the region?” (n = 177) 2010 (n = 158)

“It bothers me and I am not 19.0 4.4 -14.6

ready to accept it”
“It bothers me but I can accept 21.0 17.1 -3.9
it”
“I do not care” 9.0 8.9 -0.1
“I do not mind” 39.0 54.4 +15.4
“It makes me happy” 12.0 15.2 +3.2
Note: χ2 = 20.53; p < 0.001.

those who would be bothered but did not object wolf presence also dropped,
from 21% to 17.1%. At the same time, there was an increase in slightly positive
attitudes towards large carnivore presence (“I do not mind”) for both wolves
(+13.3%) and bears (+15.4%).

Shift in the perspective of media content (1996–2000; 2005–2009)

There was a substantial shift in media content about wolves and bears between
the corresponding five-year periods preceding the two questionnaire surveys
(i.e., 1999–2000 and 2005–2010). Specifically, the percentage of articles express-
ing both a purely negative and a mainly negative perspective on wolves dropped
(Table 9.5; −39.2% for the “purely negative” perspective and −11.2% for the
“mainly negative” perspective). Moreover, the number of articles expressing a
purely positive perspective of wolves increased sharply, from 4.9% to 56.3%.
Overall, trends were more pronounced in extreme positioning (i.e., purely
negative or purely positing perspectives), which resulted in a complete reversal
of perspectives of media content between the two periods. The main reason
behind the change was probably a lower number of sheep losses (Kovařík et al.,
2014), which may also mean that a lower number of human-wolf conflicts
had been presented by the media. The pattern for articles about bears was very
similar to what has been reported for wolves (Table 9.6).

Discussion
The survey results show that most respondents had a neutral or positive attitude
towards the presence of large carnivores in the Beskydy Mountains. In addi-
tion, the increased tolerance shown towards bears as compared to wolves aligns
with the general picture reported in Europe (Dressel et al., 2015). However, we
cannot assume, based on these results alone, that the relation of the majority of
respondents with large carnivores is (or will be) without any problems. Even
respondents with a positive view of large carnivores often expressed concerns
about a possible encounter or attack of large carnivores on humans or livestock.
 Table 9.5  Shift in the perspective of media content for articles on the wolf

Overall perspective Percentage of articles Percentage of articles Change

VetBooks.ir

published 1996–2000 published 2005–2009

(n = 263) (n = 215)

Purely negative (i.e., no positive 43.0 3.7 -39.2

aspect for large carnivore
species included)
Mainly negative (i.e., negative, 14.8 3.7 -11.1
unfavourable connotations
dominated)
Balanced (i.e., positive and 26.6 28.8 +2.2
negative aspects equally
represented or no positive/
negative aspects mentioned)
Mainly positive (i.e., positive, 10.7 7.5 -3.2
favourable connotations
dominated)
Purely positive (i.e., no negative 4.9 56.3 +51.3
aspect for large carnivore
species included)
Note: χ2 = 199.56; p < 0.001.

Table 9.6  Shift in the perspective of media content for articles on the bear

Overall perspective Percentage of articles Percentage of articles Change

published 1996–2000 published 2005–2009
(n = 227) (n = 297)

Purely negative (i.e., no positive 45.4 13.1 -32.2

aspect for large carnivore
species included)
Mainly negative (i.e., negative, 14.5 4.7 -9.8
unfavourable connotations
dominated)
Balanced (i.e., positive and 31.7 30.3 -1.4
negative aspects equally
represented or no positive/
negative aspects mentioned)
Mainly positive (i.e., positive, 4.4 4.4 0.0
favourable connotations
dominated)
Purely positive (i.e., no negative 4.0 47.5 +43.5
aspect for large carnivore
species included)
Note: χ2 = 148.37; p < 0.001.
 178  Miroslav Kutal et al.
This fear may shift people’s attitudes towards the negative extreme in the mid-
or long term.
In contrast to the endorsement of wolf presence by the majority of respond-
VetBooks.ir

ents, most of them considered an encounter with a wolf as dangerous. Such

response was given by almost 70% of both local people and visitors, which
is a substantially higher result than the analogous percentage (40%) for peo-
ple surveyed in Estonia (Randveer, 2001). Some respondents in our survey
expressed concerns during the interview; in particular, about “hungry” wolves
and a possible encounter with an entire wolf pack or wolves with pups, which
they considered as highly dangerous.These concerns were not specifically listed
in the questionnaire, but illustrate views probably resulting from the negative
cultural stereotypes related to wolves (Boitani, 2000). European literary tradi-
tion includes many reports, legends, fictional stories, and fairy tales portraying
wolves in a negative way (Boitani, 2000; Bisi et al., 2007). Fear of wolves seems
to be rooted very deeply in people’s minds, and it seems to persist despite the
fact that there has been no record of a fatal wolf attack on a human in Europe
in recent decades (Linnell et al., 2002, Linnell and Alleau, 2016). This might be
due to the lack of adequate information, as well as the continued popularity
of old superstitions and generally negative perceptions of wolves in stories that
have a negative effect on people’s attitudes (Prokop et al., 2011). In our survey,
the respondents who relied mainly on TV for information were significantly
more likely to consider an encounter with wolves or bears to be slightly or
highly dangerous. Therefore, public opinion seems to be still based largely on
stereotypes rather than scientific knowledge about wolves and other carnivores.
Lingering prejudices thus may continue to undermine any objective view of
carnivore species (Lopez, 1979; Zibordi, 2009).
Overall, fear of bears is more common than fear of wolves. The view of
bears as the most dangerous and feared wild animal also prevailed in Slovakia
(Wechselberger et al., 2005). This is not surprising, in light of the fact that bear
attacks on humans occasionally occur and receive high publicity in the media
in both the Slovak and Czech republics (Dressel et al., 2015). However, a meta-
analysis conducted in 24 European countries from 1976–2012 found that peo-
ple’s attitudes were more positive toward bears than wolves. Dressel et al. (2015)
highlighted that one of the reasons for greater acceptance of bears, as compared
to wolves, could be the widespread ability to hunt bears in Europe. European
wolves, by contrast, are more often strictly protected. This could explain why
our results and the results of the study conducted in Slovakia differ from overall
European trend. Both wolves and bears may be legally hunted in Slovakia but
are strictly protected in the Czech Republic. In a Swedish study, Eriksson et al.
(2015) argued that the wolves may also have a more direct effect on people’s
attitudes via direct experience. In Slovakia, however, bears are about three times
more abundant than wolves and encounters with bears are also much more
common than encounters with wolves. Higher probability of encountering a
bear, together with known attacks presented in the media, have probably led to
a higher perceived threat from bears also for the Czech respondents who live
 Shifts in public perception and media content 179
close to the border with Slovakia. The latter have been probably influenced by
the situation in Slovakia due to low language barrier, similar culture, and a long
shared history in the federal country. Moreover, Slovak mountains have been a
VetBooks.ir

quite common destination for Czech tourists.

Overestimating the real numbers of wolves and bears further amplified
fear. The abundance of both large carnivore species in the Czech Republic
was often exaggerated, but the tendency was stronger in the case of wolves.
Respondents typically estimated the numbers of wolves in Beskydy to be
between 50 and several hundred animals when in fact, at the time of survey,
there were only a few individuals and not a single wolf pack (Kutal et al., 2016).
Given these results, we expect that the public opinion about large carnivores
may become more negative should the real numbers of wolves, and resulting
conflicts, increase.
People who overestimated wolf abundance also expressed more concerns
about their presence, and they were more likely to show negative attitudes
towards the presence of large carnivores and be less tolerant of their expan-
sion to other areas. These results indicate that the lack of adequate information
could make people more susceptible to fear and less likely to accept the return
of large carnivores. In France, the fear of wolves was also influenced by the ten-
dency to overestimate their numbers (Bath, 2000). Bath (2000) recommended
that the objectivity in informing about wolf numbers should improve public
acceptance of wolves among respondents where the conflict is cognitive. On
the contrary, in the case of a conflict of values (Lüchtrath et al., 2015), common
among hunters, more realistic estimates of carnivore numbers are not expected
to correlate with a more positive attitude towards these species (Ericsson and
Heberlein, 2003). In our study, respondents with hunting interests did also pro-
vide better estimates of large carnivore numbers but not more positive attitudes
towards these species. Furthermore, Kaczensky (2003), reporting on a study of
bears in Slovenia, argued that perceived trends of population may be probably
much more important than absolute numbers of carnivores. Lack of knowledge
about the spatial requirements of large carnivores often leads to overestimating
their population size, whereas increasing damages are perceived as a threat and
result in lower support for any further increase of large carnivore numbers.
Most local people and almost half of the sub-sample of visitors believed that
wolves cause much damage on livestock, although real cases were very rare and
they had been reported only sporadically during the five-year period before
the survey. In contrast, perceived damage by locals and visitors on livestock in
the Slovak Carpathians, an area with stable wolf and bear occurrence (Wech-
selberger et al., 2005), were closer to real damage compared to the results of our
survey in the Beskydy Mountains. It is, therefore, possible that after a longer
coexistence, perceived damage will also improve and reach real numbers also
in the Czech Carpathians. However, the conflict between wolves and sheep
farmers in the Beskydy area was very strong in the years 1996–2000, as we have
shown in our media analysis, and that seems to have influenced the attitudes
of local people even when the extent of real damage dropped. Similarly, 30%
 180  Miroslav Kutal et al.
of local people were convinced that bears cause a lot of damage on livestock,
despite the fact that there were almost no conflicts since the return of the
species after the 1970s. In 2000, a single bear, behaving in an unusual manner
VetBooks.ir

and causing a significant damage, received much public attention (Pavelka and
Trezner, 2001; Červený and Koubek, 2003), which appears to still influence
people’s attitudes more than a decade later.
As the results of other studies show, the experience with attacks on live-
stock leads to more negative attitudes towards wolves (Ericsson and Heberlein,
2003; Andersone, 2004; Wechselberger et al., 2005). Given the low number of
respondents who personally suffered damage to domestic animals caused by
large carnivores, we were not able to confirm these results in the present study.
However, we found that livestock breeders were more likely to have a negative
disposition towards both wolves and bears, which indicates that the potential
risk of damage alone influences attitudes towards large carnivores considerably.
Farmers and livestock breeders were identified as the most negative group in
relation to large carnivores in other countries, too (Wechselberger et al., 2005;
Majić, 2007; Dressel et al., 2015). Another group of people with significantly
more negative attitudes towards large carnivores was the hunters (Dressel et al.,
2015). We were unable to investigate the attitudes of hunters, directly, because
of their low representation in our randomly selected sample.
Although the majority of respondents from both target groups (70.9% of
locals and 80.1% of visitors) expressed their interest in learning more about
large carnivores in the Czech Republic, negative attitudes towards large carni-
vores were largely associated with lack of interest in getting more information
about them, which is in accordance with a previous study in Slovenia (Kaczen-
sky et al., 2004). Any awareness campaigns aimed at people who would express
at least some interest thus seem to be little efficient in reaching those who are
mainly opposed to large carnivores. Any possible shift in their opinions may be
more readily achieved by indirect influence through people close to them, some
of whom may be more prone to support the protection of large carnivores.
The visitors of the Beskydy Mountains voiced more positive attitudes
towards wolves and bears than the local people, but as pointed out by Karlsson
and Sjöström (2007), support for the protection of wolves tends to be overesti-
mated by people living outside the area of their occurrence. At the same time,
the inhabitants of larger municipalities were more positive towards large car-
nivores than people living in smaller places. Similar results have been reported
by Wechselberger et al. (2005) in the Slovak Carpathians and by Kleiven et al.
(2004) in Norway. A Swedish study (Karlsson and Sjöström, 2007) found that
people living far from wolf territories had more positive attitudes towards
wolves than those living within or close to wolf territories.
Furthermore, respondents with higher education were significantly more
likely to express tolerance and positive attitudes towards large carnivores. The
same trends were documented in other countries as well (Williams et al., 2002;
Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Wechselberger et al., 2005; Røskaft et al., 2007),
and in a European meta-analysis (Dressel et al., 2015). However, good knowledge
 Shifts in public perception and media content 181
about large carnivores is considered only partially important for higher toler-
ance of wolves (Majić, 2007), while Szinovatz and Gossow (2001) failed to find
any relationship between education and attitudes towards bears. Kleiven et al.
VetBooks.ir

(2004) found a minor trend of tolerance of large carnivores increasing with

higher education, but this was not statistically significant.

Past trends recorded, and future trends expected

Comparative analyses of data collected in 2000 and 2009–2010 showed a
substantial decrease in negative or extreme negative attitudes of local people
towards wolves and bears, and a substantial increase in neutral attitudes. This
may indicate an increase in tolerance of large carnivore species.While sampling
through a large time span, we cannot exclude a possibility that the shift was
partly caused by a cohort effect (e.g., younger generations, which tend to have
more positive opinions about wolves, enter the sampling frame over time, while
older generations exit the sampling frame). However, the observed trend cor-
responds well with the overall media coverage of large carnivore issues. In that
respect, there was also a significant decrease in a number of articles with nega-
tive messages and content, especially aspects connected to livestock losses, and
an increase in articles with a positive perspective.
Generally, public acceptance of wolves and bears may decrease in time with
increasing number of carnivores and direct or indirect experience (Eriksson
et al., 2015). In our study area, wolves caused high conflict and a lot of damage
during the period 1996–2000, but such conflict and damage were quite rare
afterwards (Kovařík et al., 2014).The number of wolf attacks on sheep decreased
over time, and conflict with bears practically disappeared after the removal of
a problematic animal in 2000 (Pavelka and Trezner, 2001). Moreover, inten-
sive education and public awareness campaigns (including work with media,
communication with local stakeholders, promotion of preventive measures and
the system of damage compensations; see “Methods” section of this chapter
for details) have been realised continuously since 1999 by non-governmental
organizations and state nature conservancy. Our results are largely in line with
the fact that public attitudes may be influenced through personal contacts with
other people or through media (Karlsson and Sjöström, 2007). Indeed, extreme
opinions against wolves and bears in our study area have decreased since
human-carnivore conflicts have practically disappeared. However, the wide-
spread conviction that wolves and bears cause substantial damage to livestock
apparently persists among local people.
An overall change in public attitudes in our study coincided with activities
related to the prevention of conflicts, communication with media and public
awareness campaigns. Although a low number of conflicts had been caused pri-
marily by the sporadic occurrence of wolves and bears in 2005–2009, people
were nevertheless convinced that wolves were common, as indicated by their
overestimation of wolf population size. It has been underlined that attitudes
towards large carnivores are not stable and could change rapidly (Majic and
 182  Miroslav Kutal et al.
Bath, 2010). Negative political and media attention, in particular, could change
weak positive attitudes into stronger negative attitudes (Ericsson and Heber-
lein, 2003). Since successful recovery of large carnivores throughout Europe
VetBooks.ir

(Chapron et al., 2014) and more strict regulation of wolf hunting currently
approved in Slovakia (Antal et al., 2016) could also lead to wolf recovery in the
edge of the West Carpathians, the main challenge for future conservation work
in the study area is to keep the number of conflicts at low levels amidst rising
wolf and bear numbers. Initiatives to be undertaken should focus on support
of preventive measures against wolf and bear attacks, communication with key
stakeholders, and work with media focused on presenting positive stories of
large carnivores’ recovery.

Acknowledgment
We are grateful to Igor Genda, Vlastimil Kostkan and Emil Tkadlec for their
time dedicated to consultations focused on preparation of questionnaires and
statistical analyses of the data.
 Annex 9.1 Q
 uestionnaire used
in the survey
VetBooks.ir

1. How do you feel about the presence of wolves and bears in the region
where you live/which you are visiting? Please select one of the following
answers:

It makes me I do not mind It bothers me but It bothers me I do not have an

happy I can accept it and I am not opinion on this
ready to accept it

Wolf
Bear

2. I am going to read you some questions. Please express your opinion: Cer-
tainly yes = 1; Rather yes = 2; Rather no = 3; Certainly no = 4; I do not
know = 0

Question Wolf Bear

Do the wolves/bears belong

in the Beskydy Mountains?
Is it necessary to regulate
wolf/bear numbers by
hunting?
Do you think that wolves/
bears are causing a lot of
damage to livestock?
Do you think that wolves/
bears are causing a lot of
damage to wild game?
Do wolves/bears have an
important role in regulating
numbers of wild ungulates?
Would you say that a wolf/
bear is a shy animal which
usually avoids people?
 184  Miroslav Kutal et al.
3. Do you think that encountering a wild wolf or bear in nature is dangerous
or not for humans? Please select one of the following answers:
VetBooks.ir

Very dangerous Slightly dangerous No dangerous I do not know

Wolf  
Bear  

4. In your estimate, how many large carnivores are there in the Czech
Republic?
Wolves _____
Bears _____
5. At the moment, where do you get information about large carnivores?
Please indicate the most important source of information:
TV
Information materials (leaflets, brochures)
Relatives/friends/acquaintances
Scientific publications
Newspapers/ magazines
Public lectures/discussions/exhibitions
Internet
Excursions/guided trips
Radio
Books (fiction)
School
Other:
6. Would you like to receive more information about large carnivores in the
Czech Republic?
Certainly yes
Rather yes
Rather not
Certainly not
7. If you learned that someone you know has illegally killed a wolf or bear,
how would you react? (More than one answer may be selected, separate
answers for each species)
a) I would be glad
b) I would feel sorry
c) I would be upset
d) I would try to explain to them that it was wrong
e) I would report it to the police or the PLA Administration
f) I would not care
g) Other (please specify):
 Shifts in public perception and media content 185
8. Would you object to further spontaneous spread of large carnivores in the
Czech Republic?
VetBooks.ir

Yes Rather yes Rather no No I do not know

(I do not
have enough
information)

Wolf
Bear

9. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

How old are you?
15–19
20–26
27–35
36–50
51–65
What is your highest achieved education?
• Basic
• Apprenticeship
• Secondary – Specify:
• Further education/University – Specify:
What is the size of your place of residence?
• Less than 2,000 inhabitants
• 2,000–5,000 inhabitants
• 5,001–10,000 inhabitants
• 10,001–20,000 inhabitants
• 20,001–500,000
• 500,001–100,000
• 100,001 or more
Your occupation or the sector you work in:
Tourism
Forestry
Manual worker (any sector)
Agriculture (animal/plant production)
Education (primary/secondary/tertiary)
Housewife
Student
Retired
Civil servant
 186  Miroslav Kutal et al.
Self-employed/private entrepreneur
Unemployed
VetBooks.ir

Other:
How long have you been living in your current place of residence?/How
often do you visit Beskydy?
– Less than 5 years – This is my first visit
– 5–15 years – Once a year
– 15–30 years – At least twice a year
– More than 30 years – Irregular visits
Do you have any relationship to hunting?
• I am a hunter myself: I actively hunt/I have a hunting licence but do
not hunt actively
• My family member is a hunter
• My friend/acquaintance is a hunter
• I do not know any hunters
• Other (e.g., I am interested in hunting)
Do you have any relationship to livestock farming (sheep, goats, cattle, etc.)?
• I am a livestock farmer myself – what kind and how many animals do
you have:
• My family member is a livestock farmer
• My friend/acquaintance is a livestock farmer
• I have no relation to livestock farmers
• I used to farm livestock but I no longer do

References
Anděra, M., and Červený, J. (2009) Velcí savci v České republice: Rozšíření, historie a ochrana. 2.
Šelmy (Carnivora), Národní muzeum, Praha.
Anděra, M., Červený, J., Bufka, L., Bartošová, D., and Koubek, P. (2004) ‘Recent distribution
of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the Czech Republic’, Lynx (Prague), vol 35, pp5–12.
Andersone, Z. O. J. (2004) ‘Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia’, Ursus, vol 15, no
2, pp181–187.
Antal, V., Boroš, M., Čertíková, M., Ciberej, J., Dóczy, J., Finďo, S., Kaštier, P., Kropil, R.,
Lukáč, J., Molnár, L., Paule, L., Rigg, R., Rybanič, R., and Šramka, Š. (2016) Program
starostlivosti o vlka dravého (Canis lupus) na Slovensku, Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej
republiky, Banská Bystrica.
Bartošová, D. (1998) ‘Osud vlků v Beskydech je nejistý’, Veronica, vol 12, no 1, pp1–7.
Bartošová, D., and Genda, I. (2001) ‘Projekt Záchrana a návrat velkých predátorů v oblasti
Západních Karpat – část 1’, Ochrana přírody, vol 56, no 1, pp9–12.
Bath, A. (2000) ‘Human dimensions in wolf management in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes,
France: Results targeted toward designing a more effective communication campaign
and building better public awareness materials’, www.kora.ch/malme/05_library/
 Shifts in public perception and media content 187
5_1_publications/B/Bath_2000_Human_Dimensions_in_Wolf_Management_in_
France.pdf.
Bisi, J., Kurki, S., Svensberg, M., and Liukkonen,T. (2007) ‘Human dimensions of wolf (Canis
VetBooks.ir

lupus) conflicts in Finland’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 53, no 4, pp304–314.
Blekesaune, A., and Rønningen, K. (2010) ‘Bears and fears: Cultural capital, geography and
attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway’, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Jour-
nal of Geography, vol 64, no 4, pp185–198.
Boitani, L. (2000) Action Plan for the Conservation of Wolves in Europe (Canis lupus), Council of
Europe Nature and Environment Series, Strasbourg.
Bojda, M., Váňa, M., Kutal, M., Bartošová, D., and Krajmerová, D. (2014) ‘Výskyt medvěda
hnědého v letech 2003–2012 v karpatských pohořích na česko-slovenském pomezí’, in
M. Kutal and J. Suchomel (eds) Velké šelmy na Moravě a ve Slezsku. Univerzita Palackého,
Olomouc.
Breitenmoser, U. (1998) ‘Large predators in the Alps: The fall and rise of man’s competitors’,
Biological Conservation, vol 83, no 3, pp279–289.
Červený, J., Bartošová, D., Anděra, M., and Koubek, P. (2004) ‘Současné rozšíření medvěda
hnědého (Ursus arctos) v České republice’, Lynx (Praha), vol 35, pp19–26.
Červený, J., and Koubek, P. (2003) ‘The brown bear in the Czech Republic’, in B. Kryštufek,
B. Flajšman and H. I. Griffits (eds) Living with Bears. A Large European Carnivore in a Shrink-
ing World, Ecological Forum LDS, Ljubljana.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-
Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedö, P., Bego, F.,
Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov,
A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu,
O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J.,
Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E.,
Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis,Y., Mysłajek, R. W., Nowak, S., Odden,
J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer,
G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.
E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E.,Váňa, M.,Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P.,
Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. (2014) ‘Recovery of
large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, no
6216, pp1517–1519.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes
toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 2,
pp565–574.
Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. A. (2003) ‘Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public
in Sweden now that the wolves are back’, Biological Conservation, vol 111, no 2, pp149–159.
Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., and Borstedt, G. (2006) ‘The problem of spatial scale when
studying human dimensions of a natural resource conflict: Humans and wolves in Swe-
den’, International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, vol 2, no 4, pp343–349.
Eriksson, M., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘Direct experience and attitude change
towards bears and wolves’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp131–137.
Hell, P. (2003) ’1. Historické rozšírenie a populačná hustota vlka na Slovensku’, in P. Györgi
and S. Pačenovský (eds) Vlky a rysi v oblasti slovensko-maďarských hraníc, WWF Hungary,
Budapest.
Hell, P., and Sládek, J. (1974) Trofejové šelmy Slovenska, Príroda, Bratislava.
Hell, P., and Slamečka, J. (1999) Medveď v slovenských Karpatoch a vo svete, PaRPRESS, Bratislava.
 188  Miroslav Kutalet al.
Janík, M.,Voskár, J., and Buday, M. (1986) ‘Súčasné rozšírenie medveďa hnedého (Ursus arctos)
v Československu’, Poľovnícky zborník – Folia venatoria, vol 16, pp331–352.
Kaczensky, P. (2003) ‘Public opinion of large carnivores in the Alps and Dinaric Moutains’,
VetBooks.ir

in B. Kryštufek, B. Flajšman and H. Griffiths (eds) Living with Bears: A Large European Car-
nivore in a Shrinking World, Ecological Forum LDS, Ljubljana.
Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., and Gossow, H. (2004) ‘Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus
arctos) in Slovenia’, Biological Conservation, vol 118, no 5, pp661–674.
Karlsson, J., and Sjöström, M. (2007) ‘Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance’,
Biological Conservation, vol 137, no 4, pp610–616.
Kleiven, J., Bjerke,T., and Kaltenborn, B. P. (2004) ‘Factors influencing the social acceptability
of large carnivore behaviours’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 13, no 9, pp1647–1658.
Kovařík, P., and Kutal, M. (2014) ‘Velké šelmy a chov ovcí v CHKO Beskydy’, in M. Kutal
and J. Suchomel (eds) Velké šelmy na Moravě a ve Slezsku, Univerzita Palackého, Olomouc.
Kovařík, P., Kutal, M., and Machar, I. (2014) ‘Sheep and wolves: Is the occurrence of large
predators a limiting factor for sheep grazing in the Czech Carpathians?’ Journal for Nature
Conservation, vol 22, no 5, pp479–486.
Kutal, M.,Váňa, M., Suchomel, J., Chapron, G., and López-Bao, J.V. (2016) ‘Trans-boundary
edge effects in the Western Carpathians: The influence of hunting on large carnivore
occupancy’, PLoS ONE, vol 11, no 12, p.e0168292.
Linnell, J., Andersen, R., Andersone, Z., Balciauskas, L., Blanco, J., Boitani, L., Brainerd, S.,
Breitenmoser, U., Kojola, I., Liberg, O., Loe, J., Okarma, H., Pedersen, H., Promberger, C.,
Sand, H., Solberg, E.,Valdmann, H., and Wabakken, P. (2002) ‘The fear of wolves: A review
of wolf attacks on humans’, Oppdragsmelding Norwegian Institute of Nature Research,, vol 731,
pp1–65.
Linnell, J. D. C., and Alleau, J. (2016) ‘Predators that kill humans : Myth, reality, context and
the politics of wolf attacks on people’, in F. M. Angelici (ed) Problematic Wildlife: A  Cross-
Disciplinary Approach, Springer International, New York.
Lopez, B. H. (1979) Of Wolves and Men, Scribner, New York.
Lüchtrath, A., Schraml, U., and Lüchtrath, A. (2015) ‘The missing lynx – Understanding
hunters’ opposition to large carnivores’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 2, pp110–119.
Majić, A. (2007) Human Dimension in Wolf Management in Croatia: Understanding Public Atti-
tudes Toward Wolves Over Time and Space, Master’s thesis, Memorial University of New-
foundland, Canada.
Majic, A., and Bath, A. (2010) ‘Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia’, Biological Con-
servation, vol 143, no 1, pp255–260.
Martinát, S., Klapka, P., and Nováková, E. (2008) ‘Changes of spatial differentiation in live-
stock breeding in the Czech Republic after 1990’, in J. Bański and M. Bednarek (eds)
Rural Studies 15, PAN Warszawa, Warszawa.
Mech, L. D. (1995) ‘The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations’, Conser-
vation Biology, vol 9, no 2, pp270–278.
Niznikowski, R., Strzelec, E., and Popielarczyk, D. (2006) ‘Economics and profitability of
sheep and goat production under new support regimes and market conditions in Central
and Eastern Europe’, Small Ruminant Research, vol 62, no 3, pp159–165.
Pavelka, J., and Trezner, K. (2001) Příroda Valašska, Český svaz ochránců přírody,Vsetín.
Prokop, P., Usak, M., and Erdogan, M. (2011) ‘Good predators in bad stories : Cross-cultural
comparison of children’s attitudes towards wolves’, Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol
10, no 4, pp229–242.
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation
for Statistical Computing,Vienna.
 Shifts in public perception and media content 189
Randveer,T. (2001) ‘Estonians and the wolf ’, in L. Balčiauskas (ed) Proceedings of BLCIE Sym-
posium: Human Dimensions of Large Carnivores in Baltic Countries. Šiauliai University, Šiauliai.
Rigg, R., Finďo, S., Wechselberger, M., and Gorman, M. L. (2011) ‘Mitigating carnivore –
VetBooks.ir

Livestock conflict in Europe: Lessons from Slovakia’, Oryx, vol 45, no 2, pp272–280.
Røskaft, E., Händel, B., Bjerke, T., and Kaltenborn, B. P. (2007) ‘Human attitudes towards
large carnivores in Norway’, Wildlife Biology, vol 13, no 2, pp172–185.
SAS (2007) JMP,Version 5.0.1, SAS Institute, Cary.
Szinovatz,V., and Gossow, H. (2001) ‘Die Akzeptanz der Bären in Österreich in Abhängigkeit
von der Saison – eine Langzeitstudie’, Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, vol 76, no 1/2,
pp155–168.
Wechselberger, M., Rigg, R., and Beťková, S. (2005) An Investigation of Public Opinion About
the Three Species of Large Carnivores in Slovakia, Slovak Wildlife Society, Liptovský Hrádok.
Williams, C. K., Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. (2002) ‘A quantitative summary of attitudes
toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000)’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 30, no
2, pp575–584.
Zibordi, F. (2009) ‘Large carnivores and public awareness campaigns: The role of protected
areas’, in M. Pavlik (ed) Large Carnivores in the Alps and Carpathians: Living with the Wildlife,
ALPARC – Alpine Network of Protected Areas, Chambery.
 10 Rural-urban heterogeneity
in attitudes towards large
VetBooks.ir

carnivores in Sweden,
1976–2014
Göran Ericsson, Camilla Sandström and Shawn J. Riley

Introduction
Swedes traditionally exhibit utilitarian values and use wildlife resources in con-
sumptive ways. Hunting and other uses of wildlife resources are deeply rooted,
and to a high degree accepted, in Swedish society (Ljung et al., 2015). A key
feature of Swedish legalisation since at least 1789, when the right to hunt on
their own land was granted to all landowners regardless of class, has been to
promote “good” species – ones that can be used by humans for food, fur or
other products (Danell et al., 2017). Swedish governance, policy and manage-
ment actions generally have disfavoured wildlife species such as large carnivores
perceived to be in direct competition – and thus conflict – with human uses
of resources. This view was challenged, however, during the latter part of the
19th century as globalised approaches to conservation emerged. Influences, pri-
marily from the United States, recognised that active wildlife governance and
management was necessary to regulate human uses of wildlife. The focus of
early debates (1830 and on) in Sweden was on restoration of moose popula-
tions, and then brown bears (1860 and on) that could sustain hunting. Sweden
consequently transformed legislation for both forestry and wildlife in the 1930s
and 1940s because of the wise-use and conservation movements. The main
stakeholders involved in conservation at that time were hunters, foresters and
members of the public with means and time to engage in conservation (Danell
et al., 2017).
Implementation of contemporary conservation policy and practices by state,
private and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) included regulated hunt-
ing, state promotion of conservation education and complete protection of
some socially desirable species. Consequently, ungulates thrived. Species such
as moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus),
fallow deer (Dama dama) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) increased rapidly in absolute
and relative terms by the mid-20th century (Danell et al., 2017). Although their
recovery lagged in relation to the recovery of prey species, large mammalian
predators made a commensurable comeback. Sweden currently contains his-
torically high – perhaps record high – populations of large mammals and birds
(Danell et al., 2017). These abundant wildlife populations create challenges and
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 191
opportunities for conservation in European and North American society. Swe-
den serves as a functional model for planning and implementation of practices
to provide sustainable populations of large mammals in the Global North based
VetBooks.ir

on the collaboration among governmental agencies, landowners, NGOs and

the public (Singh et al., 2014).
Current attitudes towards large carnivores in Sweden are multidimensional.
They are formed principally by human-wolf and human-bear interactions, het-
erogeneity among those people with and without direct experience large car-
nivores, and urban-rural human demographic differences (Dressel et al., 2015;
Eriksson et al., 2015) A crucial starting point that created today’s attitudinal
heterogeneity among stakeholders towards large carnivores was the Green Rev-
olution of the 1960s (Carson, 1962). Wolves (Canis lupus), functionally extinct
from most of Sweden in the 1960s, were confined to the alpine north of the
country. Abundance was assumed at that time to be fewer than 10 individuals
(Chapron et al., 2014). Bears (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolverines
(Gulo gulo) also were scarce, and their geographical distribution restricted to
boreal and mountain areas, where few people lived.
The Swedish society by the early 1960s consisted of a majority of people
whose attitudes were formed by strong consumptive and utilitarian values
yet by no real, first-hand, direct interactions with large carnivores. Any spo-
radic interactions had been limited to stories and media coverage such as
occasional sightings or tracks (Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003). Swedish public
television and its nature-oriented programs broadcasted flickering footage of
occasional sightings of wolves in the far north, and of bears, lynx and wol-
verines in the low mountains. By far, wolves were the rarest animals to be
reported, but also the one most likely to garner the most attention when large
carnivores were missing in most peoples’ everyday life, social life and culture
(Danell et al., 2017).
Legalisation and governmental policies in the mid-1960s made a complete
reversal in terms of overall objectives from promoting bounties to complete
protection. Active control policies including bounties for wolf populations were
still in effect at the end of 1965, but starting January 1, 1966, anyone killing
a wolf in Sweden could be sent to jail. The abrupt U-turn in Swedish wolf
conservation policy cannot be underestimated; it was the first major change in
policy in nearly 100 years and involved wolves, the most controversial species,
and historically most threatening to domestic animal husbandry (Danell et al.,
2017). Nevertheless, it was politically easy to do because few wolves existed –
no animals, no direct interaction, no impact. Breaking the ice with wolves, it
was rather uncontroversial to make similar policy about other species. Wolver-
ines were fully protected beginning in July 1969. The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was formed in 1967, one of many regulatory agencies
established in countries of the world in the wake of the broad 1960s conser-
vation movement. Wildlife-related issues, including restoration of all wildlife
as well as regulation of hunting, have been since included in the EPA federal
mandate.
 192  Göran Ericsson et al.
Tracking large carnivore numbers and attitude trends

No wolves; large carnivores restricted to the north;

VetBooks.ir

human-large carnivore interaction not salient

The protection of 1960s had no effect, in practice, because large carnivores
were functionally absent from most of Sweden for another 10 years. Only spo-
radic predation on reindeer occurred in the far north, but stray wolves coming
in from the east were implicated. Bears, wolverines and lynx were still restricted
in their distribution to places where few humans lived, which also meant they
were functionally absent from the minds of most of the Swedish public. Social
science coincidently started slowly to emerge in most facets of governance,
including wildlife conservation.
The first professionally conducted survey of Swedish attitudes toward carni-
vores was done in 1976, and still serves as a baseline well before large carnivores
actually physically returned (Andersson et al., 1977). The survey was part of a
research project led by the Swedish EPA in response to the non-recovery of
the Swedish wolf population. No confirmed breeding had taken place since
1964, but the survey also was in response to confirmed wolf sightings in the
border area with Norway, close to Trysil. The survey was a proactive measure
to determine if wolves were indeed making a comeback. It was a three-contact
mail survey to the public in four rural regions with historical occupancy of
wolves (n = 1200, 72% response rate), administered to members of the nature
conservation organisation Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (“Natur-
skyddsföreningen” in Swedish, n = 200, 91% response rate), reindeer owners
(n = 200, 58% response rate), cattle farmers (n = 200, 82% response rate), and
hunters (n = 200, 82% response rate). A majority of the total sample as well
as of key sub-samples, including hunters and members of the Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation, expressed positive attitudes towards possible exist-
ence of wolves. These latter groups were among the most influential in actively
restoring wolves in the Swedish landscape. A general finding of the attitudinal
survey was that most respondents supported a re-establishment of wolves in the
northern mountain areas bordering Norway.
Since the rugged border area was and still is sparsely populated (fewer than
0.5 people/km2), no strong opposition was expected for wolves occurring in
the far north back in 1976. One group, however, the indigenous Sámi reindeer
herders, strongly opposed the occurrence of wolves in the mountainous north.
Since the public in the south viewed large carnivores metaphorically as part
of the vast, uninhabited northern wilderness, they supported wolf restoration.
That support occurred regardless of place of residence – both urban and rural
people supported wolves in the north. The works of nature writers and early
nature filmmakers in the 1950s and 1960s such as Bertil Haglund and Edwin
Nilsson reinforced beliefs of carnivores as wilderness-only species. Their epic
black and white footage of rarely spotted wolves, bears, wolverines and lynx
provided a vicarious interaction between large carnivores and predominately
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 193
people in the north, to people of all backgrounds. Apart from Sámi reindeer
herders, there was no rural-urban heterogeneity detected in stakeholder atti-
tudes towards large carnivores in Sweden during the 1970s. From the perspec-
VetBooks.ir

tive of Swedish carnivore conservation and its implications, it is interesting that

support for taking action to establish carnivores in boreal areas of southern and
central Sweden was rather low (Andersson et al., 1977).

Rewilding and initial cohort heterogeneity in Sweden

The large carnivore issue became salient in the early 1980s, when the first
reproductively active wolf population was confirmed in south-central Swe-
den. This event appeared to be a spontaneous recolonisation, and the first one
observed since 1918 in the region. Ironically, wolves colonised precisely in the
area not preferred by any group which responded to the 1976 survey. State pol-
icy had promoted reforestation and rewilding, which had favoured growth of
large carnivore populations throughout Sweden (Danell et al., 2017). Thus, the
stage was set for large carnivores to re-establish themselves outside the north-
ern peripheral areas they been forced to inhabit during the previous 200 years.
Importantly, the prey base in the form of wild ungulates had also been restored
to levels that could support increasing populations and range distribution of
large carnivores.
A second turning policy point, although not as dramatic as the one in the late
1960s, occurred during the early 1980s, when brown bears and lynx received
attention from society similar to what wolves and wolverines had received a
decade earlier. This renewed attention most likely was a result of the Conven-
tion on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern
Convention), which was adopted by European Environment Ministers in 1979.
To promote recovery of the bear population, a strictly regulated licence hunt
was initiated in 1981. The progression in lynx conservation roughly followed
the same trajectory in terms of legislation and population recovery. Additional
protection for the lynx included partial exclusion from hunting in 1986 and
complete protection followed in 1991. In short, a more restrictive large conser-
vation policy of the 1980s coincide with the peak of a major wave of urbanisa-
tion and environmental movements globally.
In 1980, a national proportional sample of 3,006 Swedes (67% response rate)
from 16–65 years of age were surveyed about their attitude toward wildlife
and hunting (Norling et al., 1981). At that time, the Swedish moose popula-
tion peaked at unprecedented densities, estimated to be more than two indi-
viduals/km2 in forested areas. Roe deer populations were also increasing due
to restrictive hunting. In addition, the Sarcoptic mange (Sarcoptes scabiei) had
severely reduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations, which had also favoured
roe deer. The 1980 survey was conducted just around the peak rate of urbani-
sation in Sweden, 18 years after Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring”, and
only 10–14 years after the abrupt changes in legislation, which had promoted
large carnivore conservation instead of extermination. The origin of Sweden’s
 194  Göran Ericsson et al.
heterogeneity between urban and rural attitudes toward wildlife, still preva-
lent today, can be traced back to this time. Attitude differences among sample
cohorts were apparent, with urbanites and younger respondents being more
VetBooks.ir

pro-conservation. However, human-carnivore conflicts were largely absent.The

main driver of these conflicts, namely the wolf, was still functionally non-exist-
ent. Although rural-urban differences had been detected, they could not have
meant much for wildlife conservation and management, yet.
A key research question in two of our meta-analyses of attitudes towards
large carnivores was the effect of age (Williams et al., 2002; Dressel et al., 2015).
Will younger people, socialised in an era of conservation, maintain a prepon-
derance of positive attitude towards large carnivores? Can this trend be com-
promised with increasing social interaction, experience and age? Initially, older
people expressed negative attitudes towards large carnivores, probably because
those people had spent their formative years in an era when utilitarian values
prevailed. However, the meta-analyses revealed the effects of direct experiences
with carnivores, such as notable depredation events, as important drivers for less
positive attitudes. Norling et al. (1981) had already pointed out that place of res-
idence (a reliable proxy of direct experience of wildlife) was a more important
driver (predictor) of valence (positive/negative) of attitudes than age (cohort)
or upbringing (socialising). This is how Norling et al. (1981) summarised this
(quote translated by authors from Swedish, emphasis added):

in general, the Swedish public expressed a strong interest in wildlife; most

species interested a majority of Swedes, typically 60–70%. . . . The interest
for wildlife differed among cohorts, however. Older people expressed a
strong interest for common species like moose, roe deer, hare and birds (but
not birds of prey). For between every second and every third respondent
over 55 years of age, there was an expression of increased interest for those
common species, which was 2–3 times higher than interest expressed by
younger people. With respect to birds of prey and large carnivores, there was no
general age difference, but there were differences with respect to gender and place of
residence. The largest interest for those species [Authors’ note: birds of prey
and large carnivores] was expressed by men as compared to women and
urban citizens as compared to rural residents. . . . Groups with the highest
expressed interest for those species were members of the Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation and hunters; however, the hunters’ interest was
more restricted to game species.

Please note only 3% of respondents in this survey expressed that there were too
few wolves, bears, lynx and wolverines in relation to what they had known of
the population sizes of these species at that time (Norling et al., 1981). In real-
ity, however, wolves were almost absent and the other three carnivore species’
populations were critically low in number as compared to their current popula-
tion.That only 3% of respondents expressed concern for large carnivore species
is not surprising; why would the public miss something that had been absent for
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 195
100–150 years for most of Sweden, and had been thus absent in culture, media
and everyday life?
Despite the lack of support for more large carnivores, Norling et al. (1981)
VetBooks.ir

documented a greater occurrence of naturalistic/ecological value orientations

among the public than was anticipated from previous work in Sweden and
elsewhere. Yet, as expected, greater occurrence of utilitarian value orientation
about nature and animals was expressed in regions dominated by forestry and
agriculture. There was no difference at that time in attitudes towards large car-
nivores between rural and urban respondents. Our conclusion is that around
1980, the fraction of people who had an urban upbringing with no experience
of the countryside was rather low, as was the fraction of the population with
experience of large carnivores.Therefore, attitudes toward large carnivores were
largely homogenised within the general Swedish population.

The comeback of large carnivores led to increasing

attitude heterogeneity
When wolves re-entered the scene in the region of Värmland, Swedes’ atti-
tudes were rather homogenous. From studies reviewed, we assume that the first
reports of wolf sightings in the early 1980s induced positive attitudes towards
restoration of all large carnivores among the general public (sensu Williams
et al., 2002). We also presume, given reports in papers and magazines, that atti-
tudes began to shift when people in Värmland started to report negative expe-
riences with wolves from 1982 onward. We assume that the early 1980s was
the starting point of the conflict depicted by attitudes towards large carnivores
between a handful of people in the areas recolonised by the wolves (a minor-
ity with direct experience from human-carnivore interaction) and the wider
public (the majority of people in the country, without such a direct experience;
Williams et al., 2002). By 2000, there were nearly 100 wolves, 1,000 lynx, 2,000
bears, and 200 wolverines in Sweden, all still spatially restricted to rural areas
with low human population densities.
The few attitude surveys performed until around 2000 were based on
national proportional sampling (Williams et al., 2002). They signalled that a
majority of Swedes supported the presence of wolves and other carnivores, and
disclosed no major reluctance and opposition towards them, when data were
at a national scale. That finding was challenged repeatedly by the early 2000s by
vocal opposition at local, regional and national levels, including letters to the
editor of all major local, regional and national newspapers, on radio and TV. In
rural Sweden, these voices were particularly pronounced, but as the national,
proportional surveys continued to show no strong opposition to large carni-
vores, concerns were mostly dismissed as non-relevant by the media in urban
areas (Sandström and Lindvall, 2006). Thus, in the first years of the 2000s, there
was a growing mistrust towards attitude surveys, since the voices of rural oppo-
nents were too few to be detected by national surveys involving about 1,000
respondents each (Ericsson et al., 2006).
 196  Göran Ericsson et al.
Previous studies overlooked local opposition to large carnivores
In 2001, the first Swedish study to detect heterogeneity in attitudes towards
VetBooks.ir

large carnivores was about attitudes toward wolves (Ericsson and Heberlein,
2003). Local oversampling was introduced to address the previous criticisms
about sampling in relation to participants’ experiences. Despite the fact that
Swedish and Norwegian case studies had previously suggested a change in per-
spectives (e.g., Williams et al., 2002), it became obvious that no valid sampling
of all affected subgroups had been completed previously to test the hypoth-
esis that direct experience and knowledge influenced the valence of attitudes
toward large carnivores. Ericsson and Heberlein (2003) used a scale ranging
from −17 to +17 across nine items and contrasted four groups (general public,
hunters, public and hunters in rural areas with wolves).
Based on theory and previous studies (Williams et al., 2002), rural-urban
heterogeneity was predicted to increase with increasing carnivore populations.
That was a key hypothesis in Ericsson and Heberlein’s work of 2003. The out-
come confirmed heterogeneity in local versus national public attitudes towards
large carnivores for the first time in Sweden. Most positive was the national
public (+4.8), followed by the public in areas with wolves (+2.4), and hunters
nationwide (+1.2). Hunters in areas with wolves expressed the only negative
attitudes (−2.0). Interestingly, another key finding of Ericsson and Heberlein
(2003) was that the effect of residence on attitudes towards large carnivores
was already detectable with a threshold of community population set at 10,000
people. An in-depth analysis that followed suggested attitudinal heterogeneity
was to be attributed to respondents – non-hunters and hunters – in areas with
large carnivores having more direct experience and knowledge, stronger utili-
tarian ties to the land, and being less likely to express any neutrality towards any
attitudinal measurement item.
It may be widely accepted that legislation and policy at large had to be
decided nationally after general elections.The cost of increasing large carnivore
populations, however, was shouldered only by rural populations, which created
tension and a question of legitimacy. On the other hand, members of NGOs
questioned the generality of attitude heterogeneity to other geographic areas,
although standard international survey methodology had been used by Erics-
son and Heberlein (2003), and they suggested that findings were an artefact of
the local area sampled. Our research needed to take this idea of legitimacy one
step farther: Would the findings about heterogeneity hold if the survey sample
population was not in the spatially restricted contested area included in Erics-
son and Heberlein’s (2003) sampling? Given the studies published at that time
and summarised by the meta-analysis of Williams et al (2002) we had expected
that findings would hold.
Ericsson and co-workers further developed, tested and confirmed the main
findings about rural and urban heterogeneity in the Mountain MISTRA pro-
ject (2003–2008) covering about 55% of Sweden, but only 15% of the human
population of the country (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2006, 2008). Our conclusion
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 197
from a string of studies and papers from 2001 and on, opened the management
and public debate for better acknowledging the heterogeneity that has existed
in attitudes towards large carnivores (see Table 10.1 for a comprehensive review
VetBooks.ir

of objectives and outcomes of these studies). Once sampling was adapted to

account for large carnivore distribution as well as better reflect different seg-
ments of targeted respondent populations, human-carnivore conflicts and the
causes behind the conflicting patterns among groups in society had become
clearer (Ericsson et al., 2008). To arrive at these results, oversampling in rural
areas with large carnivores was needed.

Knowledge and experience as major drivers of attitudes

towards large carnivores
After our surveys, Sweden has continued to experience increasing numbers
of wolves, bears, lynx and wolverines (Chapron et al., 2014). The increase in
the wolf population is still the driver that catalyses and propels debate around
large carnivores, yet an expanding bear population has been another important
aspect (Dressel et al., 2015; Eriksson et al., 2015). Growth in large carnivore
populations and commensurate human-carnivore interactions have correlated
with attitude change – mostly perceptions of increasing risk and increasing
negative disposition (Dressel et al., 2015).The role of various direct experiences
such as livestock depredation, finding remains of various wild or domesticated
animals killed by carnivores, and seeing or hearing large carnivores are receiv-
ing new interest as the distribution of large carnivore expands toward densely
human-populated areas such as the Stockholm region.
Every time a new wolf territory is established or bear populations expand
into a new region, societal as well as scientific debate related to coexistence
with large carnivores is renewed. This debate tends to focus on similar issues
again and again: perceived competition between hunters and large carnivores
for game animals, livestock depredation and contrasting views about human’s
role in nature. Central to these discussions was, and still is, the role of direct
experiences, either positive or negative, with large carnivore species (Williams
et al., 2002, Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Dressel et al., 2015). Rural people
and hunters are always central to this discussion, since they are always believed
to hold negative attitudes toward wolves and other large carnivores, mainly due
to carnivores preying on domestic and game animals.We tested this assumption
with data from national, regional and local surveys between 2001 and 2004. In
all our studies, place of residence proved to be a good proxy for experience and
knowledge of large carnivores (see Table 10.1 for a comprehensive review of
the main objectives and outcomes of these studies).
Experiences incurred by living in areas with large carnivores influenced peo-
ple, even those without direct connection to hunting, to express less positive
towards large carnivores. Similar patterns were revealed for hunters throughout
Sweden, whether they lived in an area with carnivores or not. Perceived com-
petition over game, nonetheless, was not the driver behind disagreements over
 VetBooks.ir

Table 10.1 Background, main objective and main outcomes of selected human dimension studies performed in Sweden since 1976 on large carnivores

Study Background of the study Main objective Main outcomes

Andersson et al. • Research project led by the Examine attitudes • A majority of the total sample (n = 1200) expressed positive
(1977) Swedish Environmental towards wolves attitudes towards wolves
Protection Agency in response • Sámi reindeer herders strongly opposed the occurrence of wolves
to the non-recovery of the in the mountainous north
Swedish wolf population • Support for taking action to establish carnivores in boreal areas of
• Confirmed wolf sightings in southern and central Sweden was rather low
the border area with Norway
(Trysil)
Norling et al. (1981) Increase of wild ungulates (moose; Examine attitudes Only 3% of respondents (n = 3006) expressed that there were too
roe deer) towards wildlife few wolves, bears, lynx and wolverines in relation to what they
had known of the population sizes of these species at that time
Williams et al. (2002) • Early 1980s: First signs of a Meta-analysis of wolf The few attitude surveys performed until around 2000 were based
rural minority opposing wolf attitudes reported in on national proportional sampling and depicted a clear majority
recovery 38 quantitative surveys of Swedes supporting the presence of large carnivores, without
• Early 2000s:Vocal opposition between 1972 and disclosing any major reluctance or opposition
against wolf recovery; mistrust 2000
towards surveys, since the
voices of opponents are hardly
detected
Ericsson and • Rural-urban heterogeneity • Examine experiences, • First Swedish study to detect heterogeneity in attitudes towards
Heberlein (2003) was predicted to increase knowledge, and large carnivores (n = 1734)
with increasing carnivore attitudes toward wolves • Endorsement of large carnivores more pronounced for the general
populations • Local oversampling public and hunters as compared to public and hunters in rural
• Criticism to previous research introduced to address areas
addressing sampling methods criticisms about • An in-depth analysis suggested that attitudinal heterogeneity was
sampling to be attributed to respondents – both non-hunters and hunters –
in areas with large carnivores having more direct experience
and knowledge, stronger utilitarian ties to the land, and being
less likely to express any neutrality towards any attitudinal
measurement item
 VetBooks.ir

Dressel et al. (2015) Ranges of wolves and bears • Extend results of • Respondents (105 quantitative surveys involving 24 European
have expanded across Europe individual surveys countries; 1976–2012) were more favourable towards bears than
considerably, necessitating an over temporal and wolves; attitudes toward bears improved over time
assessment of public attitudes geographical scales • Attitudes toward wolves became less favourable the longer people
• Identify attitude have coexisted with the species
patterns and shifts • Wolf attitudes differed between groups, with farmers and hunters
being less favourable; no differentiation was detected for bears
Johansson et al. To inform wildlife management Examine psychological • Self-reported fear of wolves addressed via two different paths: (1)
(2016) and allocate management antecedents of fear of at an individual level, with a concentration on potential human-
resources in an efficient way, wolves wolf encounters, and (2) at a collective level, by facilitating trust
fear of wolves needs to be building between the public and competent authorities
explored • There was a moderating effect of geographical location, where
the social path (management-related) was more important among
respondents who lived closer to the animals (national sample,
n = 545; regional sample, n = 1892)
Eriksson (2017) The return of the wolf can be Examine the attitude • Significant decrease of wolf support, overall, as well as in counties
assumed to aggravate pre- trend from 2004–2014 with continuous and increasing wolf presence
existing urban-rural tensions, • Attitudinal change associated with political alienation
resulting in conflicts over wolf • Wolf policy symbolically attracting rural opposition against urban
policy interests
 200  Göran Ericsson et al.
large carnivore conservation. Instead, the main drivers were concrete actions
to be taken or not, such as the right to protect hunting dogs. The common
denominator in why majorities or respondent samples, whether urban or rural,
VetBooks.ir

accepted hunting of wolves and other large carnivores was protection of domes-
tic animals, hunting dogs and human safety, regardless of whether respondents
were hunters or non-hunters. Even without direct experience or knowledge,
people supported the right to protect property and human lives at the expense
of large carnivores.

Attitude trends between 2004 and 2014

A finding in our work is that an increase of large carnivores contributes to more
heterogeneous urban and rural samples in terms of attitudes (Johansson et al.,
2016; Eriksson, 2017). A majority of Swedes (74%) in 2004 expressed positive
attitudes toward the presence of wolves in Sweden, which decreased to 71%
in 2009 and 66% in 2014. The pairwise difference of 8% between 2004 and
2014 was statistically significant (t = 3.98, df = 1000, p < 0.001). Among coun-
ties with continuous and increasing presence of large carnivores, we revealed
a decrease (t = 3.75, df = 1050, p < 0.001) in approval for wolves in Dalarna,
Norrbotten, Jämtland and Gävleborg. Despite mitigation effects and other
actions, the average approval for wolves dropped from nearly 60% to 50% per
county between 2004 and 2014.The trends in the other counties are unknown,
as they have never been sampled.
In the 2014 survey, we included the south-central county Värmland as a
sample. Värmland is the only county with uninterrupted wolf presence since
the beginning of the 1980s, when the first pair of breeding wolves was estab-
lished there, most likely in 1982–1983. In 2014,Värmland had a 49% approval
of wolves, which is comparable with other counties (e.g., Dalarna and Gäv-
leborg) that experienced long permanent presence of wolves. Moving from
rural to urban settings, respondents from the Stockholm County, who were
included the studies of 2009 and 2014, expressed the most positive endorse-
ment of wolves (78% wolf approval in 2009; 74% in 2014). Even though finding
such a strong support may well fit the stereotype of pro-wolf urbanites, there
was a marked decrease in wolf approval of 4%, which was statistically significant
(t = 4.14, df = 3900, p < 0.001).
Regardless of county or presence of carnivores, the public expressed more
positive attitudes toward bears than wolves. National support, overall, for brown
bears was also higher than the wolf, but there was a decrease from 79% in
2004 to 75% in 2009, and further down to 73% in 2014 (pair-wise difference
between 2004 and 2014 proved to be significant; t = 3.20, df = 1000, p < 0.01).
In parallel with wolves, an analogous decrease in positive attitudes toward bears
was also observed between 2004 and 2009 in the northern counties of Norr-
botten,Västerbotten and Dalarnas. For lynx and wolverines, attitudes were once
again more positive than those toward wolves, and there was no significant
reduction in support through time.
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 201
Implications for large carnivore conservation
and management
VetBooks.ir

Easier said than done: governance challenges for large

carnivore conservation and management
Wildlife governance focused on addressing interactions between people and
wildlife commensurate with abundance of wildlife are generally most effec-
tive. Large carnivores are no exception to that rule. At the core of wildlife
governance in Sweden, there are species harvested for meat, non-consumptive
uses such as wildlife-related viewing and recreation, and species such as
wolves, bears, wolverines and lynx that affect humans, human activities and
human interests in nature. The current governance regime is challenged by
demographic changes such as internal migration from rural to urban areas,
external immigration of people from cultures with different values and lit-
tle direct experience with wildlife, and from the effects of urban sprawl. All
these phenomena are likely to affect resident values and publicly expressed
attitudes and thus influence the character of future wildlife governance and
management.
The paradigm shift in Swedish large carnivore policy in the 1960s, from
management to conservation, has turned out 50 years later to be a conservation
policy success (Chapron et al., 2014). As we have shown in this chapter, the
increasing number of carnivores has resulted in more diversity and heterogene-
ity in values towards wildlife and attitudes towards large carnivores and their
management in particular.This currently engages stakeholders with diverse val-
ues in seeking effective and legitimate solutions to these challenges. Sweden’s
case may probably be a forerunner of what will occur in other European coun-
tries, since there is a recovery of large carnivore species across the whole conti-
nent (Chapron et al., 2014; Dressel et al., 2015). Key governance challenges will
be twofold: to track large carnivore species, as well as empower those affected
to manage human-carnivore conflicts (Riley and Sandström, 2016).
There has been an extensive institutional change in how natural resources
and wildlife are governed in Sweden, gradually shifting to more inclusive pro-
cesses with respect to stakeholders affected by the return of large carnivores.
After all, an integrated approach, drawing on knowledge and insights from
different disciplines, is more likely to result in meeting societal needs (Riley
et al., 2002). For many environmental managers, much of their time is allocated
to dealing with human responses to governance and management actions. For
instance, conservation and management of increasing populations of large car-
nivores thus has become more of a political-institutional and socio-cultural
challenge than a purely biological matter. People are responding to the fre-
quency and quality of interactions they have with wildlife in various ways,
where abundance of species is not the sole driver (Riley et al., 2002; Sjölander-
Lindqvist et al., 2015). Because costs and benefits of wildlife presence are dis-
tributed unevenly, and because costs may intrude on local livelihoods, striking
 202  Göran Ericsson et al.
an acceptable balance in interventions to support wildlife management is dif-
ficult (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
Since public involvement is a mandate of contemporary democratic decision-
VetBooks.ir

making, however, within the frame of natural resource governance (Sjölander-

Lindqvist et al., 2015), governance approaches that accommodate and bridge
between diverse values and attitudes will increase legitimacy. Thus, these
approaches are highly likely to result in sustainable decisions, which improves
chances to achieve policy objectives. Approaches associated with this sort of
governance include building on shared vision and increased local acceptance
of state initiatives (e.g., in the implementation of large carnivore policy). In
short, concepts such as social trust, fair representation, and inclusion of differ-
ent knowledge types, leadership and communication, play an important role in
achieving legitimacy (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
A major challenge is how to best incorporate voices and concerns that tran-
scend spatial scales and may be disproportionally represented in different locali-
ties. Most people do not have direct experiences with large carnivores. Their
perceptions towards these species are influenced more by media and stories
conveyed through social networks. The specific context and characteristics of
human-carnivore interactions has predictable consequences for how people react
to those interactions. In the same direction, it has been underlined that direct
experience usually solidifies attitudes, either positive or negative, toward the
object of the attitude. Riley and Sandström (2016, p. 63) introduced a hierarchy
of responses, whereby people reacted to various risks, including risks related to
large carnivores. Although conflicts related to livestock depredation are perhaps
most common, human health and safety may lay a greater role in determining
tolerance for large carnivores as compared to other species (Inskip et al., 2016).

New roles to be facilitated

Scientific knowledge does not present a limiting factor for the effectiveness of
large carnivore conservation, in most cases, and this is because scientific knowl-
edge can never be enough for addressing human-carnivore conflicts when the
issue is principally one of overcoming value differences in society. We suggest
that consideration of the biological dimension (e.g., density of large carnivores
and their prey species) may be necessary but not sufficient for sustained large
carnivore conservation and management. Monitoring the human dimension
is also needed to shed light on causal factors affecting values, attitudes and
behaviours towards carnivores and inform large carnivore policy from the per-
spective of complex socio-ecological systems. It is crucial to track indicators of
wildlife value orientations (Patterson et al., 2003), and how these are affecting
socially acceptable ways wildlife can be managed.These changes may be caused
or influenced by broader societal shifts, including a society’s socio-economic
and cultural development, but also by shifts in socio-demographic variables
and behaviour at the individual level such as income, education, migration and
outdoor recreation patterns.
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 203
All knowledge and concerns exchanged will be subject to circulating dis-
courses, multiple contestations and regimes of power. The comeback of large
carnivores was accompanied by the realisation of a general deficit in trust among
VetBooks.ir

stakeholders, which presents an important barrier to effective coordination in

large carnivore conservation and management (Eriksson, 2017). To be effective,
any planned institutional transition will need to rely on enabling social relation-
ships. Building adaptive management’s capacity to pool resources, expertise and
influence (Sandström et al., in this volume), will require development of new
roles for the public sector that establish collaborative arrangements, common
values and trust between and among the public and the government.We would
single out trust as a variable that may prove decisive in several contexts: Recent
research revealed that strengthening trust between the public and authorities
may be instrumental in addressing fear of wolves (Johansson et al., 2016).
The new roles that need to be facilitated, often addressed as “New Public
Service”, imply that public authorities seek solutions to societal problems in
collaboration with private and civil society organisations. In contrast to Tradi-
tional Public Administration, the new steering mode provides a social arena to
enable citizens to articulate their shared interests to promote collective action.
The focus is thus on citizen and stakeholder involvement and on negotiating
interests among actors (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2007). In this process, the role
of the government is transformed from one of mainly prescribing and con-
trolling to one of bringing various actors to the table and brokering efforts to
figure out what are the desired directions to be taken, prioritise them and put
solutions into practice (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2007; Mårald et al., 2017).

Conclusion
In the absence of wolves and other large carnivores, attitudes expressed by
various groups in Swedish society towards these species may have been quite
homogeneous. With increasing numbers of wolves, bears, lynx and wolverines,
different segments of society experienced and interpreted different sorts of
interactions with these unique species that had been functionally extinct for
several human generations. A main conclusion of our work since 2001 is that
the presence of large carnivores creates opportunities for direct and indirect
experiences of humans with these species. Heterogeneity in lived and inter-
preted encounters, and how these interpretations may shape knowledge, will
fuel any controversy over the best way to manage controversial species such as
wolves and bears.
As soon as the number of carnivores increased, human-carnivore conflicts
increased and social tension emerged. So did conflicts between the Swedish
state and affected rural minorities; for instance, Sámi people. Contemporary
wildlife management systems rely heavily on development of inclusive input
from stakeholders and interdisciplinary management approaches to achieve
conservation targets. Rural opposition, however, seems to imply that rural peo-
ple believe they are deprived of their former rights and roles. Consideration
 204  Göran Ericsson et al.
of scale will improve chances for successful large carnivore conservation in
Sweden. Success will require attention to human-carnivore interactions at the
local scale, where people and animals co-exist with direct negative and posi-
VetBooks.ir

tive impacts, as well as at the regional and national scale that needs to address
binding international conventions. Although large carnivores will continue to
exist in areas with lower human population density, heterogeneity of attitudes –
exacerbated by increased urbanisation and differences in carnivore abundance –
will provide the social background for any future decision, and therefore, a
continuous monitoring of human dimensions will be required.

References
Andersson, T., Bjärvall, A., and Blomberg, M. (1977) Inställning till varg i Sverige – en intervju-
undersökning. SNV PM 850, Naturvårdsverket (Swedish EPA), Sweden.
Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., et al. (2014) ‘Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, no 6216, pp1517–1519.
Danell, K., Bergström, R., Mattson, L., and Sörlin, S. (2017) Jaktens historia i Sverige (The His-
tory of Hunting in Sweden), Liber, Stockholm, Sweden.
Denhardt, J.V., and Denhardt, R. B. (2007) The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering, M. E.
Sharpe, New York.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘A meta-analysis of attitude surveys on
bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 2, pp565–574.
Ericsson, G., Bostedt, G., and Kindberg, J. (2008) ‘Wolves as a symbol for people’s willing-
ness to pay for large carnivore conservation’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 21, no 4,
pp249–309.
Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. (2003) ‘Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in
Sweden now that the wolves are back?’, Biological Conservation, vol 111, no 2, pp149–159.
Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., and Bostedt, G. (2006) ‘The problem of spatial scale when study-
ing human dimensions of a natural resource conflict: Humans and wolves in Sweden’,
International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, vol 2, no 4, pp343–349.
Eriksson, M. (2017) Changing Attitudes to Swedish Wolf Policy Wolf Return, Rural Areas, and
Political Alienation, PhD thesis, Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Sweden.
Eriksson, M., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘Direct experience and attitude change
towards bears and wolves’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp131–137.
Inskip, C., Carter, N. H., Riley, S. J., Fahad, Z., Roberts, T. M., and Macmillan, D. C. (2016)
‘Toward human-carnivore coexistence: Understanding tolerance for tigers in Bangladesh’,
PLOS One, vol 11, no 1, pp1–20.
Johansson, M., Sandström, C., Pedersen, E., and Ericsson, G. (2016) ‘Factors governing
human fear of wolves: Moderating effects of geographical location and standpoint on
nature protection’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 62, pp749–760.
Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘Game meat consumption feeds urban sup-
port of traditional use of natural resources’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 28, no 6,
pp657–669.
Mårald, E., Sandström, C., and Nordin, A. (2017) Forest Governance and Management across
Time: Developing a New Forest Social Contract, Earthscan, Routledge, London.
Norling, I., Jägnert, C., and Lundahl, B. (1981) ‘Viltet och allmänheten’, I Vilt och Jakt. Sociala
och ekonomiska värden. Jordbruksdepartementet. Ds Jo 1981 vol 5, pp9–79.
 Rural-urban heterogeneity 205
Patterson, M. E., Montag, J. M., and Williams, D. R. (2003) ‘The urbanization of wildlife
management: Social science, conflict, and decision making’, Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, vol 1, no 3, pp171–183.
VetBooks.ir

Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F., and Par-
sons, G. (2002) ‘The essence of wildlife management’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 30, no
2, pp585–593.
Riley, S. J., and Sandström, C. (2016) ‘Human dimensions insights into reintroduction of wild-
life populations’, in D. S., Jachowski, J. J. Millspaugh, P. L. Angermeir, and R. Slotow (eds)
Reintroduction Of Fish and Wildlife Populations, University of California Press, Davis, CA.
Sandström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Pellikka, J., Hiedanpää, J., Krange, O., and Skogen, K.
(in press) ‘Between politics and management: Governing large carnivores in Fennoscan-
dia’, in T. Hovardas (ed) Large Carnivore Concervation and Management: Human Dimensions,
Routledge, London.
Sandström, C., and Lindvall, A. (2006) Regional förvaltning av rovdjur i Västerbotten och
Norrbotten – om likheter och skillnader ur ett samförvaltningsperspektiv, FjällMistrarap-
port, Rapport nr: 18, ISSN 1652-3822, Umeå, Sweden.
Singh, N. J., Danell, K., Edenius, L., and Ericsson, G. (2014) ‘Tackling the motivation to
monitor: Success and sustainability of a participatory monitoring program’, Ecology and
Society, vol 19, no 4, p7.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M., and Sandström, C. (2015) ‘Individual and collective
responses to large carnivore management: The roles of trust, representation, knowledge
spheres, communication and leadership’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp175–185.
Williams, C. K., Ericsson, G., and Heberlein,T. A. (2002) ‘A quantitative summary of attitudes
toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000)’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 30, no 2,
pp575–584.
 11 Challenging the false
dichotomy of Us vs. Them
VetBooks.ir

Heterogeneity in stakeholder
identities regarding carnivores
Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore

Controversy in carnivore management

Sociopolitical controversy over rules governing natural resource use and wild-
life conservation is globally ubiquitous. Carnivore conservation can be par-
ticularly contentious, and decisions about whether or not to lethally remove
carnivores are often framed as binary options representing polarized pro- and
anti-protectionist sides where each is caricatured as universally and singularly
supporting or opposing a particular policy option. Lethal control of carnivores
is one of the most commonly debated policy options; policy debate over lethal
control is geographically indiscriminate (Bruskotter, 2013). Polarization over
policy options such as lethal control can result in a number of negative pol-
icy outcomes, including stymied decision-making, increased intolerance, and
retaliatory killing of carnivores that are widely reported and denigrated. It is
understandable that – given how widespread polarization is, how negatively
polarization is portrayed in the mass media, and how common the carica-
tures of binary options about lethal control are – decision-makers may assume
dichotomized public opinion is the norm and to be expected. In practice, most
decision-makers know stakeholders are more diverse than an oversimplified
dichotomy suggests; they work to leverage principles and practices from the
knowledge base, such as community-based carnivore management, public par-
ticipation, and risk communication (Lichtenfeld et al., 2015). Even when policy
is science-based, the dichotomy can persist (Triezenberg, 2010).
The question then becomes, why cannot the negative effects of distorted
stakes be overcome? Social science provides rich understanding about human-
wildlife interactions, what human dimensions underlie such assumptions and
what factors may be driving the tendency to oversimplify a dichotomy in car-
nivore conservation. The social science evidence base tells us stakeholder posi-
tions are rooted in complex social identities that stakeholders use to organize
in groups (Marchini and Macdonald, 2012; Lute et al., 2014; Kreye et al., 2016).
Deeper understanding about these group dynamics and tendencies can offer
innovative ways of thinking about the negative effects of conflict over carnivore
management, introduce alternative means for resolving problems, and harmo-
nize the relationship between science and policy.
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 207
This chapter explores how the concept of social identity can be used to
explain key drivers of stakeholder conflict in carnivore management. First, we
introduce a review of the concept as it relates to carnivore management, pay-
VetBooks.ir

ing particular attention to the implications of considering group identity as a

defining characteristic or attribute during decision-making. We then discuss
how social identity can be measured to optimize the efficacy and efficiency of
decision-making about carnivores. Next, we explore how social identity can be
incorporated into carnivore management. Our review is anchored on the case
of wolf management in Michigan, and draws upon a substantial historical and
social science knowledge base about the context.

The concept of social identity

Identity is the component of one’s self-concept that is derived from group
membership and the value and emotion attached to that membership. Social
identity theory (SIT) explains how language, appearance, and other signals
cue group affiliation, which drives many perceptions and behaviors relevant
to social and political spheres including conservation. In response to opposi-
tion, different groups can affiliate with each other when their positions have
sufficient overlap. Importantly, such affiliations do not necessarily constitute a
homogenous group with the same values and perceptions. Yet outsiders often
assume just that, stereotyping members of a group or affiliated groups. In SIT
terminology, this is referred to as ingroup bias, whereby individuals cognitively
seek to increase positive ingroup characteristics and negative aspects of out-
groups in such a way as to result in a preconceived judgment about outgroup
members (Sherif, 1967; Labianca et al., 1998).
Consider, for instance, initiatives to ban trapping in various western U.S.
states. Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington (as well as a number of
eastern states and other countries) have passed legislation banning certain types
of, or all, traps while attempts have been made in Montana, New Mexico,
Oregon, and other states. In many of these cases, livestock ranchers and hunters,
each as distinct identity groups, become allies in defense of wildlife trapping,
whereby trapping is considered a consumptive use. Likewise, animal welfare
groups sometimes align with environmentalists (i.e., those focused on natural
resources protection over use) over initiatives to ban trapping. Both coalitions
unite over a position that trapping (e.g., of a particular species, on public lands)
is or is not an appropriate policy. Each group may have similar notions regard-
ing how humans ought to interact with animals. Yet, animal welfare advocates
focus more on the welfare of individual animals while environmentalists are
often concerned more about protecting a wild population (Ramp and Bekoff,
2015). Livestock ranchers may be motivated to defend livelihoods and hunters
defend trapping to obtain materials (e.g., meat, pelts) or maintain tradition and
recreation. It is important to note that environmentalists or hunters as stake-
holder groups may also care about individual wellbeing and animal welfare
advocates can be concerned about others’ livelihoods. Although there may be
 208  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
some overlap in secondary dimensions, primary aspects likely determine the
alliances that can lead to intergroup conflict.
It is widely assumed that affiliated groups have the same motivating values
VetBooks.ir

and attitudes underlying a similar position, or that taking a certain position

means there are no shared values with the opposition, as in the previous exam-
ple or the many social conflicts in which controversy is presented as an “Us
versus Them” two-sided debate (e.g., in the United States: climate change, early
childhood vaccinations, genetically modified organisms, evolution/science
education). Although common, such assumptions can result in the so-called
“predator pendulum” observed most notoriously with gray wolf conservation
in the United States, where a carnivore species – in this case wolves – is man-
aged according to alternatives that solely eradicate or protect the species. The
pendulum swings from one extreme to the other depending on the identity
group holding political decision-making power at the time a particular deci-
sion is made (Bruskotter, 2013). Identity conflict such as this case is at its root
about inequalities between groups or perceptions of inequality, which leads
to competition over a resource (Labianca et al., 1998; Brown, 2000; Hornsey,
2008). Although the conflict over how to manage carnivores is in part based on
foundational values about how to treat non-human lives (Nie, 2003a, 2003b),
carnivores or access to the legislators that make decisions about carnivores may
also be a symbolic contested resource.
Identity conflict over carnivores, at least in the North American context, is
rooted in historically unequal influences of social groups on wildlife manage-
ment decisions. Traditionally, hunting, ranching, and rural interests dominated
the decision space around wildlife in North America (Chase et al., 2011). The
North American Model of Wildlife Management, long hailed as the epitome of
conservation ethos, holds hunting as a central tenet in management. Contem-
porary critique of the model suggests this focus has, over time, had the possibly
unintended outcome of disenfranchising non-hunting stakeholders (Nelson
et al., 2011; Peterson and Nelson, 2016). As societal worldviews have shifted
toward post-materialism and away from consumptive uses, “non-traditional”
wildlife interests – such as those coming from urban, animal welfare, and wild-
life advocate groups – vie for a greater voice in decision processes (Inglehart,
1977; George et al., 2016; Lute and Attari, 2016; Lute et al., 2016). In many
ways, this historical shift in wildlife-related perceptions parallels other soci-
etal issues in which communities and policies are becoming more inclusive of
diverse groups (e.g., marriage equality in the United States).
Thus, as the predator pendulum swings from one ingroup having power to
another, the shift upsets the status quo and intergroup conflict over carnivore
conservation flares. These upticks in controversy can be marked with the vit-
riol, misunderstanding, assumptions and power struggles typical of any identity
conflict (Sherif, 1967;Triezenberg et al., 2011).These struggles often play out in
courtrooms, legislative halls, and social media where groups retreat to hardened
positions, appear to forget that groups are comprised of diverse individuals,
and assume all their opponents are the same uneducated, wrongly-motivated
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 209
stereotype. In places where enforcement of the rule of law is weak (e.g., Cam-
eroon, Venezuela, Madagascar), such power struggles can manifest in poach-
ing and retaliatory killing of carnivores and other wildlife (Liberg et al., 2012;
VetBooks.ir

Kahler and Gore, 2015; Solomon et al., 2015). When power struggles related to
carnivore conservation become part of broader social conflicts (e.g., related to
land tenure, recourse allocation), conflicts can turn violent or destructive (Raik
and Decker, 2007). Importantly, these social conflicts do not occur in isolation;
Carter et al. (2017) discussed the coupling of social conflicts over conflict with
biological processes and the emergent properties of such coupling. Without
considering the micro and macro level dimensions of the issue, it is nearly
impossible for an accurate picture of the problem and solution set to be made
(Gore et al., 2007).

Implications of bifurcating stakeholders

Ignoring nuances in stakeholder identities and policy positions can result in
diverse implications. First, oversimplifying the diversity of policy perspectives
reduces the number of program options and the possibility those options will
be adopted as efficient and effective policies. For example, when a decision-
maker such as a wildlife manager moves forward in a decision-making process
with the assumption that livestock ranchers’ position is dominated by care for
livelihood preservation, they essentially eliminate the possibility that ranchers
might also hold values for animal welfare which could be applied to encour-
age non-lethal tactics for preventing carnivore attacks. Indeed, ranchers work
closely with domestic and wild animals on a daily basis, and may defend their
actions and positions based on care for the animals in their charge. Dismissing
ranchers’ concerns for animal lives unnecessarily reduces the suite of strategies
available.
The Blackfoot Challenge in Montana is a conservation partnership designed
to promote natural resource stewardship that benefits the Blackfoot watershed.
Directed by a volunteer board of private landowners, federal and state land
managers, and local government officials, the program follows a consensus-
based model and works on topics including forestry, wildlife, conservation,
water, weeds, and education. It aims to foster more cohesive rural communities
through cooperative conservation and members’ shared identity as stewards of
the watershed and its inhabitants. Grizzly bears, wolves, elk, and other wildlife
live within the Blackfoot Watershed. One of the program’s activities involves
grizzly bear conservation. The program works with ranchers in particular to
help them proactively implement non-lethal management and prevent wolf and
grizzly bear attacks on livestock (e.g., installing electric fences to protect calv-
ing areas and beehives, guarding herds with full- and part-time range riders or
guard dogs). According to program metrics, grizzly bear conflicts with livestock
deceased 93% since 2003.The collaboration would never have come to fruition
and the success metrics never achieved if those involved stood by dichotomous
assumptions about each other. Ranchers proved to be open to new methods
 210  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
of mitigating human-bear conflict because they saw the value of carnivores on
their landscapes. Conservationists proved to be open-minded to working with
a relatively new group of partners and finding pragmatic solutions. Success was
VetBooks.ir

achieved in part because collective work toward a common cause increased the
salience of a shared identity among diverse stakeholders in the Blackfoot Water-
shed (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001; Giannakakis and Fritsche, 2011).

Measuring social identities

Recognizing the heterogeneity of stakeholder identities and associated values
and perceptions may be a critical key to minimizing ingroup bias, addressing
the roots of conflict, and overcoming controversy in carnivore conservation.
Including social identities along with the more commonly measured soci-
odemographic characteristics may strengthen predictive models of intergroup
conflict in conservation (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Lute et al., 2016; Man-
fredo, 2008). By going beyond standardized sociodemographic variables that
are known by social scientists to predict public opinion to a varying degree,
such as education level, political affiliation, and employment status (e.g., Bright
et al., 2000), researchers can measure social identity as well. Doing so, research
enhances understanding of why relevant sociocultural factors explain why a
certain group of people so strongly conflicts with another.
Oftentimes, identities are quantified to aid public engagement because,
through socialization within a cultural group, identity reflects deeply held,
value-laden perceptions that ultimately influence behaviors towards wildlife
(Kaltenborn et al., 1999; Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). Strength of group
identification increases positive emotions for members who act in accordance
with group norms, which may in turn strengthen group identification further
(Christensen et al., 2004). This positive catalysis may reflect some of the dif-
ficulty in voicing concern with regard to ingroup positions. Along with insight
about norms and social pressures, utilizing SIT may inform understanding of
influences on behavioral intentions (Christensen et al., 2004) and best strate-
gies for public involvement and communication in wildlife decision-making.
Strategies that incorporate SIT in public participation include disseminating
information through trusted thought leaders within an ingroup rather than
from an untrusted outgroup member or removing signals that display differing
identities (i.e., using neutral language, not wearing a certain uniform or even
passing out t-shirts to all participants; Ford et al., 2012).
Social identity theory explores how one’s self concept relates to group affili-
ation (Tajfel and Turner, 1979;Tajfel, 1982). According to SIT, individuals locate
ingroups consisting of like-minded individuals through self-categorization,
which occurs when an individual enters a situation they believe relevant to a
certain social group for which s/he is a member (Tajfel et al., 1971; Tajfel and
Turner, 1979). The individual views himself or herself as a representative of
that group and acts according to group social norms (Jetten et al., 1996; Chris-
tensen et al., 2004). Ingroups are cohesive because of a shared desire for positive
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 211
social identity (i.e., high self-esteem), which is attained by comparisons of their
ingroup to relevant outgroups (Labianca et al., 1998; Brown, 2000). Compari-
sons that reveal perceived inequalities in status (e.g., based on socioeconomic
VetBooks.ir

levels, power) result in intergroup competition and ingroup bias (Sherif, 1967;
Labianca et al., 1998).
Identity is measured by group salience (i.e., the extent to which an individual
finds groups membership salient; Jetten et al., 2006), which consists of acces-
sibility (i.e., how readily evident a social categorization is over time and across
contexts) and fit (i.e., the extent to which similarities and differences among
people are attributable to social categorization; Hogg and Reid, 2006). Iden-
tity can be tied to relationships with specific group members (e.g., “my father
taught me to be a good hunter”) or to a broad affiliation with the group as a
whole (e.g., “I consider myself a representative of the hunting community”;
Karasawa, 1991). All these measures address degree of identification (Perreault
and Bourhis, 1998), and make up cognitive (as opposed to emotional) assess-
ments of identity (e.g., cohesiveness, commitment, importance, similarity; Hogg
and Reid, 2006). But the emotional quality of identity also applies (Perreault
and Bourhis, 1998) and consists of affective components such as happiness,
liking, and sense of fitting in (Karasawa, 1991). Examples of how to measure
identity and the various relevant concepts are summarized in Annex 11.1.

Methodological considerations for identity research

Whether one chooses qualitative or quantitative measures of identity depend
on what is already known about the identities involved in the social conflict
in question. Qualitative inquiry is often best for initial exploratory phases of
inquiry where relevant identities are not well understood or the research con-
text is novel, and has the advantage of allowing stakeholders to self-identify. On
the other hand, quantitative inquiry may be advantageous when there is more
knowledge about the context of the conflict and actors involved. Quantitative
measures in the form of internet surveys provide multiple benefits and reduced
transaction costs. For example, internet surveys help simplify data sampling and
collection (e.g., no printing hard copies, affixing stamps and mailing paper,
manual recording of respondents and nonrespondents) and can increase sample
size by extending reach, which may be necessary to precisely measure hetero-
geneity among diverse groups.
One of the challenges of using a structured, close-ended survey for meas-
uring identity is that it requires 1) knowing all germane identity groups and
2) deciding how specific to be in outlining borders of group membership.
For example, important differences may occur within hunting groups (e.g.,
deer versus bear hunters) or between animal rights, animal welfare, and other
wildlife advocates. A survey item that asks a respondent to self-identify as only
one type of “hunter” may fail to capture important differences among hunters’
motivations, for example, thus compromising the study’s ability to predict and
understand intergroup conflict over what is and is not an appropriate method or
 212  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
manner of take. Specificity may be useful and important to measure, but it can
also be impractical to include a long laundry list of possible groups and affilia-
tions. Researchers should exercise care and acknowledge important differences
VetBooks.ir

in groups to avoid cultural insensitivity and indicating ignorance of the groups

being studied. Such differences may be revealed through thorough literature
review for more studied conflicts. For novel or understudied cases, explora-
tory (e.g., qualitative or mixed methods) research can be carefully designed to
explore salient identities of involved stakeholders. For instance, treating all tribal
and First Nation groups as the same group would not do justice to or allow
capture of the varied perspectives they hold in regard to natural resources (Shel-
ley et al., 2011).While some tribes consider the wolf a brother who shares their
fate, others are open to hunting wolves (Johnson, 2013). Assuming both groups
share a common identity would be a mistake.
Once relevant groups and the appropriate level of specificity have been iden-
tified, researchers can assess heterogeneity in stakeholder identity by measuring
one or more of the identity concepts in Annex 11.1 and use standard statistical
techniques to explore how they relate to perceptions, norms and behaviors
relevant to the case study or conservation challenge. Convergence among iden-
tity groups indicates, at a minimum, common ground and a launching point
for collaborative decision-making or conflict facilitation. On the other hand, if
degree of identification with a particular group strongly predicts a high percep-
tion of risk related to black bears, for example, then specific interventions can
be aimed at that group (Gore et al., 2007; Slagle et al., 2013).
The interplay between identity and group versus personal norms may be
particularly fruitful areas to explore. Group and personal norms should be first
treated as independents constructs, although analysis may reveal that they cor-
relate. Therefore, we suggest considering the interplay between the two kinds
of norms and exploring whether they align. If personal and group norms align,
this may indicate strong identification with the group; this can be measured
within the individual or at the group level. If personal and group norms are
somewhat at odds, within-group heterogeneity may be a place for interven-
tion. Consider, for example, a hunting organization that wants to partner with
an environmental group to conserve large carnivore habitat. But the environ-
mental group has a policy (i.e., indication of a group norm) that they do not
support any form of hunting (i.e., with guns, traps, poisons, aircraft) and is
reluctant to partner with the hunting organization because of their ascription
to the norm. If thought leaders (i.e., influential and authoritative members) of
the group hold personal norms that hunting prey species for food is acceptable,
they may be able to convince the group to ease the policy around hunting and
collaborate with what was once considered an opposing group (see Triezen-
berg et al., 2011). Additionally, such diversity in intragroup personal norms, and
the behaviors they may influence, can indicate areas of disagreement (perhaps
healthy level, because disagreement can be positive and progressive) within a
stakeholder group or evolution in the group’s thinking or in the thought lead-
ers’ thinking (Triezenberg, 2010). Differing personal and group norms may
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 213
also present opportunities to shift group norms in support of a conservation
goal. For example, if a key thought leader in a woolgrowers’ association holds
personal norms that support environmental stewardship, s/he may be able to
VetBooks.ir

influence the entire association’s approach to nonlethal methods to reduce risks

associated with coyote attacks on sheep (e.g., stress, injury, death).
Importantly, a single individual can, and likely usually does, hold “multi-
ple identities” or express a particular identity over another during a decision-
making process. Indeed, everyone identifies with various groups, such as a
parent, sports fan, movie lover, or comic book nerd, depending on context.
A stakeholder supporting a particular carnivore-related policy may come into
a decision-making process as a representative of a local Humane Society chap-
ter, but also identify as an outdoor recreationalist. Assuming this individual is a
“prototypical” animal welfare advocate and failing to recognize multiple identi-
ties in the issue can undermine, and even counteract, the ability to understand
the motivations and perceptions influencing stakeholder behavior and deci-
sion-making. Sometimes varying or contested definitions of terms can lead to
confusion in measuring identity. For instance, “coexistence” could be defined as
land sparing (i.e., allowing carnivores to exist in protected areas) or land sharing
(i.e., people and carnivores living on the same landscapes; Carter et al., 2012;
Carter and Linnell, 2016). Even the word “conservation” can be, and usually
is, defined differently; some equate it with wise use while others consider it
synonymous with environmentalism and protectionism (Lute and Gore, 2014a,
2014b). Therefore, it often useful to 1) measure an individual’s degree of iden-
tification with all relevant identities that are clearly defined and 2) ask them
to choose the most important group. Each measure can answer different and
complementary questions about the role of identity in the issue at hand.

Leveraging social identity for more

effective conservation
Understanding an individual’s identity is a critical first step in relating to any-
one, and relating to someone is a requisite for effective wildlife conservation
policy outcomes. Identity helps us understand where a person is coming from,
how they may view the world, and what motivates them to participate or have
an interest in carnivore conservation or management. Although identity pro-
vides us with a quick and easy heuristic for relating to someone, when taken
too far and the individual is seen only as a representative of the relevant ingroup,
the heuristic leads to stereotypes.With this caution in mind, an analysis of social
identity can be a useful step to understand human dimensions of environmen-
tal controversies or facilitate community entry prior to launching research or
community conservation projects. Understanding the role of identity in wild-
life conservation can also aid in objectives of increasing inclusion and diversity.
As public participatory processes and community-based conservation ini-
tiatives become increasingly common in wildlife management (Bright et al.,
2000; Berkes, 2004), diverse stakeholder interests will become involved and
 214  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
can be considered in decision-making. Social identity may serve as one tool to
help facilitate collaboration among these many groups by providing a frame-
work to recognize, understand, and respect diversity at group and individual
VetBooks.ir

levels. A first step in recognizing diversity is recognizing the assumptions and

stereotypes into which one can slip. Ingroup bias may come into play in many
public participatory processes. For example, qualitative research on stakeholders
involved in public participation regarding wolf management decisions in Mich-
igan indicated that ingroup bias was at play and interviewed stakeholders held
common assumptions about each other (Lute, 2014; Lute and Gore, 2014b).
Stakeholders identifying with a wise use conservation model (similar to – or
even synonymous with – the conservationist definition used in Annex 11.1)
believed that, in general, those opposed to some form of hunting were opposed
to all forms (e.g., trapping, hunting with hounds). Yet stakeholders opposed to
wolf hunting in Michigan focused their social identity on particular aspects of
the wolf hunting policy decision making process that they felt were not justi-
fied; for example, killing carnivores or hunting for recreation or trophies. Such
individuals were often supportive of hunting, in various forms, for sustenance, a
reason many Americans have indicated as acceptable for taking animal life (Lute
and Gore, 2014b).
Similar assumptions can occur across carnivore management groups and
contexts. Animal rights or welfare advocates often assume that proponents of
hunting did not weigh moral considerations and were prone to angry overre-
actions to the presence of wolves. Additionally, various stakeholders can make
assumptions about wildlife managers (e.g., that they are either pro- or anti-
hunting based on perceived favoring of various stakeholder groups). Although
there are measurable differences between stakeholder groups conflicting over
carnivores (Figure 11.1), ingroup bias may not fairly assess those differences but
instead exploits perceived or real inequalities to serve the competitive nature
of intergroup conflict. Minimizing ingroup bias is not without challenges, but
working to do so may help facilitate maximally collaborative public participa-
tory processes by helping to overcoming stereotypes and creating an open space
for equal footing among multiple interests.
Minimizing ingroup bias requires interpersonal interactions among stake-
holders, rather than intergroup interactions where individuals are viewed sim-
ply as prototypical representatives of their respective groups (Tajfel and Turner,
1979; Hornsey, 2008). Explicitly recognizing and addressing assumptions in
socially safe discursive settings may also ease intergroup conflict and aid inclu-
sive decision-making processes (Labianca et al., 1998; Kahan, 2010; Sponarski
et al., 2013). Highlighting diversity within identity groups may facilitate healthy
debate and dialogue among ingroup members, as well as increase accurate per-
ceptions between groups. Social scientists have long noted that contact alone
is usually not adequate to assuage negative stereotypes and associated conflict
(Tyerman and Spencer, 1983; Labianca et al., 1998). Inclusive public participa-
tory processes are ideally carefully designed to facilitate consistent interpersonal
interactions (Lute et al., 2017). Research identifying and describing ingroup
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 215
VetBooks.ir

Figure 11.1 Several human dimensions of wolf management studies in Michigan (Lute and
Gore, 2014a, 2014b; Lute et al., 2016) revealed individuals and identity groups
could fall along a spectrum of protectionist or wise use principles, prefer-
ences and emotions. Emergent themes from qualitative studies (Lute and Gore,
2014a, 2014b) first delineated the four dimensions of objective (i.e., goals of
management), method (i.e., strategies to attain objective), focal concern (i.e.,
target of management), and justification for lethal control (i.e., reasons used
to determine whether lethal control is appropriate). The fifth dimension of
emotions was revealed by quantitative research that found stakeholders’ emo-
tions fell on a spectrum of strongly favoring people to strongly favoring wolves
(Lute et al., 2016).

bias may be leveraged in such processes to promote collaboration by compar-

ing biased expectations (e.g., “most hunters think this way”) to actual data (e.g.,
“25% of deer hunters think this way and 25% are undecided, while 50% of bow
hunters . . . ”).
Focusing on common ground and shared values may counteract multiple
negative assumptions and stereotypes related to ingroup bias. For example, in
the previously mentioned human dimensions studies of stakeholders involved
in Michigan wolf management, diverse stakeholders identified with a shared
concept of being a “wolf steward” (Lute and Gore, 2014b) that included tak-
ing actions, such as educating others about depredation prevention, to ben-
efit decision-making, wolves, and ecosystems. Public participation processes
may benefit from encouraging diverse stakeholders to identify as stewards and
enfranchising groups to collaborate on shared responsibilities to nature (Ben-
son, 1998). A “steward” identity might blend both ingroups’ ideas regarding
human relationships with the natural world. To maximize cooperation, man-
agers may encourage shared values and actions that transcend separate group
identity and redefine a common identity as wolf stewards with shared ultimate
goals (Sherif, 1967; Tyerman and Spencer, 1983). For example, diverse stake-
holders might be primed to consider a shared identity during public meetings
 216  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
or other participatory processes by pre-polling participants on topics on which
a manager or meeting facilitator knows they agree (from prior conversations
or research).
VetBooks.ir

Any discussion of inclusion and diversity in wildlife management and nature

conservation would be remiss not to address the groups disenfranchised by
decision-making processes. More than likely an observer of state level wild-
life commissioner meetings (i.e., a standard form of wildlife-related decision
making) across the United States would note the presence of more men than
women, more older individuals than youth, and more whites than minority
or tribal members. Although managers, commissioners, and legislators might
believe that the transactional costs of including even more (potentially con-
flicting) interests in decision-making outweigh the benefits, participation pro-
cesses that proactively include, engage, and satisfy diverse stakeholders may lead
to higher quality decisions that serve a broader suite of interests, are in line
with public opinion, and avoid the “predator pendulum.” Such processes may
also result in higher acceptance of final decision outcomes (Webler and Tuler,
2006). To achieve more inclusive and diverse conservation communities, cur-
rent leaders can actively seek collaboration and input from members of femi-
nist, immigrant, LGBTQ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer),
First Nations/tribal, and other minority communities. Creating environments
where respectful debate is encouraged as part of transparent and fair processes
is no small task, but essential to engaging and sustaining public participation
and input. If current trends in de-democratization − the erosion of democracy
often associated with a range of phenomena including declining civil freedoms
and dissatisfaction with democratic institutions (Cassani and Pellegata, 2015)
− continue (particularly in the United States, select European countries and
countries where democracy has been limited or nonexistent), identity politics
may increasingly influence public engagement in decision-making. In these
cases, understanding of social identity may be even more relevant and critical to
anticipating and influencing decision-makers.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we explored how social identity can be measured to enhance its
contributions to carnivore conservation. As diverse stakeholders become more
involved in decisions regarding carnivores, public participatory processes will
remain one tool for encouraging cooperation by recognizing the role of social
identities in influencing perceptions and behaviors. Failing to address assump-
tions about different groups resulting from ingroup bias can result in inef-
fective communication, entrenched positions, and stymied decision-making.
Power struggles between identity groups helps explain the predator pendulum
observed in the ever-changing endangered status of gray wolves and poten-
tially grizzly bears in North America (Bruskotter et al., 2016). We discussed
approaches and methodological considerations for measuring identity differ-
ences among stakeholders and creating more inclusive and diverse conservation
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 217
communities.The unique insights which managers, decision-makers and public
participants can gain from considering social identity has the potential to help
overcome conflict regarding not only carnivores but also other contentious
VetBooks.ir

environmental issues, such as global climate change, environmental injustice,

multi-use landscape management, public and private lands access, and sover-
eignty of tribal lands.
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 11.1 E
 xample measures of general and carnivore-
specific identities, perceptions of outgroups,
and identity strength, degree, and quality for
interviews and surveys

Measure Questions and follow-up statements Response choice Reference

General identity with • What role or group related to [research problem] do you Open-ended response Lute and Gore,
an ingroup (i.e., identify with? For example, I strongly identify as a [group] providing qualitative/ 2014b
individuals affiliating and I feel it is something that defines who I am and how categorical measure(s)
with the same identity) others perceive me.
• Why is this role or group important to you?
• How strongly do you identify with this group: strongly,
moderate or weakly identify?
• Are there other roles or groups that you are aware of but
do not identify with? If so, what are they and why are they
important?
Perceptions related to • Who are the groups that do not see eye to eye with your Open-ended response Lute and Gore,
outgroups group? providing qualitative/ 2014b
• Who is in greatest disagreement? categorical measure(s)
• Why do you believe they disagree with your role or group?
Carnivore relevant To what extent do you identify yourself as: Likert scale (e.g., Lute et al., 2016
identity groups • Animal rights advocate strongly disagree/
• Animal welfare advocate strongly agree)
• Conservationist*
• Environmentalist**
• Farmer
• Gun rights advocate
• Hunter
• Rancher
• Wildlife advocate
• Other (please specify)
 VetBooks.ir

Strength of identity To what extent do you agree with the following statements: Likert scale (e.g., Karasawa, 1991
• It would be accurate if someone described me as a typical strongly disagree/
member of my group. strongly agree)
• I often acknowledge the fact that I am a member of my
group.
• I would feel good if I were described as a typical member of
my group.
• I often refer to my group when I introduce myself.
Degree of identity At this moment, to what extent do you think of yourself as a Likert scale: Mainly Jetten et al., 2006
member of [group] or as an individual? think of myself as an
individual –Mainly
think of myself as a
member of [group]
Degree of identity How much do you identify yourself as a member of [group]? Likert type scale: not at Perreault and
all/very much Bourhis, 1998
Quality of social identity • How happy do you feel as a member of [group]? Likert scale: not at all/ Perreault and
• How satisfied do you feel as a member of [group]? very much Bourhis, 1998
• How comfortable do you feel as a member of [group]?
• How confident do you feel as a member of [group]?
• How much do you like being a member of [group]?
*
Because different groups may claim this name but intend different meanings, we defined conservationist as “a person who is concerned with conserving natural resources.”
**
Likewise, we defined an environmentalist as “a person who is concerned with protection of the environment.”
 220  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
References
Ashforth, B. E., and Johnson, S. A. (2001) ‘Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multi-
VetBooks.ir

ple identities in organizational contexts’, in M. A. Hogg and D. J. Terry (eds) Social Identity
Processes in Organizational Contexts Psychology Press, Philadelphia.
Benson, D. W. (1998) ‘Enfranchise landowners for land and wildlife stewardship: Examples
from the Western United States’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 3, no 1, pp59–68.
Berkes, F. (2004) ‘Rethinking community-based conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 18,
no 3, pp621–630.
Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., and Fulton, D. C. (2000) ‘Segmenting the public: An applica-
tion of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol
28, no 1, pp218–226.
Brown, R. (2000) ‘Agenda 2000 social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems
and future challenges’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 30, pp634–667.
Bruskotter, J. T. (2013) ‘The predator pendulum revisited: Social conflict over wolves and
their management in the western United States’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 37, no 3,
pp674–679.
Bruskotter, J.T., Szarek, H., Karns, G., Heeren, A.,Toman, E., and Wilson, R. S. (2016) To List
or not to List? Experts’ Judgments about Threats to Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bears, Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Carter, N. H., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2016) ‘Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large car-
nivores’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 31, no 8, pp575–578.
Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J.V., Bruskotter, J.T., Gore, M., Chapron, G., Johnson, A., . . .Treves,
A. (2017) ‘A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores’,
Ambio, vol 46, no 3, pp251–264.
Carter, N. H., Shrestha, B. K., Karki, J. B., Man, N., Pradhan, B., and Liu, J. (2012) ‘Coexist-
ence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales’, Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 109, no 8, pp15360–15365.
Cassani, A., and Pellegata, A. (2015) ‘The other way around: Investigating the reverse of
de-democratization hypothesis’, in XXIX Annual Conference of the Italian Political Science
Association, Universita della Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende.
Chase, L. C., Schusler, T. M., and Decker, D. J. (2011) ‘Innovations in stakeholder involve-
ment: What’s the next step?’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 28, no 1, pp208–217.
Christensen, P. N., Rothgerber, H., Wood, W., and Matz, D. C. (2004) ‘Social norms and
identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior’, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol 30, no 10, pp1295–1309.
Ford, J., O’Hare, D., and Henderson, R. (2012) ‘Putting the “We” into teamwork: Effects
of priming personal or social identity on flight attendants’ perceptions of teamwork and
communication’, Human Factors, vol 55, no 3, pp499–508.
George, K. A., Slagle, K. M., Wilson, R. S., Moeller, S. J., and Bruskotter, J. T. (2016) ‘Changes
in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014’, Biological Conservation,
vol 201, pp237–242.
Giannakakis, A. E., and Fritsche, I. (2011) ‘Social identities, group norms and threat: On the
malleability of ingroup bias’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 37, no 1, pp82–93.
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Curtis, P. D., and Shanahan, J. E. (2007) ‘Factors influencing risk
perception associated with human – Black bear conflict’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol
12, no 2, pp133–136.
Hogg, M. A., and Reid, S. A. (2006) ‘Social identity, self-categorization and the communica-
tion of group norms’, Communication Theory, vol 16, no 1, pp7–30.
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 221
Hornsey, M. J. (2008) ‘Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical
review’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol 2, no 1, pp204–222.
Inglehart, K. (1977) The Silent Revolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
VetBooks.ir

Jetten, J., McAuliffe, B. J., Hornsey, M. J., and Hogg, M. A. (2006) ‘Differentiation between
and within groups: The influence of individualist and collectivist group norms’, European
Journal of Social Psychology, vol 36, no 6, pp825–843.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., and Manstead, A. S. (1996) ‘Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimi-
nation: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, vol 71, no 6, pp1222–1233.
Johnson, B. (2013) ‘On eve of Michigan’s first wolf hunt, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
hosts vigil to honor animal called “brother.” ’ MLive, 14 November, online.
Kahan, D. (2010) ‘Fixing the communications failure’, Nature, vol 463, no 7279, pp296–297.
Kahler, J. S., and Gore, M. L. (2015) ‘Beyond the cooking pot and pocket book: Factors influ-
encing noncompliance with wildlife poaching rules’, International Journal of Comparative
and Applied Criminal Justice, vol 36, no 2, pp103–120.
Kaltenborn, B. P., Bjerke, T., and Vitterso, J. (1999) ‘Attitudes toward large carnivores among
sheep farmers, wildlife managers and research biologists in Norway’, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, vol 4, no 3, pp37–41.
Karasawa, M. (1991) ‘Toward an assessment of social identity: The structure of group’, British
Journal of Social Psychology, vol 30, pp293–307.
Kreye, M. M., Pienaar, E. F., and Adams, A. E. (2016) ‘The role of community identity in
cattlemen response to Florida panther recovery efforts’, Society and Natural Resources, vol
30, no 1, pp79–94.
Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., and Gray, B. (1998) ‘Social networks and perceptions of intergroup
conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties’, The Academy of Management
Journal, vol 41, no 1, pp55–67.
Liberg, O., Chapron, G., Wabakken, P., Pedersen, H. C., Hobbs, N. T., and Sand, H. (2012)
‘Shoot, shovel and shut up: Cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore
in Europe’, Proceedings of the Royal Society Society of London Series B, vol 279, no 1730,
pp910–915.
Lichtenfeld, L. L.,Trout, C., and Kisimir, E. L. (2015) ‘Evidence-based conservation: Predator-
proof bomas protect livestock and lions’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 24, no 3,
pp483–491.
Lute, M. (2014) Influence of Morality, Identity and Risk Perception on Conservation of a Recovered
Carnivore, PhD thesis, Michigan State University at East Lansing.
Lute, M., Bump, A., and Gore, M. L. (2014) ‘Identity-driven differences in stakeholder con-
cerns about hunting wolves’, PloS One, vol 9, no 12, e114460.
Lute, M. L., and Attari, S. Z. (2016) ‘Public preferences for species conservation: Choosing
between lethal control, habitat protection and no action’, Environmental Conservation, vol
44, no 2, pp139–147.
Lute, M. L., Gillespie, C., Martin, D. R., and Fontaine, J. J. (2017) ‘Landowner and practitioner
persepctives on private land conservation programs’, Society and Natural Resources, in press,
pp1–14.
Lute, M. L., and Gore, M. L. (2014a) ‘Knowledge and power in Michigan wolf management’,
Journal of Wildlife Management, vol 78, no 6, pp1060–1068.
Lute, M. L., and Gore, M. L. (2014b) ‘Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the
role of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan wolf stakeholders’, Human Dimen-
sions of Wildlife, vol 19, no 3, pp267–279.
 222  Michelle L. Lute and Meredith L. Gore
Lute, M., Navarrete, C. D., Nelson, M. P., and Gore, M. L. (2016) ‘Assessing morals in conser-
vation: The case of human-wolf conflict’, Conservation Biology, vol 30, no 6, pp1200–1211.
Manfredo, M. (2008) Who Cares About Wildlife? Springer, New York.
VetBooks.ir

Marchini, S., and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) ‘Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case
studies in Amazonia and Pantanal’, Biological Conservation, vol 147, no 1, pp213–221.
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A. (2003) ‘Paying for tolerance: Rural citi-
zens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation’, Conservation Biology, vol 17,
no 6, 1500–1511.
Nelson, M. P.,Vucetich, J. A., Paquet, P. C., and Bump, J. K. (2011) ‘An inadequate construct?’
The Wildlife Professional, vol 5, no 2, pp58–60.
Nie, M. (2003a) Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Nie, M. (2003b) ‘Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict’, Policy Sciences, vol 36,
pp307–341.
Perreault, S., and Bourhis, R.Y. (1998) ‘Social identificaiton, interdependence and discrimi-
nation’, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, vol 1, no 1, pp49–66.
Peterson, M. N., and Nelson, M. P. (2016) ‘Why the North American model of wildlife con-
servation is problematic for modern wildlife management’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
vol 22, no 1, pp43–54.
Raik, D. B., and Decker, D. J. (2007) ‘A multisector framework for assessing community-
based forest management: Lessons from Madagascar’, Ecology and Society, vol 12, no 1, p14.
Ramp, D., and Bekoff, M. (2015) ‘Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conserva-
tion’, BioScience, vol 65, no 3, pp323–327.
Shelley, V., Treves, A., and Naughton, L. (2011) ‘Attitudes to wolves and wolf policy among
Ojibwe tribal members and non-tribal residents of Wisconsin’s wolf range’, Human Dimen-
sions of Wildlife, vol 16, no 6, pp397–413.
Sherif, M. (1967) Group Conflict and Cooperation:Their Social Psychology, Routledge and Kegan
Paul Ltd, London.
Slagle, K., Zajac, R., Bruskotter, J., Wilson, R., and Prange, S. (2013) ‘Building tolerance for
bears: A communications experiment’, The Journal of Wildlife Management, vol 77, no 4,
pp863–869.
Solomon, J. N., Gavin, M. C., and Gore, M. L. (2015) ‘Detecting and understanding non-
compliance with conservation rules’, Biological Conservation, vol 189, pp1–4.
Sponarski, C. C., Semeniuk, C., Glikman, J. A., Bath, A. J., and Musiani, M. (2013) ‘Hetero-
geneity among rural resident attitudes toward wolves’, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol
18, no 4, pp239–248.
Tajfel, H. (1982) ‘Social psychology of intergroup relations’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol
33, pp1–39.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., and Flament, C. (1971) ‘Social categorization and inter-
group behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 1, no 2, pp149–178.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W. G.
Austin and S. Worchel (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole,
Monterey, CA.
Triezenberg, H. A. (2010) Social Networks and Collective Actions Among Wildlife Management
Stakeholders: Insights from Furbearer Trapping and Waterfowl Hunting Conflicts in New York State,
PhD thesis, Cornell University at Ithaca.
Triezenberg, H. A., Knuth, B. A., and Yuan, Y. C. (2011) ‘Evolution of public issues in wild-
life management: How social networks and issue framing change though time’, Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, vol 16, pp381–396.
 Challenging the false dichotomy Us vs.Them 223
Tyerman, A., and Spencer, C. (1983) ‘A critical test of the Sherifs’ Robber’s cave experiments:
Intergroup competition and cooperation between groups of well-acquainted individuals’,
Small Group Research, vol 14, no 4, pp515–531.
VetBooks.ir

Webler, T., and Tuler, S. (2006) ‘Four perspectives on public participation process in envi-
ronmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies’, Policy
Studies Journal, vol 34, no 4, pp699–722.
 Part III
VetBooks.ir

Decision-making,
stakeholder involvement,
and policy in large
carnivore conservation
and management
 12 Inappropriate consideration
of animal interests in
VetBooks.ir

predator management
Towards a comprehensive
moral code
Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila,William S. Lynn,
and Adrian Treves

Introduction
Wildlife managers frequently intervene in the lives of nonhuman animals (‘ani-
mals’ hereafter). For example, managers may attempt to condition, relocate or
kill animals if these damage human property. Such interventions are usually
averred to be guided strictly by the facts of science. However, facts and science,
without values, are unable to decide how we ought to coexist with animals
(Lynn, 2010; Nelson et al., 2011; Nelson and Vucetich, 2012). Whether our
interventions in animals’ lives are ethically appropriate is a value judgment and
a question for ethics.
In this chapter, we provide a brief introduction to ethics and its role in
establishing and fostering a moral community, which we define. We proceed
to review the ethical and scientific case for including individual animals in
the moral community (a.k.a., ‘animal ethics’, ‘nature ethics’, ‘interspecies eth-
ics’), which contends that dismissing individual animal interests is arbitrary and
ethically inconsistent. With advances in environmental sciences highlighting
our interdependence with other animals, and the harmful effects we have on
them, have come advances in ethology confirming their commonly appreciated
emotional and cognitive abilities. Individual animals have their own lives and
interests that can be helped or harmed by human action. This is the root reason
why carnivore management is unavoidably a matter of ethics.
We go on to explain why the ethical consideration of carnivores is crucial
for ethical wildlife management. We examine why dismissal of animal ethics
or ethical arguments of any kind inappropriately dismisses individual animals’
moral standing, which can culminate in a version of ‘might makes right’ asserted
by a minority of humans who claim paramount interests.We show how various
institutions and actors at different levels of government are primarily responsi-
ble for deciding the scale and scope of lethal interventions into the lives of car-
nivores. Here, we make use of the formal and systematic analysis provided by an
ethical framework (Horner, 2003) to perform an ethical and legal examination
 228  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
of the legal documents intended to guide and regulate decisions by the state of
Wisconsin to kill grey wolves (Canis lupus) during the period in which federal
protections for the species were removed (2012–2014).
VetBooks.ir

We provide evidence that current laws and regulations lack appropriate

consideration of animal ethics when intervening in the lives of grey wolves.
Further, we discuss why wildlife management may be more prone than other
applied fields to cater to powerful interest groups that fail to acknowledge the
moral value of individual carnivores. We conclude by articulating a vision for
wildlife management in the 21st century that explicitly injects ethics into car-
nivore policy and management.

Ethics, science, and predator management

Ethics is defined as ‘the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles’
(OED, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com) that govern a person’s conduct or
behaviour. That is, ethics asks ‘how we ought to live’. This question has epito-
mized ethics for millennia since its utterance by Socrates as recorded in Pla-
to’s Republic. Ethics evolves out of the human concern with what is right or
wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, including what ends we should seek and
what means are appropriate for pursuing them (Lynn, 1998a). In this evolving
process, humans develop ethical arguments supported by reason and evidence
into broadly accepted moral principles for analyzing and revising our conduct
towards other living beings (Lynn, 1998a; Lynn, 2010).
Moral principles are indispensable for community living, serving as guide-
lines that foster not only our own personal good, but the good of the com-
munity as well. This provides a basis for moral cooperation and social living.
One way of thinking about ethical principles is that they are truths considered
ultimate (usually cannot be overridden), universal (apply to everyone within
the community), impartial (treat everyone equitably), and other-regarding (the
good of others is placed alongside self-interest) (Horner, 2003). Another way is
to consider them rules of thumb that assist in revealing moral issues and how to
address them. In this chapter, we assume the latter perspective, and view ethics
as a set of situationally applied moral insights. We follow this ethical approach
because moral conflict is inescapably rooted in specific situations. Which rules
of thumb we use to guide us will differ based on the context and character of
specific cases, providing for greater flexibility in considering the ethical prin-
ciples and interests involved (Lynn, 1998a; Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988; Midgley,
1993).
When it comes to public policies like the management of carnivores, ethics
and science are complementary. Science helps establish the empirical reality of
the problems we face, and can provide options in addressing those problems.
Ethics helps reveal the moral values at stake, and what options we are justified in
choosing. Thus, lacking either science or ethics may result in a lack of relevant
information or moral insight, respectively, culminating in the legal sanctioning
of harmful yet unnecessary behaviour. In this sense, science and ethics are twin
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 229
stars that can help guide carnivore policy and management into making better
decisions; that is, decisions that are both ethically and scientifically sound (Lynn,
2006; Callahan and Jennings, 1983; Shrader-Frechette and McCoy, 1994). Sci-
VetBooks.ir

ence and ethics are thus powerful tools when combined and (if only used) for
helping people, animals, and nature flourish.

Sentience and the moral community

Even though humans might be the only animals capable of engaging in eth-
ics as a philosophical exercise (Lynn, 2007; Lewis et al., 2016), they are not
the only beings to whom ethics apply. Peer-reviewed scientific studies from
various disciplines – such as ethology, neuropsychology, and evolutionary biol-
ogy – have gathered decades of evidence confirming that many animals are
sentient and sapient, aware and self-aware beings with rich emotional and
cognitive lives. Insofar as we know, qualities such as awareness may not apply to
all animals equally (e.g., certain arthropods), but does characterize animals with
more complex neuroanatomical structures, including all mammals (e.g., wolves)
and birds (Low et al., 2012). And while there is great variability among spe-
cies, and real differences between individuals of the same species, the idea that
humans are unique as feeling or thinking creatures is wrong-headed (Bekoff
and Goodall, 2004). The scientific evidence has invited scientists and ethicists
to question and reject the inherent superiority of humans over other animals
(Midgley, 1983; Peterson, 2013;Vucetich et al., 2015; Batavia and Nelson, 2016).
This should not be taken to mean that substituting a rigid moral hierarchy
focused on humans with one focused on other sentient animals is our point. It
is rather that to understand the moral values at stake and that to make ethical
distinctions, the particularities of individuals and species need to be considered.
It is for these reasons that ethicists increasingly argue that animals also value
their lives, and have an interest in their own well-being.The sentience of animals
(i.e., ‘their ability to perceive or feel things’ [OED]) is one of the main reasons –
and, some argue, sufficient reason – to recognize the moral considerability of
animals (Bentham, 1789; Singer, 1975; Feinberg, 1981; Midgley, 1983; Regan,
1987; Francione, 2009; Peterson, 2013). Sentient creatures have preferences and
needs, and can experience subjective states such as stress, fear, and joy. In other
words, they have interests – not the same, but akin to our own – in terms of
freedom from avoidable or unjustified harm and death. Evaluating the avoid-
ability or justification for harming another being would hinge on the weighing
and consideration of all interests involved.
Philosopher Peter Singer argues that sentient beings deserve equal consid-
eration of their interests when intervening in their lives (Midgley, 1983; Singer,
1993; Lynn, 1998a). This does not mean equal rights, a misunderstanding of
terms by many observers. The moral principle of equal consideration refers
to the equitable and explicit acknowledgement of all affected interests when
determining the appropriateness of an action. Neither Singer nor we mean
equal rights or equal treatment for every species or individual; “what this
 230  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
principle does require is for humans to give due consideration to the well-
being of other creatures, and to do so without prejudice” (Lynn, 1998a, p. 291).
To reinforce the distinction between considering the interests of animals and
VetBooks.ir

not conflating this with animal rights theories or expectations of equal treat-
ment among all species, we speak hereafter in terms of equitable consideration.
This concept has both process-oriented and outcome-oriented dimensions. In
terms of process, it argues for the fair consideration of animal interests in policy
or management decisions that will impact their well-being in the world. Exam-
ples would include, but not be restricted to, population management through
lethal control. In terms of outcomes, it argues that policy or management deci-
sions must do more than consider animal interests as a pro forma matter of
administrative process, only to subsequently dismiss them. Rather, the weight of
reason and evidence for animal sentience is overwhelming (Bekoff et al., 2002;
Bekoff and Goodall, 2004), and the outcomes of policy or management deci-
sions should act upon this whenever appropriate.
Equitable consideration leads to similar treatment when interests are simi-
lar, but allows for differences in treatments when interests differ, or when the
specific moral problems demand differential treatment. For example, both peo-
ple and predators have a direct interest in avoiding harm. Only people have a
direct interest in political participation. While predators might benefit from
certain public policies and practices, they are not the kinds of beings for whom
engagement in politics is applicable, because they do not have the capabilities
to engage in it. So, while it is necessary to consider the interest of predators
when human actions may harm or affect them, including in the political arena,
only people can directly participate in the political deliberation necessary to set
forth policies and management practices that do indeed consider these interests.
Context plays a crucial role, and close attention to the type of beings and inter-
ests involved are part of the circumstances to which we apply moral principles
(Lynn, 1998a).
As Mary Midgley (1983, p. 90) points out, the experience of other beings can
be: “sufficiently like our own to bring into play the Golden Rule – ‘treat others
as you would wish them to treat you’ ”. This punctuated continuity of interests
between humans and carnivores grants them membership in what ethics calls a
community of moral concern, or moral community. This has strong implications
for predator management. For even if the sentience of carnivores is different
from our own, we are obligated to consider their interests and well-being when
it is impacted by human actions. Such actions include direct and indirect harms
to their well-being, such as hunting, trapping, poisoning, habitat loss or degra-
dation, and global warming. Unregulated and uncontrolled versions of these are
contributing to the sixth great extinction of wildlife the world over (Kolbert,
2014) and underscore this point.
Although sentience by itself could be considered the ethically relevant trait
for extending equal consideration to individual animals, our various relation-
ships with animals add additional reasons for their moral consideration. Animals
are an integral component of society and the environment. A purely ‘human
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 231
community’ is a fiction; instead, humans live within a ‘mixed-community’ of
species (Midgley, 1983). Human civilization has been built on the care and
exploitation of individual animals (Peterson, 2013). Indeed, our instrumental
VetBooks.ir

use of animals has been made possible because of animal sentience, a prerequi-
site for the interspecies communication that facilitated domestication (Midgley,
1983). The food, fibre, labour, and companionship of animals are not free of
moral weight.
Moreover, wild animals contribute to the health of the environment and the
provision of ecosystem services indispensable for human well-being (Leopold,
1949; Favre, 1978; Callicott, 1980; Midgley, 1983; Lynn, 2007; Wallach et al.,
2015). Our dependence on ecosystem processes such as pollination, seed dis-
persal, predation, scavenging, and water filtration, among others, are mediated
through animals.
Altogether then, our species is neither ethically, socially, nor environmentally
isolated. Instead, we have always lived our lives in deep relation to other spe-
cies. This is nowhere truer than with respect to the only wild carnivore to have
undergone domestication (wolves), and its domesticated descendants (dogs).

Ethical worldviews about people, animals, and nature

Thinking about animals as both sentient beings and contributors to ecological
processes has resulted in questions of whether the interests of animals and the
integrity of ecosystems can be aligned.
Carnivore policy and management is dominated by two worldviews of eth-
ics. These worldviews are ‘big-picture’ approaches to thinking about humans
and their place alongside the community of life on planet Earth.
The first worldview is anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism asserts that only
human beings have moral value and need to be considered from a moral point
of view. Everything that is not human (e.g., the animals and ecosystems referred
to as nature) is only of instrumental use for human beings. In their relation to
the environment, humans are ends, while animals and natural objects are means
to those ends. Humans, of course, can still have instrumental value to others, but
their prevailing value is as ends in themselves. Anthropocentrism is the ideology
behind the early conservation movement of Gifford Pinchot with his empha-
sis on the wise use of biotic and abiotic resources for the greater good of the
nation and for future generations of citizens.
The second ideology is ecocentric holism, or ecocentrism. This is an ethical
outlook that believes the needs of individual animals can be ignored or sac-
rificed if a population or species is protected. One touchstone for ecocentric
holism is Aldo Leopold’s ‘land ethic’ (1949; but see Millstein, 2018). The land
ethic is mainly concerned with the ecosystem health of the ‘land community’.
It is based on two ideas: (1) nature has intrinsic value (meaning its existence has
value for its own sake, irrespective of what it can provide for humans), and (2)
this value lies in ecological aggregates or wholes (i.e.: species, ecosystems) rather
than individual beings (Peterson, 2013).
 232  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
Ecocentrism vies with anthropocentrism to be the dominant voice in carni-
vore management. To its credit, it has contributed immensely to global efforts
to mitigate environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity. Yet it has
VetBooks.ir

also justified ignoring the equitable consideration of interests that the subjec-
tive lives of animals makes mandatory (Peterson, 2013). For example, although
unnecessary in most developed countries, ecocentrists may support scientifi-
cally managed subsistence hunting when it does not harm species or ecosys-
tem integrity. Another example of ecocentrism is the prohibition on substantial
impairment of environmental assets under the U.S. public trust doctrine, with-
out a concomitant consideration of individual organisms that in part make
up those biodiversity assets (Treves et al., 2015). Both anthropocentrism and
ecocentrism may allow for relative consideration of certain animal interests
through ‘humane’ treatment principles, but there is little attempt, if any, to ques-
tion their killing if it serves a human interest.
The opposite to ecocentrism is frequently framed as biocentric individu-
alism or biocentrism (Peterson, 2013). Biocentrists believe ecocentrism errs
in its approach to parts and wholes, as only individual animals (human or
otherwise) are thought morally considerable. Ecosystems, as wholistic enti-
ties, do not have moral value per se. Rather, they are the living context for
morally valuable sentient lives. Our duty towards preservation of ecosystem
integrity stems from ecosystems allowing wild organisms to flourish (Taylor,
2003). As a competing viewpoint to ecocentrism, biocentrism has become
a dominant position of the animal rights movement. Conservationists fol-
lowing ecocentrism and animal rightists following biocentrism are often on
polar opposite sides of management issues involving predators. In terms of
their ideologies, the reasons for this are clear. For example, in Washington,
USA, conservation organizations are evenly split on authorizing the kill-
ing of members of wolf packs involved in livestock depredations on public
land. Meanwhile, animal advocates have publicly denounced some of these
conservation organizations for sanctioning the killing of wolves as a form of
subsidy to an unnecessary practice based on animal exploitation (breeding
domestic ungulates).
The authors, however, do not believe this dichotomy to be helpful. Ecocen-
trism rightly recognizes ecosystems as ecological entities rooted in a network
of interrelationships. Biocentrists rightly recognize individual animals as part of
that ecology, many of whom are simultaneously sentient and sapient. Terrestrial
predators exemplify this point. As individuals, all are subjective beings, members
of our moral community, and deserving of ethical consideration. As predators,
each of these individuals is also a functional unit of ecosystem processes and
contributes to the ecological health of the biotic community.
To draw hard and fast lines between the parts and wholes, then, seems arbi-
trary to us, and creates a false dichotomy between a priori locations of moral
value in aggregates or individuals. It is for that reason that we adopt a geocen-
trist approach. Geocentrism extends moral considerability to both individuals
and ecological communities, recognizing that both have a well-being that needs
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 233
to be explicitly considered at the same time. As a practical discipline, ethics
should be rooted in context. Rather than arguing for a main location of moral
value, geocentrism argues for a contextual accounting of the various overlap-
VetBooks.ir

ping sources of moral value (i.e., individual subjectivity as well as ecological and
social relationships). It regards all animals as ends in themselves, yet acknowl-
edges their intrinsic and extrinsic values (Lynn, 1998a).
An instructive example is that of predation. When wolves hunt deer, both
predator and prey are manifestly sentient species. Individual wolves and indi-
vidual deer matter from a moral point of view. Yet this does not mean it is
wrong for the wolf to kill deer to survive or thrive. Predation is an ecological
process necessary for life on earth. It would be irrational and unscientific to
simply declare it immoral. Rather, the wolf killing the deer, and predation in
general, exemplifies what is termed a ‘sad good’ (Lynn, 2012). The death of the
individual deer is sad as a distinct individual has been extinguished. It is good,
however, for the wolf or wolves that consume the deer, as well as for the eco-
logical dynamics of trophic systems of which both the wolf and deer are a part.
The case is similar when we talk about humans as the predator if this killing,
as in the case of the wolf, is necessary for subsistence (Lynn, 2017). However,
not all human motives for killing may override the vital claims of animals.
Some kind of special urgency of the human claim in question (i.e., subsistence)
should be established for the killing (as well as the treatment) to be ethically
justified (Midgley, 1983).
We note that geocentrism should not be considered a superseding concept
in a decision hierarchy that always or mostly justifies the lethal management
of wildlife in pursuit of ecosystem health or function. Nor is it a typology
providing categorical answers to contextual questions, or an imperialist theory
seeking supremacy in self-serving academic debates (Lynn, 2002). It is rather a
value-paradigm that seeks to untangle the complex ethical presuppositions and
implications of varied worldviews (Lynn, 1998b).
Aligned with the pluralistic and interpretive ethics that gave it birth (Toul-
min, 1950; Midgley, 1993; Weston, 2006), geocentrism does not claim to be
uniquely true but rather helpfully insightful (Lynn, 2006). It is thus not con-
cerned with being correct to the exclusion of insights from other paradigms
about the intrinsic value of people, animals, or nature, respectively. Rather, it
seeks to appreciate what each of these is right about, integrate their insights
into a distinctive conceptual tool, and deploy this tool to better understand the
nuances of ethical reasoning about predators and their management.

Law and ethics

Ethical judgments about the moral value and consideration of animals per-
vade policies about and the management of carnivores. Statutory laws, agency
regulations, executive actions, and judicial decisions (collectively, the ‘law’) fre-
quently focus on actions impacting individuals or groups in society, as well as
various elements of the built and natural environment.These actions potentially
 234  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
have good or bad consequences for those they impact, and are thus legitimate
topics of ethical scrutiny. Moreover, both the instruments and practice of the
law are intrinsically bound up with ethics, as they encode a variety of value
VetBooks.ir

assumptions that recognize some (but perhaps not others) as part of the moral
community served by legal and political institutions. In these senses, then, legal
documents are moral documents – documents that matter in terms of the ethi-
cal positions they assume, convey, or impose (Caldwell and Shrader-Frechette,
1992; Beatley, 1994).
When ethical arguments have not been made explicit in them, one should
not conclude that there are no ethical concerns. Nor should one conclude that
those ethical concerns have been well considered but left unwritten because
they were obvious. Rather, ethical reasoning should be made manifest and not
left latent. This is done by seeking out the ‘best’ (e.g., accurate, comprehensive)
accounts of ethical, legal, or scientific claims through reason and evidence.
Unfortunately, legal instruments relevant to individual carnivores are fre-
quently not explicit about their ethics. Governments and individuals frequently
resort to lethal ‘management’ methods for these individuals and populations
when they are perceived to threaten human property or safety (Treves et al.,
2016).This resort to lethal management, however, is most frequently predicated
on an overt or implicit dismissal of their interests. For example, in the Global
North, the costs of managing wild carnivores are relatively minor and attacks
on people are vanishingly rare (say, compared to domestic dogs). Neverthe-
less, lethal management of carnivores is commonly the first intervention, and
promoted when humans are not content with carnivore population numbers,
the animals are considered a nuisance, hunters perceive competition for game,
or based on the hypothesis that lethal management would promote the species’
conservation (Treves, 2009).
To illustrate the absence of express ethical reasoning in carnivore manage-
ment, we use a case study of grey wolf management in Wisconsin, USA. For our
evidence, we rely on a close reading of the statutes and regulations that sanction
lethal or harmful interventions into the lives of Wisconsin wolves.

Grey wolf extermination and management

in the USA
Although grey wolves historically ranged throughout most of North America,
the campaign to exterminate them and other large predators started soon after
European settlers arrived (Lopez, 1978; Boitani, 2003). Predators were generally
regarded by Europeans as pests that reduced game numbers and preyed on live-
stock. Persecution was widespread and government-sponsored (Lopez, 1978;
Boitani, 2003). By the 1930s, the wolf had been eradicated from almost all 48
contiguous states, except for small pockets in Minnesota and Michigan (Bangs
and Fritts, 1996; Boitani, 2003).
Recovery of predator populations was only possible after the enactment of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. By 1974, the grey wolf was listed
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 235
as an endangered species in the Great Lakes region (Minnesota, Wisconsin and
Michigan), and by 1978 throughout the 48 contiguous states (Boitani, 2003).
ESA listing placed the species under temporary federal authority, providing
VetBooks.ir

protection from ‘take’ (“to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” according
to the US Endangered Species Act [US, 1973]) and critical habitat protec-
tion (Treves et al., 2015). Full federal protections remain in place until the
population is either ‘down-listed’ (reclassified recovery status removing certain
protections) or ‘delisted’ (full removal of protections) federally, based on target
recovery goals. ESA delisting also entails the transfer of management authority
from the federal government to the states.
The Great Lakes wolf population was managed according to the US Fish &
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan (Service,
1992). The plan classified the Minnesota population as ‘threatened’, which
allowed for state removal of wolves through lethal management or translocation
(16 USC §1531 Sec. 4d permits) but no public hunting or trapping season.The
Wisconsin and Michigan populations were classified as ‘endangered’ (no ‘take’
except for imminent threats to human safety), because of their much smaller
populations.
Likewise, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),
developed a Wolf Management Plan (WMP) providing similar (to federal)
protections from ‘take’ or lethal management until wolves reached their target
recovery goals (DNR, 1999). Following the WMP, wolves were down-listed to
state threatened status in 1999 and delisted in 2004, allowing the state to con-
duct public hunting and trapping seasons if delisted federally (Wydeven et al.,
2009).
Simultaneously, the USFWS proceeded with plans to delist regional popu-
lations in preparation for delisting the whole species (Bruskotter et al., 2011;
Bruskotter, 2013). In Wisconsin and Michigan, federal down-listing to threat-
ened status first occurred in 2003 (Wydeven et al., 2009). Shortly after, in a
series of agency decisions and legal battles between 2005 and 2014, the USFWS
attempted to remove federal protections for wolves, while federal courts restored
them, disagreeing with the USFWS determination that wolf populations were
sufficiently recovered or protected to warrant delisting (Treves et al., 2015).
Because of these lawsuits, as of December 2014 wolves in the Great Lakes were
relisted as ‘endangered’ in Wisconsin and Michigan, and ‘threatened’ in Min-
nesota (HSUS, 2014). However, attempts at delisting the species via legislation
are ongoing.

Grey wolf management in Wisconsin, 2012–2014

Despite their status as ‘endangered’ in Wisconsin as of writing, the species was
federally delisted in the winter of 2012 for a period of approximately three
years (2012–2014). By 2 April 2012, the state legislature had approved Act 169,
authorizing the WDNR to plan for a public wolf hunting and trapping season,
 236  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
sanctioning wolf-killing for the first time since wolf bounties were terminated
in 1957.The public hunting and trapping seasons, however, are regulated by the
state to ensure the killing is sustainable (i.e., does not affect the viability of the
VetBooks.ir

population). The seasons were held from October through February. Hunters
and trappers were allowed to kill wolves in hunting zones statewide (except
inside Native American reservations) until the zone kill quotas were reached.
Methods allowed included authorized firearms, bow and arrow or crossbow,
cable restraints or steel-jawed foothold traps, subject to certain restrictions. Use
of dogs to track or trail, predator calls, and some baiting were also allowed. Most
likely, hounds harass or attack wolves, especially young wolves near dens and
rendezvous sites during the summer hound-training period. There are no data
on such incidents because hounds were left to run loose far from their owners
for kilometres often tracked remotely by telemetry by owners on the nearest
road. The evidence that hounds and wolves engaged in deadly confrontations
is one-sided with reports of hounds injured or killed (see next paragraph); it is
one-sided because injured or killed wolves were never reported. The WDNR
went on to hold three wolf hunting and trapping seasons during which hunt-
ers and trappers killed 117, 257, and 154 wolves (WDNR, http://dnr.wi.gov/
topic/hunt/wolf.html). State officials from the WDNR and supporters of the
wolf hunt argued that the hunt would allow for maintaining the wolf popula-
tion at target levels, bolstering political support for species’ conservation and
reducing conflicts over safety and property (DNR, 2013; Hogberg et al., 2015).
The state legislature also authorized the WDNR to remove wolves that
were causing damage or nuisance (WI Stat §29.885[2]). Most complaints of
this sort come from domestic animal breeders who perceive wolves as a threat
or that have had domestic animals killed by wolves (depredation). Although
depredation(s) can cost domestic animal breeders and the domestic animals cer-
tainly would not want it to happen, statistics also show that the amount of dep-
redations is minuscule from an industry perspective, with wolves accounting
for only 0.8% of cattle losses in Wisconsin in 2010 (NASS, 2011 http://usda.
mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf). In
2016, with a wolf population of approximately 866–897, Wisconsin had a total
of 52 depredations and six threats on domestic and farm animals (Wiedenhoeft
et al., 2016). Complaints also come from people whose hounds or pets have
been attacked by wolves. Between 2015–2016, wolves were involved in nine
attacks on dogs outside of hunting situations, and killed 18 dogs while these
were engaged in hunting activities (Wiedenhoeft et al., 2016). Besides these
private concerns, there have also been public concerns about wolves threaten-
ing human safety, but at the time of writing no attacks have been confirmed in
Wisconsin.
To carry out wolf removals, the WDNR reinstated a long-standing coop-
erative agreement with a federal agency within the Department of Agricul-
ture named Wildlife Services (WS), charged with “providing federal leadership
in managing conflicts with wildlife” (USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, 2009,
p. 1). WS would investigate complaints and determine whether to authorize
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 237
the removal of individual wolves, following procedures outlined in the state
WMP. The WMP calls for depredation control activities to “focus on preventive
methods and mitigation” (DNR, 1999, p. 24), including non-lethal methods
VetBooks.ir

(Willging and Wydeven, 1997). In cases of confirmed and probable depreda-

tions (based on depredation verification procedures), the local WDNR wild-
life biologist, the WDNR Regional Wildlife Expert, and WS staff determine
the appropriate management activity (DNR, 1999) by analyzing the following
criteria: (1) there are confirmed losses at the site, and (2) the producer signed
a depredation management plan for the property and follows recommended
abatement and husbandry recommendations. Other factors – such as location
of depredation in relation to known wolves or wolf packs, severity of damage,
and type and size of farm operation – seem to be considered (Willging and
Wydeven, 1997), but no measurement criteria for any of these are included
in the WMP. Thus, if the previous two criteria are met, the WMP provides
the WS Depredation Specialist with discretion to recommend and implement
‘euthanasia’, contingent on WDNR approval (DNR, 1999). That approval was
not specified in any regulation or policy we could find and therefore represents
another individual’s discretion, we surmise. Landowner lethal management was
also allowed “by WDNR permit after Federal delisting has occurred” (DNR,
1999, p. 20). Once the population reached target levels, “proactive depredation
control can be authorized” (DNR, 2007, p. 6). Proactive control involves the
implementation of interventions (lethal or non-lethal) prior to the occurrence
of any incident with the objective of mitigating or preventing them.

Ethical considerations in grey wolf management

We reviewed the text of laws, regulations, and related documents relevant to
wolf management in Wisconsin to evaluate the appropriateness and thorough-
ness of the clearest and most ethical arguments explicit in them, if any. We
evaluated if these documents accurately acknowledge individual animals as
members of the moral community by appropriately considering their interests,
in addition to the interests of humans and ecological wholes. We conducted
an ethical examination of statements expressing the main concerns of each
agency regarding wildlife management, as well as specific statutes and regula-
tions relevant to grey wolf management. The passages included (Annex 12.1)
were identified by reviewing the texts looking for sections revealing the types
of interests considered behind certain interventions or views relating to wildlife
or their treatment, be these human, ecological wholes, or individual animals.
These passages contain all the statements that suggest even remotely that the
authors considered the interests of other individual animals, particularly wolves.
Our analysis focuses on providing evidence of what interests (human, eco-
logical wholes, and individual animals) are being considered in laws and regula-
tions, and to what extent (partially or equitably considered). By accounting for
these interests, we address anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, biocentrism and, if
all were equitably considered, geocentrism.
 238  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
Annex 12.1 presents the ethical concerns stated in all nine federal and state
documents governing wolf management in Wisconsin, as established by federal
and state agencies involved in management, along with empirical observations
VetBooks.ir

detailing what interests each document made explicit in their ethical justifica-
tions (corresponding passages in italics). We classified these interests as focusing
on instrumental (human) concerns, ecological wholes or individual animals,
allowing for overlap based on the interests made explicit in the document. For
each interest category, we awarded a rank of ‘2’ if those interests categories were
explicitly and appropriately considered, as stated in each document.We awarded
a rank of ‘1’ to an interest category if the document contained explicit yet lim-
ited or inappropriate consideration of the interests represented by that category
(for example, if a statute considers an organism’s desire in freedom from harm,
but not desire to continue living, as an interest; see discussion of individual
animal interests in the next paragraphs). We awarded a rank of ‘0’ if we found
no explicit consideration of a particular category. For comparison, we provide
rank summaries per interest category (total rank value and median rank, Annex
12.1). After identifying the relevant ethical passages and agreeing on the coding
scheme, two co-authors (FSA & WL) separately coded each statement, with
perfect agreement on the coding for each statement-interest combination.1
In our coding, we exercised the principle of charitable interpretation when
accounting for consideration of nonhuman interests (wholes or individuals)
within each text. Thus, seemingly ambiguous statements such as calls for envi-
ronmental stewardship or respect and humaneness towards wildlife or species,
when lacking an anthropocentric statement, were taken to denote at least lim-
ited consideration for nonhuman interests.
We find evidence that the documents in Annex 12.1 do not adequately
consider the most basic needs and interests of individual animals (Annex 12.1,
median rank = 0). In contrast, the texts suggest that wolf management is almost
exclusively concerned with instrumental (i.e., human) interests (total rank
value = 18; median rank = 2), and specifically, human enjoyment of wildlife.
Multiple documents reference an agency mission to engage in environmen-
tal stewardship “for the continuing benefit of the American people” (USFWS,
1998), species’ values “to the Nation and its people” (United States, 1973) or
with the objective of “increasing or maintaining populations to provide hunt-
ing opportunities” (WI NR Stat Ch 1). It is no surprise that these documents
mention instrumental interests; what is more striking is the almost complete
lack of mention of other non-instrumental and non-human interests.
The interests of ecological wholes (total rank value = 7; median rank = 1)
seem implicit in calls for “environmental stewardship” (USFWS, 1998), respect
and humaneness towards wildlife (USDA-WS documents), provision of healthy
life systems (WI NR Stat Ch 1) or healthy populations (WMP), but animals’
intrinsic value or individual interests are hardly mentioned (Annex 12.1). Con-
cerns related to ecological wholes are restricted to “respect” or “ecological
diversity and health”, which are ambiguous if they lack an explicit mention of
the intrinsic value of ecological wholes and their respective interests. Despite
the apparent overlap in consideration of interests of humans and ecological
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 239
wholes, if conflicting the focus on the former limits consideration of the latter.
For example, a “healthy viable population of grey wolves in the state” (WMP)
may still have an interest in freedom from unnecessary harm and social stability
VetBooks.ir

(just as healthy groups of humans surely would), yet this interest is not addressed
further, particularly when addressing hunting. The human interest in hunting
an animal for recreation trumps these interests of the wolf population. Thus,
more urgent interests of ecological wholes beyond those relevant for provision-
ing ecosystem services for humans are not equitably considered. The lack of
consideration is even starker for individual animal interests.
Individual animal interests are not mentioned in most of the legal docu-
ments we examined (total rank value = 4; median rank = 0). Some documents
addressing lethal control do contain some mention of the welfare of animals and
striving for respect and humaneness, but this apparent consideration of animal
interests also raises ethical concerns, and so is awarded a ‘1’ for each document
where we identified these types of concerns. A legal document expressing an
animal welfare concern implicitly acknowledges individual animals as sentient;
otherwise, their welfare would be irrelevant. However, this concern for their
welfare may also concede to relatively trivial human interests or may be imple-
mented arbitrarily because the documents do not safeguard any animal interests
against infringement. For example, USDA-WS directive 1.301(USDA-APHIS,
2010) and their Supplement to the Environmental Assessment (USDA-WS
SEA) illustrate concerns for the suffering of individual animals when imple-
menting lethal methods using “the most selective and humane methods avail-
able” or “minimizing harmful effects of damage management measures on . . .
wolves”, respectively. However, use of non-lethal methods is limited to cases
where it is “practical and effective” (USDA-WS SEA), without any guidance
for weighing these criteria against wolves’ vital interests. Hence, practicality
and effectiveness would also seem to hinge on purely human interests, which
relegates concern for the vital interests of individual wolves to cases where it is
convenient or does not conflict with instrumental ones.
Another example,WI Stat Ch 951, illustrates concern for animals’ interests in
freedom from unnecessary or unjustifiable harm or death. But, again, considera-
tion may stop where arguably trivial human interests (i.e.: recreation) are nega-
tively affected by it. For example, although §951.02 prohibits cruel treatment
of individual animals, §951.015(1) and Wisconsin v Kuenzi (2011) clarified that
this prohibition only applies to game animals if the behaviour in question is not
normally considered ‘hunting’ (see ** in Annex 12.1 for clarification on this
point). Thus, in the case of a wolf hunt, concern for the welfare of individual
wolves is reduced to minimizing their suffering (through undefined codes such
as ‘clean kill’ or ‘fair chase’), and is left begging the question of how ethical or
legitimate is the killing in the first place. Gary Francione (2009, p. 7) critiques
this ‘welfarist’ position:

Although the animal welfare position supposedly prohibits the infliction

of ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals, we do not ask whether particular
institutional uses are themselves necessary because we assume that these
 240  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
uses are acceptable and because our only concern is treatment. It is clear,
however, that most of our animal uses are transparently frivolous and can-
not be described as involving any ‘necessity’.
VetBooks.ir

Once moral consideration is recognized, additional steps would be required

to examine the appropriateness of the behaviour in question. Acknowledging
the moral standing of wolves would demand an examination of how ethically
appropriate would be their killing prior to sanctioning it, equitably weighing
the vital interests of wolves against human interests, be these protection, recrea-
tion, or convenience. We cannot just assume their killing is appropriate because
it conflicts with any human interest, and proceed to examine only the killing
technique.
When we consider the state’s wolf hunt, the supposed concern for wolf wel-
fare is anthropocentric, given that, despite there being no clear urgent claim to
a wolf ’s life, the vital interest of wolves in living is subordinated to the unnec-
essary and trivial human interest in recreation (Vucetich and Nelson, 2014).
Efforts to justify Wisconsin’s wolf-killing in other ways that appear less trivial
have not found strong evidence. For example, authorities claim social or ecologi-
cal chaos without wolf killing (e.g., wolf populations are out of control), threats
to human subsistence (e.g., livestock producers and deer hunters cannot com-
pete), or a need for political support of wolf conservation (e.g., social tolerance
for wolves depends on state lethal management).Years of scientific testing have
come up empty for each claim (Treves, 2009;Treves et al., 2013; Browne-Nuñez
et al., 2015; Hogberg et al., 2015; Treves et al., 2015; Chapron and Treves, 2016a,
2016b; Callan et al., 2013; Storm et al., 2015). In Wisconsin, wolf presence has
been linked to an increase in ecosystem diversity, while there is no evidence of
them driving down the state’s deer population. Moreover, there is no evidence
that lethal management or liberalized wolf-killing is an effective conflict mitiga-
tion strategy, or that these policies increase tolerance for the species.
In sum, as written, and despite our conservative approach, the examined
statutes and regulations governing wolf management in Wisconsin lack impor-
tant ethical principles safeguarding the interests of nonhuman members of the
mixed community.The legal documents are more than twice as concerned with
human instrumental interests than concerns for ecological wholes and more
than four times more than concerned with individual animals’ interests (Annex
12.1). We find no evidence that these documents provide an adequate account
of the scientifically backed sentience and sapience of wolves or that individual
animal interests are being appropriately considered (median rank = 0), espe-
cially when weighed against trivial human interests such as recreation or tro-
phies. Nods to animal ethics through welfare concerns are inadequate because
the documents fail to justify the foreseeable harm to animals against the stand-
ard of necessity. Individual animals may be granted magnanimity when con-
venient, but we find no evidence that the documents acknowledge individual
animals as members of the moral community, let alone evidence of application
of the principle of equitable consideration. Moreover, the documents seem
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 241
to limit the relevance of moral consideration to instances where they would
not conflict with human interests. The documents also fail to state explicitly
their moral presuppositions so that the law, managers and public are adequately
VetBooks.ir

informed about their ethical implications.

The lack of appropriate and equitable consideration of animal interests pre-
sent in the regulations precludes geocentrism, which would demand equitable
consideration at all scales. Rather, the lack of consideration suggests that the
prevailing paradigms within these regulations are anthropocentric and ecocen-
tric. By dismissing the interests of individual animals, both paradigms fail to
appropriately consider all loci of moral value and moral perspectives in nature,
suggesting that these are ethically incomplete and inappropriate tools for regu-
lating interactions with nature and individual animals that would allow all to
flourish equitably.
Given this lack of consideration in explicit regulations, the level of dis-
cretion and guidance afforded to government agents is worth examining. As
described for Wisconsin, management documents often provide government
staff or private citizens with wide discretion for implementing harmful inter-
ventions against animals. Based on our results, we hypothesize that the lack of
explicit mention of animal interests in these documents would result in their
dismissal or inadequate guidance for considering them. Although that assess-
ment is beyond the scope of this chapter, we believe our recommendations
might contribute to correcting these ethical flaws, when present.

Moving towards equitable consideration

Equitable consideration entails the equitable and explicit acknowledgement of
all affected interests when deciding on the appropriateness of an action. The
current disregard for individual animal interests is not inevitable. The inter-
disciplinary work of ethicists, ethologists, and environmental scientists, among
others, sheds light on what ethical coexistence with wildlife might look like.
Ethical concerns go hand in hand with the best available science in these fields.
We cannot simply dismiss these scientific advances because the ethical implica-
tions would prove inconvenient. Nor can we claim a lower standard of consid-
eration for animals, simply because we have not read the latest science. Although
there are no simple answers to the complex ethical dilemmas, we propose that
an indispensable component of ethical coexistence is the promotion and codi-
fication of equitable consideration for individual animals.
We propose that humans have duties to the more vulnerable members of our
moral community (marginality . . . compassion, respect, tolerance, kindness), and
therefore a responsibility for the ethical handling of conflicts. Without adher-
ence to that ethical principle, regulations cannot be said to imbue any of the
moral principles that allow for prosperous community living. The codifying
of equitable consideration of animal interests is a powerful way to safeguard
against unjustified infringement. As our analysis has shown, leaving codes of
conduct unstated and ignoring the interests of individuals allows cruelty, sadism,
 242  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
and illiberal actions that can affect humanity adversely – as well as the direct
victims, the animals.
Codifying moral consideration of animals should be complemented by
VetBooks.ir

ethical education. Government sponsored ethical education is mentioned

in the regulations, but only when related to hunting and trapping (WI Stat
§29.591[1b], WI NR §1.11) through codes of “fair chase” and “clean kill”, and
the promotion of “wildlife as a renewable natural resource” (WI NR §1.11).
Such efforts treat wildlife as a resource instead of sentient beings, with the
underlying assumption that certain wildlife interests (such as living) can be
trumped by trivial human interests.
As the institution responsible for policies regulating the environment and
human-nonhuman interactions, legislatures and wildlife agencies should pro-
vide proper ethical guidance incorporating the scientific and ethical advances
in understanding and respecting individual animals. Accomplishing this will
require ethics education for appropriate legislators, agency personnel, and inter-
ested constituency groups. How this is to be accomplished is not the subject
of this chapter, but we envision it as minimally involving some combination
of mandatory and voluntary training, and partnerships with ethical specialists
in animal and environmental ethics. It is imperative that professionals receive
the most complete ethical training if wildlife management aspires to manage
animals ethically and conform to society’s evolving moral codes of conduct.
Our recommendations are not a panacea. Instrumental interests will con-
tinue to dominate dialogue and perhaps practice. However, our recommenda-
tions provide a starting point for explicitly considering and retaining ethics in
our intrusions into the lives of all animals. Their implementation would aid in
allowing humans and our entire mixed moral community to flourish.
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 12.1 Statements expressing ethical standpoints in

statutes, regulations and agency documents
relevant to grey wolf management in
Wisconsin, USA

Stature, regulation or Statements related to ethics and wildlife management (emphasis added) Interests explicit in ethical justification1
agency document

Human Ecological wholes Individual animals

Federal level
022 FW 1, Creation, D. Objectives. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has three basic 2 1 0
Authority objectives: (1) to assist in the development and application
and Functions of an environmental stewardship ethic for our society, based on
(USFWS) ecological principles, scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife,
and a sense of moral responsibility; (2) to guide the conservation,
development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife
resources; and (3) to administer a national program to provide
the public opportunities to understand, appreciate, and wisely use
fish and wildlife resources. These objectives support the Service
mission of conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
Endangered Species Findings (Sec. 2(a)(3)): “ . . . these species of fish, wildlife and 2 0 0
Act plants are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational,
and scientific value to the Nation and its people; (4) the United
States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international
community to conserve to the extent practicable the various
species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction . . . ”

(Continued)
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 12.1 (Continued)

Stature, regulation or Statements related to ethics and wildlife management (emphasis added) Interests explicit in ethical justification1
agency document

Human Ecological wholes Individual animals

USDA-WS 4. WS Management Philosophy. (a) General Philosophy: “In the 2 1 1

Directive 1.201 United States, wildlife is a publicly-owned resource held in trust and
Mission and managed by State and Federal agencies. Government agencies,
Philosophy of the including WS, are required by law and regulation to conserve
WS Program and mange wildlife resources while being responsive to public desires,
views and attitudes. In so doing, agencies must also respond to
requests for resolution of damage and other problems caused
by wildlife. . . . Actions considered and employed should be
biologically sound, environmentally safe, scientifically valid, and
socially acceptable. . . . WS’ vision is to improve the coexistence
of people and wildlife, while considering a wide range of public
interests that can conflict with one another. These interests
include wildlife conservation, biological diversity, and the welfare
of animals, as well as the management of wildlife for purposes of
enjoyment, recreation, and livelihood.”
USDA-WS 4. Policy. WS Code of Ethics: “d. Will show exceptionally high 2 1 1
Directive 1.301 levels of respect for people, property and wildlife.; g. Will utilize the
Code of Ethics of WS Decision Model to resolve wildlife damage problems and
the WS Program strive to use the most selective and humane methods available, with
preference given to nonlethal methods when practical and effective.”
USDA-WS “WS uses and/or recommends the full range of legal, practical 2 1 1
Supplement to the and effective nonlethal and lethal methods for preventing or
Environmental reducing wolf damage while minimizing harmful effects of damage
Assessment: management measures on humans, wolves, other species, and the
Management of environment in accordance with the WDNR guidelines for wolf
Wolf Conflicts depredation control.” (p. 2)
and Depredating
Wolves in
Wisconsin (2013)
 VetBooks.ir

Stature, regulation or Statements related to ethics and wildlife management (emphasis added) Interests explicit in ethical justification1
agency document

Human Ecological wholes Individual animals

State level
WI Statutes Chapter Management of wildlife, Preamble (NR 1.015(2)): “The 2 1 0
NR 1 – Natural primary goal of wildlife management is to provide healthy life
Resource Board systems necessary to sustain Wisconsin’s wildlife populations for
Policies their biological, recreational, cultural and economic values. Wildlife
management is the application of knowledge in the protection,
enhancement and regulation of wildlife resources for their
contribution toward maintaining the integrity of the environment and
for the human benefits they provide.”
Wildlife Management (NR 1.11): “(2) Recognizes the need to
strengthen the educational efforts of the department relating
to hunter competence, standards of ethical hunting behaviour (see
29.591 below) and respect for landowners rights; educational
efforts must also be directed toward nonhunters to improve
their knowledge and understanding of wildlife as a renewable natural
resource and of hunting as both a method of controlling wildlife
populations and as a form of outdoor recreation.* (7) Supports
the maintenance of ecological diversity and health, and will do
everything in its power to protect and maintain free-living
populations of all species of wildlife currently existing in
Wisconsin; extirpated species will be reintroduced whenever
feasible ecologically, economically and socially. (8) Supports the
management of game species and habitat with the objective of
increasing or maintaining populations to provide hunting opportunities.
(9) Supports the regulated use of wildlife for human benefits,
including hunting and trapping where legal harvests do not reduce
subsequent population levels of these renewable wildlife resources or
where population reduction of certain species is a deliberate objective.”
(Continued)
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 12.1 (Continued)

Stature, regulation or Statements related to ethics and wildlife management (emphasis added) Interests explicit in ethical justification1
agency document

Human Ecological wholes Individual animals

WI Statutes Title to Wild Animals (29.011(1)): “The legal title to, and the 2 1 0
Chapter 29 – custody and protection of, all wild animals within this state is
Wild Animals and vested in the state for the purposes of regulating the enjoyment, use,
Plants disposition, and conservation of these wild animals.”
Rule-making of this chapter (29.014(1)): “The department shall
establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish and
game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions
governing the taking of fish and game that will conserve the
fish and game supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued
opportunities for good fishing, hunting and trapping.“
Removal of wild animals (29.885(2)): “The department may
remove or authorize the removal of all of the following: (a) a
wild animal that is causing damage or that is causing a nuisance;
(b) a structure of a wild animal that is causing damage or that is
causing a nuisance.”
Trapper Education program (29.591(1b)): “The courses of
instruction under these programs shall provide instruction to
students in the responsibilities of hunters to wildlife, environment,
landowners and others, how to recognize threatened and
endangered species that cannot be hunted and the principles of
wildlife management and conservation.”*
WI Statutes Definitions (951.01(2)): “ ‘Cruel’ means causing unnecessary and 2 0 1
Chapter 951 – excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death.”
Crimes Against Construction and Application (951.015(1)): “This chapter may not
Animals be interpreted as controverting any law regulating wild animals that
are subject to regulation under ch. 169 [hunting], the taking of wild
animals, as defined in s. 29.001 (90), or the slaughter of animals by
persons acting under state or federal law.”**
 VetBooks.ir

Stature, regulation or Statements related to ethics and wildlife management (emphasis added) Interests explicit in ethical justification1
agency document

Human Ecological wholes Individual animals

Mistreating animals (951.02): “No person may treat any animal,
whether belonging to the person or another, in a cruel
manner. This section does not prohibit normal and accepted
veterinary practices.”
WI Wolf I. Introduction: “These guidelines provide a conservation strategy 2 1 0
Management Plan for maintaining a healthy viable population of grey wolves in the
(WMP) state, and contribute toward national recovery, while addressing
problems that may occur with wolf depredation on livestock
or pets.” (p. 8)
B. Population Monitoring and Management: “Harvest by private
citizens is controversial, but the taking of wolves in a recovered
population is consistent with the management of other furbearers in the
state of Wisconsin.” (p. 21)
E. Wolf Depredation Management: “WDNR is charged with
protecting and maintaining a viable population of wolves in the state,
but also must protect the interests of people who suffer losses due to
wolf depredations.” (p. 23) 1. Depredation Management Plan.
“The objective of the wolf depredation program is to minimize
depredations and compensate people for their losses.” (p. 24)
Total rank value 18 7 4
(max.18)
Median rank 2 1 0
1
‘2’ – interests in category were explicitly and appropriately considered; ‘1’ – interests in category explicit yet limited or inappropriately considered; ‘0’ – no explicit considera-
tion of a particular interest category.
*
  Wisconsin’s Hunter Education Course Manual (Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc., 2012) limits ethical behaviour towards individual nonhuman animals to codes of “fair chase”,
“clean kill” and use of all usable parts (p. 66). Although it also advocates for treating “both game and non-game animals ethically”, it does not expand on this to explain what
that would mean (how the human [subsistence, recreation] and non-human [life, flourishing] interests involved should be weighted) and how it would impact the practice
of hunting and the field of conservation.
**
 However, this chapter only “controverts” those statutes if the behaviour in question is not normally considered ‘hunting’, following Wisconsin v Kuenzi (2011).
 248  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
Note
1 Despite highlighting our high level or agreement, we offer no quantitative measure of
inter-observer reliability (IRRI) for our coded analysis of the texts. Such quantitative
VetBooks.ir

measures are usually provided in qualitative studies as an indicator of rigour (‘the quality
of being extremely thorough and careful’, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
rigour). We disagree with such an interpretation, and highlight the difference between
measures of agreement and measures of rigour.
Coder reliability measures can indeed display a good faith effort in teasing out all the
meanings of a text, but they are not a measure of validity (‘the quality of being logically
or factually sound; soundness or cogency’, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
validity) in qualitative or interpretive research. Such an index may provide a false sense
of rigour based on shared value judgements between observers, rather than reason and
the evidence presented. One example helpful to illustrate this point is the landmark Dred
Scott v. John F.A. Sandford US Supreme Court decision (1857). The court overwhelm-
ingly (7–2) agreed that slaves were not entitled to their freedom despite residing in a free
state; thus, African Americans could never be US citizens. An IRRI-like index for such a
decision would have validated the decision, reflecting high coder (the judges) reliability
and ‘rigour’. But we acknowledge today, as was argued then, that the argumentation and
evidence was flawed.
Moreover, these kinds of methodological misunderstandings inhibit ethical and inter-
pretive contributions to science-based research. Different theories and paradigms of sci-
ence are amenable to different kinds of data and methods. Rigour in qualitative and
interpretive research is based on reason and evidence.Well-intentioned attempts to extend
the methods of quantitative science to qualitative and interpretive research, despite their
inadequacy, may provide a false sense of objectivity, bolster false empiricist claims of a
dichotomy between the subjective and objective, limit interpretation, and value empiri-
cism over reason.
Therefore, we present our interpretations and the original text side by side so the reader
can evaluate our interpretations for themselves, without making a claim of independent
objectivity implied by an IRRI. Challenges to our interpretation of the language should
be based on a review of the same sources (which are provided and endlessly replicable),
with evidence for why our interpretation may be incorrect or incomplete.

References
Bangs, E. E., and Fritts, S. H. (1996) ‘Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yel-
lowstone National Park’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 24, no 3, pp402–413.
Batavia, C., and Nelson, M. P. (2016) ‘Heroes or thieves? The ethical grounds for lingering
concerns about new conservation’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol 7, no
3, pp394–402.
Beatley, T. (1994) Ethical Land Use: Principles of Policy and Planning, Johns Hopkins University
Press Baltimore, MD.
Bekoff, M., Allen, C., and Burghardt, G. M. (2002) The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theo-
retical Perspectives on Animal Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bekoff, M., and Goodall, J. (eds) (2004) Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, Greenwood Press,
Westport, CT.
Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed in the Year
1780, and Now First Published. By Jeremy Bentham, T. Payne, and Son, London.
Boitani, L. (2003) ‘Wolf conservation and recovery’, in D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds) Wolves:
Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 249
Browne-Nuñez, C., Treves, A., Macfarland, D., Voyles, Z., and Turng, C. (2015) ‘Tolerance
of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and
behavioral inclinations’, Biological Conservation, vol 189, pp59–71.
VetBooks.ir

Bruskotter, J. T. (2013) ‘The predator pendulum revisited: Social conflict over wolves and
their management in the western United States’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol 37, no 3,
pp374–379.
Bruskotter, J. T., Enzler, S. A., and Treves, A. (2011) ‘Science and law: Rescuing wolves from
politics: Wildlife as a public trust resource’, Science, vol 333, no 6051, pp1828–1829.
Caldwell, L. K., and Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1992) Policy for Land: Law and Ethics, University
Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Callahan, S., and Jennings, B. (1983) Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis, Plenum, New
York.
Callan, R., Nibbelink, N. P., Rooney, T. P., Wiedenhoeft, J. E., and Wydeven, A. P. (2013)
‘Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA)’, Journal of Ecology, vol
101, no 4, pp837–845.
Callicott, J. B. (1980) ‘Animal liberation: A triangular affair’, Environmental ethics, vol 2, no 4,
pp311–338.
Chapron, G., and Treves, A. (2016a) ‘Blood does not buy goodwill: Allowing culling increases
poaching of a large carnivore’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
vol 283, no 1830, pp20152939.
Chapron, G., and Treves, A. (2016b) ‘Correction to “Blood does not buy goodwill: Allowing
culling increases poaching of a large carnivore” ’, Proceedingso f the Royal Society B, vol 283,
no 1845, pp20162577.
DNR, WI. (1999) Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan, Resources, W. D. O. N., Madison, WI.
DNR, WI. (2007) Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Addendum 2006 & 2007, W. D. O. N.,
Madison, WI.
DNR, WI. (2013) ‘DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp statement on lawsuit to re-list Western
Great Lakes Wolves’, News Release, 12 February 2013, http://dnr.wi.gov/news/Breaking
News_Print.asp?id=2659, accessed November 2016.
Favre, D. S. (1978) ‘Wildlife rights:The ever-widening circle’, Environmental Law, vol 9, p241.
Feinberg, J. (1981) ‘The rights of animals and unborn generations’, in Landau, R.-S. (ed)
Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, West Sussex.
Francione, G. L. (2009) Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation,
Columbia University Press, New York.
Hogberg, J., Treves, A., Shaw, B., and Naughton-Treves, L. (2015) ‘Changes in attitudes
toward wolves before and after an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: Early
evidence from Wisconsin’s wolf range’, Environmental Conservation, vol 43, no 1, pp45–55.
Horner, J. (2003) ‘Morality, ethics, and law: Introductory concepts’, Seminars in Speech and
Language, vol 24, no 4, pp263–274.
HSUS. (2014) Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Sally Jewell, Secretary of the
Interior, et al. v. State of Wisconsin, et al. 1:13-cv-00186-BAH. United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
Jonsen, A. R., and Toulmin, S. E. (1988) The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc. (2012) Today's Hunter: A Guide to Hunting Responsibly and Safely,
Kalkomey Enterprises, Dallas, TX.
Kolbert, E. (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, Picador, New York.
Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There, Oxford University
Press, New York.
 250  Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila et al.
Lewis, P.-M., Burns, G. L., and Jones, D. (2016) ‘Response and responsibility: Humans as
apex predators and ethical actors in a changing societal environment’, Food Webs, vol 12,
pp49–55.
VetBooks.ir

Lopez, B. (1978) Of Wolves and Men, Scribner, New York.

Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D.,Van Swinderen, B., Low, P., and Koch, C. (2012)
Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals, University of Cambridge,
Churchill College.
Lynn, W. S. (1998a) ‘Animals, ethics and geography’, in J. Wolch and J. Emel (eds) Animal
Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands,Verso, London.
Lynn, W. S. (1998b) ‘Contested moralities: Animals and moral value in the Dear/Symanski
debate’, Ethics, Place & Environment, vol 1, no 2, pp223–242.
Lynn,W. S. (2002) ‘Canis lupus cosmopolis:Wolves in a cosmopolitan worldview’, Worldviews:
Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, vol 6, no 3, pp300–327.
Lynn, W. S. (2006) ‘Between science and ethics: What science and the scientific method can
and cannot contribute to conservation and sustainability’, in D. M. Lavigne and S. Fink
(eds) Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Guelph, ON.
Lynn,W. S. (2007) ‘Practical ethics and human-animal relations’, in Bekoff, M. (ed) Encyclope-
dia of Human-Animal Relationships, ABC-CLIO, Inc., Greenwood Press, Westport.
Lynn, W. S. (2010) ‘Discourse and wolves: Science, society, and ethics’, Society & Animals, vol
18, no 1, pp75–92.
Lynn, W. S. (2012) Barred Owls in the Pacific Northwest: An Ethics Brief. George P. Marsh Insti-
tute, Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Lynn, W. S. (2017) ‘Ethics’, in J. Urbanik and C. Johnston (eds) Humans and Animals: A Geog-
raphy of Coexistence, ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA.
Midgley, M. (1983) Animals and Why They Matter, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Midgley, M. (1993) Can’t We Make Moral Judgements?, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Millstein, R. L. (2018) ‘Debunking myths about Aldo Leopold’s land ethic’, Biological Con­
servation, vol 217, pp391–396.
NASS, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2011) ‘Cattle Death Loss’, Released May 12, 2011,
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf
Nelson, M. P., and Vucetich, J. A. (2012) ‘Environmental ethics and wildlife management’, in
D. D. Decker, S. J. Riley and W. F. Siemer (eds) Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management,
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Nelson, M. P.,Vucetich, J. A., Paquet, P. C., and Bump, J. K. (2011) ‘An inadequate construct?
North American model: What’s flawed, what’s missing, what’s needed’, The Wildlife Profes-
sional, vol 5, pp58–60.
Peterson, A. L. (2013) Being Animal: Beasts and Boundaries in Nature Ethics, Columbia Univer-
sity Press, New York.
Regan, T. (1987) ‘The case for animal rights’, in Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87,
Springer, Netherlands.
Service, USFW (1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf, Service, U. S. F. W., Twin Cit-
ies, MN.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., and Mccoy, E. D. (1994) ‘How the tail wags the dog: How value
judgments determine ecological science’, Environmental Values, vol 3, no 2, pp107–120.
Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation, Avon, New York.
Singer, P. (1993) Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Storm, D., Walrath, R., Norton, A., Peterson, B., Watt, M., Van Deelen, T., Martin, K., and
Rolley, R. 2015. Wisconsin Deer Research Studies: Annual Report, 2013–2014. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
 Inappropriate considerations of animal interests 251
Taylor, P. W. (2003) ‘The ethics of respect for nature’, Environmentalism: Critical Concepts, vol
1, no 3, p61.
Toulmin, S. E. (1950) An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge University
VetBooks.ir

Press, Cambridge.
Treves, A. (2009) ‘Hunting for large carnivore conservation’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 46,
no 6, pp1350–1356.
Treves, A., Chapron, G., López-Bao, J.V., Shoemaker, C., Goeckner, A. R., and Bruskotter, J.T.
(2015) ‘Predators and the public trust’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, no 1, pp248–270.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., and Mcmanus, J. (2016) ‘Predator control should not be a shot in the
dark’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 14, no 7, pp380–388.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., and Shelley, V. (2013) ‘Longitudinal analysis of attitudes
toward wolves’, Conservation Biology, vol 27, no 2, pp315–323.
United States (1973) ‘Endangered Species Act’, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (2013) ‘Supplement to the Environmental Assessment:
Management of Wolf Conflicts and Depredating Wolves in Wisconsin’, Released Febru-
ary 2013, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/2013_WI_Wolf_EA_Sup
plement_Final.pdf
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (2009) ‘WS Directive 1.201, Mission and Philosophy of
the WS Program’, Released July 20, 2009, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/
directives/1.201_mission_and_philosphy.pdf
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (2010) ‘WS Directive 1.301, Code of Ethics’, Released
August 31, 2010, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/directives/1.301_code_
of_ethics.pdf
USFWS (1998) ‘022 FW 1, Creation, Authority and Functions’, Released March 6, 1998,
https://www.fws.gov/policy/022fw1.html
Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., and Nelson, M. P. (2015) ‘Evaluating whether nature’s intrin-
sic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 2,
pp321–332.
Vucetich, J., and Nelson, M. P. (2014) ‘Wolf hunting and the ethics of predator control’, in L.
Kalof (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wallach, A. D., Bekoff, M., Nelson, M. P., and Ramp, D. (2015) ‘Promoting predators and
compassionate conservation’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 5, pp1481–1484.
Weston, A. (2006) A Practical Companion to Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wiedenhoeft, J. E., Macfarland, D., Libal, N. S., and Bruner, J. (2016) Wisconsin Gray Wolf
Monitoring Report, 15 April 2015 Through 14 April 2016, Resources, W. D. O. N., Madison.
Willging, R. C., and Wydeven, A. P. (1997) ‘Cooperative wolf depredation management in
Wisconsin’, in C. D. Lee and S. E. Hygnstrom (eds) Thirteenth Great Plains Wildlife Damage
Control Workshop Proceedings, Kansas State UniversityAgricultural Experiment Station and
Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln, NE.
Wisconsin State Legislature ‘WI Statutes Chapter NR 1 - Natural Resources Board Policies’,
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/001/1
Wisconsin State Legislature ‘WI Statutes Chapter 29,Wild Animals and Plants’, https://docs.
legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29
Wisconsin State Legislature ‘WI Statutes Ch 951, Crime Against Animals’, https://docs.legis.
wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/951/Title
Wisconsin v Kuenzi (2011) WI APP 30 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin)
Wydeven, A. P., Wiedenhoeft, J. E., Schultz, R. N., Thiel, R. P., Jurewicz, R. L., Kohn, B. E.,
and Van Deelen, T. R. (2009) ‘History, population growth, and management of wolves in
Wisconsin’, in A. P. Wydeven, T. R.Van Deelan and E. Heske (eds) Recovery of Gray Wolves
in the Great Lakes Region of the United States, Springer, New York.
 13 Science, society, and
snow leopards
VetBooks.ir

Bridging the divides through

collaborations and best
practice convergence
Charudutt Mishra, Justine Shanti Alexander,
Yash Veer Bhatnagar, Örjan Johansson, Koustubh
Sharma, Kulbhushansingh R. Suryawanshi,
Muhammad Ali Nawaz, and Gustaf Samelius

Introduction
The existence of multiple societal priorities, often competing against each
other, represents a major challenge to nature conservation and large carni-
vore management. Competing priorities have led to gaps and divides that
continue to widen, and manifest in various forms of ideological and land
use conflicts and power struggles. At the most fundamental level, economic
development and nature conservation are often in direct conflict with each
other. Large scale economic development today comes at significant costs of
environmental degradation and fragmentation of habitats. Our role as con-
servationists often requires opposing development-related projects that are
seen by many other sections of the society as being critical for economic
growth or poverty alleviation, and we rarely engage with the industry except
for accessing funds from corporate foundations. While we recognize the
critical need for governmental support for conservation, we often find our-
selves in conflict with governments as well, as the pressures and priorities of
economic development in the government order often trump the concerns
for conservation. This problem is intensified by the poor recognition and
lack of financial accounting of the value of ecosystem services that wild or
semi-wild landscapes provide to humanity, alongside their providing the last
refuges for large carnivores.
Similarly, conservation conflicts arise because nature, while providing
immense and varied benefits and services (e.g., Murali et al., 2017a), also comes
with disservices such as wildlife causing damage to human life and property,
and potential competition between wildlife and humans for natural resources.
These can lead to a divide between conservation objectives on the one hand
and livelihoods and security of local people on the other. Large carnivores,
where they persist, kill livestock, and are a threat to livelihoods and even human
 Science, society, and snow leopards 253
life (Madhusudan and Mishra, 2003). This often leads to conflicts between the
need for conservation and peoples’ legitimate desires to secure their livelihoods
and safety.
VetBooks.ir

A large gap similarly exists between conservation science and practice. This
is a problem that has been recognized for a while (Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999),
but not much has improved over the years (Arlettaz et al., 2010). Despite a
continuous increase in the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications in
conservation science, the use of this knowledge in on-the-ground conserva-
tion has been rare (Sutherland et al., 2004). Insufficient access and ability to
use research-based knowledge due to funding constraints and language bar-
riers have been significant limitations for conservation practitioners in many
countries (Arlettaz et al., 2010). Use of already limited conservation funding
to access conservation research articles that are locked behind expensive pay-
walls is seldom justified. Although there is a growing trend in the use of open
access journals to publish conservation research, progress on this has been far
from adequate. Use of this option is also limited by the ability of conservation
scientists to pay the journals to publish their findings as open access. Websites
promoting evidence-based conservation have tried to bridge this gap by mak-
ing scientific knowledge available to practitioners for free and in a language of
their preference. However, such websites are few and limited in their ability
to translate the large body of scientific literature being generated (Sutherland
et al., 2004).
The lack of political support for evidence-based conservation is further an
important reason for the gap between conservation science and practice (Jacob-
son and Duff, 1998). Even when all these barriers are overcome, on-the-ground
involvement of the scientific community is hampered by an academic system
that rewards scientific publications and not conservation impact (Lach et al.,
2003; Arlettaz et al., 2010). Professional priorities of researchers therefore often
focus on publication outcomes rather than conservation outcomes. This also
means that research that is produced is focused on high academic impact pub-
lications, which need not necessarily imply high conservation value. Thus, the
research information being generated is often biased towards issues that are
marginal to conservation (McNie, 2007).
In this chapter, we underscore the challenges posed by these widening gaps
between conservation needs, approaches and scientific pursuits. With the snow
leopard (Panthera uncia) as our flagship and focal taxon, we suggest that these
major gaps within society must be bridged for large carnivores and their habi-
tats to be conserved effectively.We describe our efforts – started nearly 20 years
ago but in many ways still nascent – to bridge these divides. We suggest that as
scientists, we will achieve little in conservation, which is increasingly a political
and socio-economic pursuit. However, we are hopeful that if scientists can step
out and engage respectfully with other sections of the society and the govern-
ment, together we still have a chance to secure the future of the planet’s surviv-
ing large carnivores and their habitats.
 254  Charudutt Mishra et al.
The vexing problem of large carnivore conservation
Efforts to conserve large carnivores and associated biodiversity often suffer from
VetBooks.ir

major gaps between theory and practice. Many carnivore species today face a
serious risk of extinction; of the 31 large carnivore species, 77% are thought to
be declining, and 61% are listed as threatened (vulnerable, endangered, or criti-
cally endangered) in the IUCN’s Red List (Ripple et al., 2014). Species such as
the tiger (Panthera tigris) have faced widespread killing and vast tracts of habitat
have been lost (tigers have seen a reduction of 90% of their original range;
Dinerstein et al., 2007), they face continued threats and are victims of conflict
in the regions where they still survive.
Many large carnivore species are specialized for ungulate predation and read-
ily kill domesticated ungulates when opportunities arise (Treves and Karanth,
2003). Diverse livestock are affected, including cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and
yak, depending on the location and predators present (Karanth, 2002; Mishra
et al., 2016). In many areas where large carnivores and livestock still occur
together, uptake by carnivores is thought to be increasing due to increase in
livestock populations, reduction in wild ungulate populations, inadequate live-
stock management practices, and, sometimes, even an increase in wild ungulate
populations that lead to higher carnivore populations (Meriggi et al., 1996;
Mishra, 1997;Treves and Karanth, 2003; Suryawanshi et al., 2017). Because live-
stock can represent a major source of livelihood for many communities in
the affected areas (Mishra et al., 2016), large carnivores pose a direct threat to
human activities and interests (Treves and Karanth, 2003). Large carnivores are
also potentially dangerous to humans themselves.
This has meant, historically, that lethal control has been a common approach
to managing the problems of livestock depredation, competition for game
animals, and threat to human life (Woodroffe et al., 2005). Large carnivores
have therefore been victims of exterminations and continued persecution
(Woodroffe et al., 2005). Some have also been assigned with special meanings
of power and danger, which has led to a demand for their body parts in cloth-
ing or traditional medicines and ceremonies, which, in turn, leads to poaching
being a major threat for species such as the tiger (Sharma et al., 2014). The
illicit demand for products such as bone and pelt add to the pressure of poach-
ing (Graham-Rowe, 2011). The modern carnivore conservation paradigm has
come to be dominated by a separationist or land sparing approach that aims
at segregation of carnivores and people through emphases on protected areas,
human relocations, fences, and armed guards, while the alternate coexistence
model has rarely been given appropriate consideration (Chapron et al., 2014).
Yet, research widely shows and ecologists widely agree that large carnivores
have relatively large spatial needs and often occur at very low densities, which
makes the land sparing approach particularly challenging (Gittleman, 2001;
Chapron et al., 2014). The average sized protected area in Asia, for example,
is often too small to conserve even small populations of large carnivores (Fig-
ure 13.1). Meaningful conservation therefore must look beyond the separationist
 Science, society, and snow leopards 255

35
VetBooks.ir

30

25
n protected areas

20

15

10

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 >10000

Area (km^2)

Figure 13.1 The size distribution of all protected areas within the snow leopard range in Asia
shows how small the protected areas are in relation to the space needs of the
species. Vertical hashed lines from left to right show the mean home range size
for adult males (— — —) and the habitat area required, on average, by 15 adult
females (– – –) with no overlap between neighbours; both estimated using 95%
Local Convex Hulls. The third vertical line shows the area required by 15 adult
females (- - -) based on 95% Convex Polygons with overlap between neighbours
(see Johansson et al., 2016).

model of trying to segregate large carnivores and humans (e.g., Packer et al.,
2013). It requires exploring ways of promoting coexistence by creating condi-
tions that increase ecological and social carrying capacities for carnivores across
large, multiple-use-landscapes extending well beyond protected area bounda-
ries, or, as we note later, making the idea of protected areas more nuanced.
Many large carnivores can persist even in high human densities when the man-
agement regimes are more favourable (Linnell et al., 2001).
The land sharing conservation paradigm aims at multiple-use landscapes
with conservation taking place alongside human activities, while land sparing
aims at separating conservation and human activities, mainly through protected
areas (Crespin and Garcia-Villalta, 2014). Both land sharing and land sparing
paradigms face great challenges for large carnivore conservation due to the
predatory nature of carnivores and their extensive spatial needs (Linnell et al.,
 256  Charudutt Mishra et al.
2001). For example, land sharing almost inevitably takes place along with con-
flicts over livestock killing, threat to human life, and competition for game
animals. On the other hand, land sparing is increasingly difficult given the large
VetBooks.ir

spatial needs of large carnivores and the human pressures on the land, and usu-
ally comes at a substantial cost on local people, their societies, cultures, and
livelihoods (Linnell et al., 2001).

What is possible
Achieving sustainable large carnivore conservation across vast multiple-use
landscapes is possible, as exemplified by the recovery of large carnivore popula-
tions in substantial parts of Europe. The European continent currently hosts
twice as many wolves (Canis lupus) (more than 11,000) as the United States
despite being half the size (4.3 million km2 versus 8 million km2) and more than
twice as densely populated (97 inhabitants/km2 versus 40 inhabitants/km2).
Significant populations of large carnivores including the wolf and brown
bear (Ursus arctos) occur largely outside protected areas in Europe, a develop-
ment that has been enabled by supportive public opinion, legislation and law
enforcement, political and economic stability, human migration from rural areas
to urban centres and the associated abandonment of agricultural land, compen-
sation programs, and maintenance and revival of traditional livestock protection
measures (e.g., livestock guarding dogs, night corrals, and shepherds), as well as
investments in newer techniques (e.g., electric fences) (Chapron et al., 2014).
Land sharing and coexistence between large carnivores and people is, how-
ever, particularly challenging in low income economies where the human
communities involved often represent the relatively poor sections of the society
(Mishra et al., 2003). Economic losses caused by carnivores are hard to tolerate
or mitigate, and poaching can represent a means to control the predator popu-
lation as well as be an additional source of income.
In large parts of Asia and Africa, protected areas have been established at
a huge economic and social cost to local people who have lost traditional
access to natural resources and places of religious or cultural importance,
societies have been fragmented due to relocations, and people have been
progressively disempowered and marginalized (MacKay and Caruso, 2004;
Mishra, 2016). Conservation in the face of poverty is therefore largely viewed
as a pursuit of the privileged (Mishra, 2016). We therefore strongly believe
that in the high mountains of South and Central Asia, where snow leopards
occur alongside livestock-based economies, enabling tolerance and land shar-
ing between people and large carnivores is essential for carnivore conserva-
tion, rather than trying to conserve the carnivores at the cost of alienating
people and causing social injustices. We believe that carnivore conservation
can be achieved through sustainable economic development of local people
and an inclusive conservation approach based on community participation
and empowerment.
 Science, society, and snow leopards 257
Snow leopard conservation with local communities
The Snow Leopard Trust and our partners pioneered and have remained
VetBooks.ir

involved in community-based efforts to conserve snow leopards and their habi-

tats for more than 20 years now, with conservation programs with local com-
munities in five of the most important snow leopard range countries: China,
Mongolia, India, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan, which together cover over three-
fourths of the global snow leopard range.
Like other large carnivores, snow leopards kill livestock. This is particularly
of concern as livestock rearing is one of the predominant forms of livelihoods
across the snow leopard’s range (Mishra et al., 2003). The species is a common
victim of retaliatory killing, and such local persecution also forms linkages with
illegal trade in snow leopard body parts. We have worked with local com-
munities to build long-term partnerships to improve social and biodiversity
outcomes, and to facilitate coexistence of people and snow leopards. Our work
with communities is typically long-term (some of our community partnerships
are nearly two decades old) and includes initiatives for enhancing conservation
and livelihood opportunities (e.g., handicrafts, sustainable cashmere produc-
tion practices), as well as collaboratively setting up and co-managing wildlife
reserves on community land. We also set up conflict management programs
such as collaborative corral improvement (predator-proofing), community-
managed livestock insurance schemes, and creating greater conservation aware-
ness (see Mishra, 2016). Our ongoing efforts with nearly 150 communities in
snow leopard habitats of five countries are helping protect the species over an
estimated 110,700 km2 of community land (Mishra et al., 2017). Our work has
also included joining forces with local communities to persuade the govern-
ment to create a large (c. 7,500 km2) state nature reserve in Mongolia’s South
Gobi, where mining threatened to destroy important snow leopard habitats
(Mishra, 2016). Today, the Tost Nature Reserve is being managed by an alliance
of local people, conservationists, and the government. Further, we have assisted
the Indian government to formulate a landscape-level, participatory national
strategy for snow leopard conservation, and have also assisted in management
planning and implementation in snow leopard landscapes of India, Pakistan,
Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan (e.g., USL, 2011; Bhatnagar and Mishra, 2014).
While considerable literature has emerged on ‘community-based natural
resource management’, especially from Africa, there has been little available for
practitioners in the form of principles or guidelines for community-based con-
servation (Mishra et al., 2017). We have therefore formalized our approach to
community-based conservation into a set of eight principles described by the
acronym PARTNERS (Figure 13.2).The principles underscore the importance
of relationship and trust-building with communities through the sustained and
long-term  Presence of conservationists amidst the local community; the Apt-
ness  of community-based interventions with respect to addressing the main
threats to biodiversity, the underlying science, the local culture, socio-economics,
the available or potential social capital, and the value of multi-faceted programs;
 258  Charudutt Mishra et al.
VetBooks.ir

Figure 13.2 Principles for effective and ethical community-based conservation, developed

from 20 years of working with local communities in Asia’s mountains to enhance
coexistence with snow leopards (Panthera uncia) (Mishra, 2016).

a relationship that views the community with dignity and Respect, and interac-
tions based on beneficence and non-maleficence; high Transparency in interac-
tions with local communities with open communication regarding each other’s
interests, and visible equitability in program benefits to community members;
integrative Negotiations with local communities and interventions based on for-
mal agreements and conservation linkages; the ability to view problems, con-
straints and opportunities from the community’s perspective with a high level
of Empathy; the ability to adaptively improve the programs and address emerg-
ing problems and opportunities with a high level of Responsiveness and creativ-
ity; and Strategic support to increase the resilience and reach of community-based
conservation efforts through partnerships with governments in management
planning and implementation, and policy and legal support.
 Science, society, and snow leopards 259
These PARTNERS Principles have emerged from our field experiences and
research, but have also been informed by ideas developed in fields of ecol-
ogy, conservation and natural resource management, community health, social
VetBooks.ir

psychology, rural development, negotiation theory, and ethics (Mishra, 2016).

Through a collaboration with social scientists, a training program has been
founded on this approach and close to 100 conservationists have been trained
so far in community-based conservation of not just snow leopards, but also
large carnivores including the tiger and leopard (Panthera pardus).
The PARTNERS Principles approach has been effective in helping us cre-
ate strong and long-term conservation partnerships with local communities
across cultures (Mishra et al., 2017). Our interventions founded on these prin-
ciples have been effective in getting people involved in snow leopard conser-
vation, and in addressing especially the traditional threats such as poaching
and retaliatory killing. Yet, today, there are other intensifying and emerging
threats to snow leopards and their habitats that cannot be addressed adequately
by local communities and conservationists, however strong their partnerships
may be.

Landscape level efforts

With average home range size ranging from more than 124 km2 for females and
more than 200 km2 for males (Johansson et al., 2016), snow leopard is a land-
scape species, and as mentioned earlier, most of Asia’s protected areas are too
small to support viable populations of this carnivore (Figure 13.1). Conserva-
tion of snow leopards must look beyond protected areas and focus on the larger
landscape, including community lands as well as government lands outside the
protected area network (Mishra et al., 2010; Bhatnagar and Mishra, 2014).
While on the one hand, there are huge opportunities for large carnivore
conservation in Asia’s high mountains since wildlife populations still persist
over much of the region, on the other, conservation in these large landscapes is
immensely challenging. These once remote mountainous habitats used by local
communities and wildlife face immense pressures from competing priorities:
mining, road construction and other linear intrusions, and large scale indus-
trial and infrastructure development (Snow Leopard Network, 2014). The high
mountains and snow leopard habitats are also particularly vulnerable to climate
change (Forrest et al., 2012; Li et al., 2016).
Conservation in such multiple use landscapes with competing priori-
ties requires a different paradigm. Unlike managing protected areas, such
landscape-level conservation efforts need to engage with a much greater diver-
sity of stakeholders, and transcend administrative, tenurial, land use, and, some-
times, international boundaries. For example, our stakeholder analysis in the
snow leopard landscape of Spiti Valley in India generated a list of nearly 50
different stakeholder groups including various departments of the government,
local community institutions, and the private sector that must be engaged with
for meaningful snow leopard conservation (USL, 2011).
 260  Charudutt Mishra et al.
Conservation efforts in these landscapes require finding a balance and com-
promise between the needs of economic, infrastructural, and industrial develop-
ment, and those of wildlife and biodiversity. They require promoting relatively
VetBooks.ir

less environmentally damaging green industry, and a more explicit recognition

and valuation of ecosystem services, especially those that are used by local com-
munities. To achieve snow leopard conservation at meaningful scales, therefore,
it is not enough to engage with the traditional sectors of wildlife management
and law enforcement. Engaging with local communities is critical. The other
two important groups that conservationists must engage with are the govern-
ment and the industry.

Engaging with governments

As mentioned earlier, for several years, we had been working with national gov-
ernments in some of the snow leopard range countries to assist with national-
level policies and action plans (e.g., India and Mongolia) and with relevant
provincial governments to help create and implement management plans (e.g.,
India, Pakistan, and Mongolia). These efforts have been useful and have high-
lighted the importance of engaging with multiple stakeholders. The scale of
these efforts, however, has not been enough to help address the challenges
posed by the larger forces of development and associated habitat destruction
across the snow leopard range. For example, mining started in the Tost Moun-
tains in the South Gobi province of Mongolia despite our team having worked
with local communities and the government for many years. A change in min-
ing laws towards the turn of the century in Mongolia created a very liberal
investment climate, and important wildlife habitats have since come under the
purview of mining companies. It took our Mongolia team, our partner local
communities, and the local government six years to convince the Mongolian
Parliament to elevate the protection status of Tost Mountains in 2016 to a State
Nature Reserve, which now prevents mining from expanding into snow leop-
ard habitats. This was an important lesson for us that reiterated how critical it is
to engage with national governments proactively for conservation.
In 2013, we started actively working with various partners to start a new ini-
tiative whereby we jointly aimed to raise awareness and resources for snow leop-
ards and high mountain conservation at the highest levels of the range country
governments. This effort has involved striking new and unusual alliances for us,
as we started collaborating not just with other conservation organizations or
enforcement agencies, but also with senior international bureaucrats and dip-
lomats from multilateral agencies such as the United Nations, the USAID, and
the World Bank, and with political leaders of the range countries.
The idea of this intergovernmental initiative, which has come to be known
as the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GSLEP),
was born during a chance meeting and discussions between one of us (CM)
and colleagues from Germany’s Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union
(NABU) in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, in 2011. Following this meeting, NABU
 Science, society, and snow leopards 261
brought the idea to Rosa Otunbayeva, then president of the Kyrgyz Republic.
In February 2012, the next president, Almazbek Atambayev, provided momen-
tum to the initiative by writing to the World Bank, which in turn requested the
VetBooks.ir

Snow Leopard Trust to act as the technical partner. Together with the Global
Tiger Initiative of the World Bank, we created a broad alliance of all major
international conservation organizations and UN agencies to support this ini-
tiative. One of us (CM) along with other scientists and conservationists drafted
various sections of the GSLEP document (Snow Leopard Working Secretar-
iat, 2013), while scientists and conservationists based in the range countries
(including YVB and MAN) assisted their respective governments in creating
National Snow Leopard Ecosystem Priorities (NSLEP) as part this initiative.
Each of the 12 national governments was requested to designate a senior official
as the National Focal Point (NFP) for the initiative. A core group including
the NFPs and representatives from the main conservation partners met a few
times to finalize GSLEP during 2012–2013, often along the sidelines of other
international meetings such as the Conference of Parties. On October 23, 2013,
at a forum presided over by President Atambayev, the Bishkek Declaration for
Snow Leopard Conservation was endorsed by all snow leopard range countries
(www.globalsnowleopard.org/who-we-are/bishkek-declaration/). This Decla-
ration prioritizes conservation of snow leopards and high mountain ecosystems
with great emphasis on local community welfare and involvement, stronger
protection, engagement of the industry, and multi-stakeholder participation.
October 23 was designated as the International Snow Leopard Day. A steering
committee comprising the environment ministers of the range countries was
established to review progress annually and provide direction to the program.
A Secretariat was created in Bishkek to support and coordinate the activities
of GSLEP, and is currently managed by one of us (KS) along with a team of
Kyrgyz staff and international advisors.
The GSLEP program aims to secure approximately 500,000 km2 of habitat
through community-based conservation, sustainable development and anti-
poaching efforts in more than 20 large landscapes, each capable of harbouring
at least 100 breeding snow leopards (Snow Leopard Working Secretariat, 2013).
The foundation of the GSLEP program is formed by the individual NSLEPs
developed by each range country’s government with the help of their scien-
tists and conservationists, supported by five cross-cutting global support themes
including combating poaching and illegal trade, knowledge sharing and capac-
ity enhancement, trans-boundary cooperation, addressing the conservation
challenges of large scale infrastructural development, and research and moni-
toring. At various stages, current or former ministers and senior bureaucrats,
including diplomats, have played an important role in providing support and
momentum to the initiative.
This effort has created an important and influential international conserva-
tion alliance and unprecedented interest and visibility for the issues of snow
leopard and high mountain conservation across Asia. As a result, range coun-
try governments have been demonstrating high political will to enable snow
 262  Charudutt Mishra et al.
leopard conservation and sustainable development of local communities in
snow leopard landscapes. Funds to the tune of US $50 million are already being
channelled into snow leopard conservation by the range countries and funding
VetBooks.ir

partners such as the Global Environment Facility. The last steering committee
meeting of GSLEP in Kathmandu in January 2017 was chaired by the prime
minister of Nepal. At the Snow Leopard Forum in August 2017 in Bishkek, the
participants included the president of the Kyrgyz Republic, the vice president
of Afghanistan, deputy speaker of the parliament of Uzbekistan, and ministers
and senior officials of all snow leopard range country governments. Countries
are at various stages of preparation, endorsement, and implementation of man-
agement plans under the GSLEP program for the large landscapes that have
been identified for focused conservation efforts.
Under this program, the range country governments also endorsed a new
initiative for assessing snow leopard population across the range, described by
the acronym PAWS (Population Assessment of the World’s Snow Leopards).
Currently, less than 2% of the entire estimated snow leopard habitat of Asia has
been ever sampled for snow leopard abundance using scientifically valid tech-
niques (camera trapping and genetics), with study areas being biased towards
high density populations. All available global estimates of the snow leopard
population are guesses. Yet, in what we think of as a highly ill-advised move
(Ale and Mishra, 2018), IUCN recently changed the Red List status of snow
leopards from Endangered to the lower threat category of Vulnerable, based
on a notion that there are more snow leopards in Asia’s mountains than previ-
ously believed. While categorically rejecting IUCN’s move to change the list-
ing of snow leopards through a joint statement (www.globalsnowleopard.org/
blog/2017/09/26/statement-of-concern-regarding-the-status-of-the-snow-
leopard-on-the-iucn-red-list/), range country governments have expressed the
need and support for PAWS, which will aim to arrive at a global estimate of the
snow leopard population using standardized techniques and based on stratified
random sampling of up to 20% of the snow leopard habitat.
From a situation of relative ignorance at national levels where the existence
of snow leopards was barely acknowledged, GSLEP has brought a high level
of awareness and visibility to issues surrounding snow leopard and high moun-
tain ecosystem conservation. For the first time, national political leaders of the
range countries are showing interest and support in snow leopard conservation,
and are participating and collaborating at the common platform provided by
GSLEP. The potential influence of this high-level alliance is reflected in the
new Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres issuing a video
statement recently in support of snow leopard conservation (www.youtube.
com/watch?v=sh9ecRzDyN8).
We have continued to play the role of key technical advisor to the GSLEP
program since its inception, and have supported the functioning of the Snow
Leopard Secretariat in Bishkek together with other partners such as WWF and
NABU. However, we fully recognize that as scientists and conservationists, we
could never have created such a program on our own, which has largely been
 Science, society, and snow leopards 263
an exercise in international diplomacy rather than in science, though backed by
key pieces of information on snow leopard and prey ecology, threats and tested
conservation models.While the on-the-ground results of this new conservation
VetBooks.ir

effort are still to be seen, this experience has shown us how much can be poten-
tially achieved for large carnivore conservation through broad-minded partner-
ships with various sectors. The GSLEP Program is also helping conservationists
to start engaging with the industry – the main agent of economic growth, and
the main vehicle, if not the cause, of biodiversity loss (Mishra, 2016).

Engaging with the industry

Asia supports 55% of the world’s human population, and approximately two-
thirds of the world’s poor (Asian Development Bank, 2014). There is high gov-
ernment emphasis on development and poverty eradication currently across
Asia and in the snow leopard range countries that include some of the largest
regional and even global economies such as China and India. Snow leopard
habitats across Asia are increasingly being impacted by intensified emphasis on
mining, road and rail construction, and consequent opening up of remote habi-
tats, construction of dams, greater military infrastructure, and general indus-
trial growth and investment (Snow Leopard Network, 2014). Climate change
and increased frequency of natural disasters in Asian mountains due to habi-
tat destruction and infrastructure construction (e.g., Kala, 2014) are making it
essential that ecologically sensitive development alternatives and industries are
considered for these landscapes urgently.
At the recent Snow Leopard Forum in Bishkek, apart from conservation-
ists, industry leaders from sectors such as construction and infrastructure came
together to discuss the possibilities of less damaging infrastructure designs, and
investments into relatively green industrial development in snow leopard land-
scapes that could also assist with sustainable development of local communities.
The initiation of this dialogue represents the first positive step to be under-
taken towards the involvement of business and industry constructively in the
conservation of snow leopards, though there is a long way to go. Interest has
been expressed in setting up national level wildlife business councils within the
existing national associations of commerce and industry. Such business councils
could be expected to provide a mechanism to share conservation concerns
within the private sector, a platform to facilitate green investments in high
mountain landscapes, and to provide directions for conservation investments by
the industry through their corporate social responsibility programs.
At a more local scale, we have initiated a new program to bring together
the industry and the farmers in promoting sustainable livestock grazing in
snow leopard habitats. This program, called Snow Leopard Friendly Cashmere,
addresses the challenge of intensifying and unsustainable goat grazing pressures
on snow leopard habitats due to the global demand for cashmere, which is a
high value fibre (Berger et al., 2013). The program, being piloted in Ladakh,
strengthens the ecological and cultural sustainability of cashmere production.
 264  Charudutt Mishra et al.
We assist farmers in adopting various predator-friendly and sustainable grazing
practices that include, amongst others, rotational grazing, setting aside part of
the grazing land for recovery of rangelands and wild prey populations, col-
VetBooks.ir

laborative corral improvement, and community-based livestock insurance pro-

grams. They commit to protection of carnivores and their prey, and to follow
their traditional festal calendars, paying special attention to reviving livestock-
related ceremonies and events. The farmers are able to earn a modest premium
amount, while we expect the industry to be able to create a niche market for
the sustainably grown cashmere.
Through our research on ecosystem services, we also hope, over time, to
create greater awareness of the contribution of nature to economic security
and development. Our recent studies show that the estimated economic value
of ecosystem services going into the production of 1 kg of cashmere in South
Gobi of Mongolia was at least 18 times the average price that the farmer earned
per kilogram (Murali et al., 2017b). More specifically, the estimated economic
value of fodder and water that farmers derived from snow leopard habitats to
produce 1 kg of cashmere was US $704, compared to US $39 that they earned
per kilogram of cashmere. Elsewhere, we have also found a high level of eco-
nomic dependence of local communities on ecosystem services that involve
subsistence goods that they depend on (those that are not sold) and not related
directly to their livelihoods. In the Spiti Valley of the Indian Himalayas, the
economic value of subsistence goods people derived from the ecosystem was
estimated to be 2.8 times higher than those directly contributing to their liveli-
hood (Murali et al., 2017a). We believe that the general lack of such quantita-
tive knowledge and recognition of the value of ecosystem services used by
local people is one of the factors that often swings land use decisions against
relatively sustainable practices such as livestock grazing in favour of damaging
ones such as mining.

Concluding thoughts
In this chapter, we have suggested that competing societal priorities create
conflicts over large carnivore conservation, and that there is a strong need for
conservationists to work with competing sectors and stakeholders in order to
conserve the world’s large carnivores and wild spaces, while ensuring the wel-
fare of local people and their sustainable economic development.
Efforts to promote coexistence between humans and snow leopards, as
indeed other carnivores, require an effective combination of ecological and
social-science research, increasing conservation capacity, promoting conserva-
tion awareness, involving local communities in conservation and conflict man-
agement programs, and strategic engagement with governments to facilitate
policies that promote knowledge sharing and community-based conserva-
tion. It requires enabling sustainable development in snow leopard landscapes
through partnerships with the industry. These can only come through effective
multi-stakeholder collaborations.
 Science, society, and snow leopards 265
We have discussed the inadequacy of Asia’s protected areas in being able to
conserve landscape species such as the snow leopard. From a policy perspective,
we suggest that the management paradigm of protected areas must be debated
VetBooks.ir

and made more nuanced. Protected areas currently cover at least 14% of the
earth’s land and inland water areas (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014), and the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity aims to increase this to 17% by 2020 (Target 11
under the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.
shtml). It is important to recognize that the establishment of protected areas
in large parts of the world has imposed immeasurable social and cultural injus-
tices on local communities, in addition to curtailing their traditional access to
natural resources (MacKay and Caruso, 2004; West et al., 2006; Mishra, 2016).
In the context of local community dependence on ecosystem services, there-
fore, we need to ask what must a protected area protect from. From every-
thing except tourism and recreation for the elite that the current protected area
model encourages and facilitates? Based on our experience mentioned earlier
in the Tost Mountains of Mongolia, where the local communities are now co-
managing the newly created state nature reserve, we suggest that protected areas
must be focused on affording legal protection to lands and ecosystems from
ecologically damaging land uses and industries. At the same time, they must stop
marginalizing and criminalizing local communities as has been historically the
case in large parts of the world (West et al., 2006; Mishra, 2016). If the idea of
protected areas can provide more space and tolerance for less damaging, rela-
tively sustainable activities and livelihoods of local people who are dependent
on ecosystem services, and can involve them in protected area management, we
may even have a chance to expand the planet’s terrestrial protected area coverage
considerably, well beyond the 17% that the Aichi Biodiversity Targets aim for.
Whether or not such multi-stakeholder, landscape level grassroots to govern-
ment and industry level efforts as our own described in this chapter will succeed
or not remains to be seen. However, it is clear that effective and ethical large car-
nivore conservation in the future will require multi-disciplinary knowledge, and
collaborations and respectful negotiations among affected communities, conserva-
tion practitioners, political representatives, public administrators, and the industry.

Acknowledgement
We are thankful to the Whitley Fund for Nature and the Acacia Conservation
Fund for supporting many of our research and conservation programs.

References
Ale, S. B., and Mishra, C. (2018) ‘The snow leopard’s questionable comeback’, Science vol
359, p1110.
Arlettaz, R., Schaub, M., Fournier, J., Reichlin,T. S., Sierro, A.,Watson, J. E., and Braunisch,V.
(2010) ‘From publications to public actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap
between research and implementation’, BioScience, vol 60, pp835–842.
 266  Charudutt Mishra et al.
Asian Development Bank (2014) Poverty in Asia: A Deeper Look, Asian Development Bank,
Philippines.
Berger, J., Buuveibaatar, B., and Mishra, C. (2013) ‘Globalization of the cashmere market and
VetBooks.ir

the decline of large mammals in Central Asia’, Conservation Biology, vol 27, pp679–689.
Bhatnagar, Y. V., and Mishra, C. (2014) ‘Conserving without fences: Project snow leopard’,
in M. Rangarajan, M. D. Madhusudhan and G. Shahabuddin (eds) Nature Without Borders
(pp. 157–177), Orient Blackswan, New Delhi.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-
Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., et al. (2014) ‘Recovery
of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346,
pp1517–1519.
Crespin, S. J., and Garcia-Villalta, J. E. (2014) Integration of land-sharing and land-sparing
conservation strategies through regional networking: The Mesoamerican Biological Cor-
ridor as a lifeline for carnivores in El Salvador. Ambio, vol 43, pp820–824.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J.,
Forrest, J., Bryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., and Leimgruber, P. (2007) ‘The fate of
wild tigers’, AIBS Bulletin, vol 57, pp508–514.
Forrest, J. L., Wikramanayake, E., Shrestha, R., Areendran, G., Gyeltshen, K., Maheshwari, A.,
Mazumdar, S., Naidoo, R., Thapa, G. J., and Thapa, K. (2012) ‘Conservation and climate
change: Assessing the vulnerability of snow leopard habitat to treeline shift in the Hima-
laya’, Biolgical Conservation, vol 150, pp129–135.
Gittleman, J. L. (2001) Carnivore Conservation,Vol. 5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Graham-Rowe, D. (2011) ‘Biodiversity: Endangered and in demand’, Nature, vol 480, no
7378, ppS101–S103.
Jacobson, S. K., and Duff, M. D. (1998) ‘Training idiot savants:The lack of human dimensions
in conservation biology’, Conservation Biology, vol 12, no 2, pp263–267.
Johansson, Ö., Rauset, G. R., Samelius, G., McCarthy, T., Andrén, H., Tumursukh, L., and
Mishra, C. (2016) ‘Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation’, Biological Con-
servation, vol 203, pp1–7.
Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N. D., Bingham, H., Belle, E. M. S., de Lima, M. G., Deguignet,
M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A. N., Martinez-Lopez, J., Lewis, E., Eassom, A., Wicander, S.,
Geldmann, J., van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A. P., O’Connor, B., Park, S., Shi,Y. N., Danks, F.
S., MacSharry, B., and Kingston, N. (2014) Protected Planet Report 2014, UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge.
Kala, C. P. (2014) ‘Deluge, disaster and development in Uttarakhand Himalayan region of
India: Challenges and lessons for disaster management’, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, vol 8, pp143–152.
Karanth, K. U. (2002) ‘Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in southern Asia’, In Making Parks
Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., and Shindler, B. (2003) ‘Advocacy and credibility of ecological sci-
entists in resource decision making: A regional study’, BioScience, vol 53, no 2, pp170–178.
Li, J., McCarthy, T. M., Wang, H., Weckworth, B. V., Schaller, G. B., Mishra, C., Lu, Z., and
Beissinger, S. R. (2016) ‘Climate refugia of snow leopards in High Asia’, Biological Conser-
vation, vol 203, pp188–196.
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J.E., Andersen, R. (2001) ‘Predators and people : Conservation of
large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable’,
Animal Conservation, vol 4, pp345–349.
MacKay, F., and Caruso, E. (2004) ‘Indigenous lands or national parks?’, Cultural Survival
Quarterly, vol 28, no 1, p14.
 Science, society, and snow leopards 267
Madhusudan, M. D., and Mishra, C. (2003) ‘Why big, fierce animals are threatened: Conserv-
ing large mammals in densely populated landscapes’, in V. K. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan
(eds) Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics of Wildlife Conservation (pp. 31–55), Perma-
VetBooks.ir

nent Black, Delhi.

McNie, E. C. (2007) ‘Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands:
An analysis of the problem and review of the literature’, Environmental Science and Policy,
vol 10, no 1), pp17–38.
Meriggi, A., Brangi, A., Matteucci, C., and Sacchi, O. (1996) ‘The feeding habits of wolves
in relation to large prey availability in northern Italy’, Ecography, vol 19, no 3, pp287–295.
Mishra, C. (1997) ‘Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian trans-Himalaya:
Conflict perceptions and conservation prospects’, Environmental Conservation, vol 24,
pp338–343.
Mishra, C. (2016) The PARTNERS Principles for Community-Based Conservation, Snow Leop-
ard Trust, Seattle. 180 pp. ISBN: 978-0-9773753-1-8; ISBN: 978-0-9973753-0-1 (e-book).
Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T., Madhusudan, M. D., Bayarjargal, A., and Prins, H. H. T.
(2003) ‘The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard’, Conservation Biol-
ogy, vol 17, no 6, pp1512–1520.
Mishra, C., Bagchi, S., Namgail, T., and Bhatnagar, Y. V. (2010) ‘Multiple use of Trans-
Himalayan rangelands: Reconciling human livelihoods with wildlife conservation’, in
J. Du Toit, R. Kock and J. Deutsch (eds) Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While Main-
taining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems (1st ed.), Blackwell Publishing, West Sussex.
Mishra, C., Redpath, S. R., and Suryawanshi, K. S. (2016) ‘Livestock predation by snow
leopards: Conflicts and the search for solutions’, in T. McCarthy and D. Mallon (eds) Snow
Leopards of the World (pp. 59–67), London, Elsevier.
Mishra, C., Young, J. C., Fiechter, M., Rutherford, B., and Redpath, S. M. (2017) ‘Building
partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: Lessons from Asian moun-
tains’, Journal of Applied Ecology vol 54, pp1583–1591.
Murali, R., Lkhagvajav, P., Saeed, U., Kizi,V. A., Zhumbai-Uulu, K., Nawaz, M. A., Bhatnagar,
Y. V., Sharma, K., and Mishra, C. (2017b) Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Snow Leopard
Landscapes of Asia. Snow Leopard Trust, Nature Conservation Foundation, Snow Leop-
ard Conservation Foundation, Snow Leopard Foundation Kyrgyzstan, and Snow Leopard
Foundation Pakistan. Report Submitted to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) project on Transboundary Cooperation
for Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Conservation.
Murali, R., Redpath, S. R., and Mishra, C. (2017a) ‘The value of ecosystem services in the
high altitude spiti valley, Indian trans-himalaya’, Ecosystem Services, vol 28, pp115–123.
Packer, C., Loveridge, A., Canney, S., Caro,T., Garnett, S.T., Pfeifer, M., Zander, K. K., Swan-
son, A., Macnulty, D., Balme, G., and Bauer, H. (2013) ‘Conserving large carnivores: Dol-
lars and fence’, Ecology Letters, vol 16, no 5, pp635–641.
Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R. I. (1999) ‘Knowing “what” to do is not enough:Turning knowledge
into action’, California Management Review, vol 42, no 1, pp83–108.
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., et al. (2014) ‘Status and
ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores’, Science vol 343, 1241484.
Sharma, K., Bayrakcismith, R., Tumursukh, L., Johansson, O., Sevger, P., et al. (2014) ‘Vigor-
ous dynamics underlie a stable population of the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia
in Tost Mountains, South Gobi, Mongolia’, PLoS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0101319.
Snow Leopard Network (2014) Snow Leopard Survival Strategy, 1 Snow Leopard Network,
www.snowleopardsurvival.org.
 268  Charudutt Mishra et al.
Snow Leopard Working Secretariat (2013) Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Pro-
gram, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic.
Suryawanshi, K. R., Redpath, S. M., Bhatnagar, Y. V., Ramakrishnan, U., Chaturvedi, V.,
VetBooks.ir

Smout, S. C., and Mishra, C. (2017) ‘Impact of wild prey availability on livestock predation
by snow leopards’, Royal Society Open Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170026.
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., and Knight, T. M. (2004) ‘The need for
evidence-based conservation’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol 19, no 6, pp305–308.
Treves, A., and Karanth, K. U. (2003) Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carni-
vore management worldwide’, Conservation Biology, vol 17, pp1491–1499.
USL (2011) Management plan for Upper Spiti Landscape including the Kibber Wildlife Sanctu-
ary, Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, Shimla and Nature Conservation Foundation,
Mysore, India.
West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2006) Parks and peoples: The social impact of pro-
tected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol 35, pp251–277.
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (2005) People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-
Existence? (No. 9), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 14 Between politics and
management
VetBooks.ir

Governing large carnivores

in Fennoscandia
Camilla Sandström, Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist,
Jani Pellikka, Juha Hiedanpää, Olve Krange, and
Ketil Skogen

Introduction
The governance and management of complex conflicts over the presence of
large carnivores at national, regional, or local level often comes into opposition
with concerns for saving threatened species (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015;
Redpath et al., 2017). Environmental collaborative governance or decentrali-
zation are increasingly promoted as useful means to manage conflicting goals,
balancing different interests, and reconciling local concerns without compro-
mising wildlife population viability (Council of Europe, 1979; UNEP, 1992;
UNCED, 1992; UNECE, 1998; Sabatier et al., 2005; Newig et al., 2009; Emer-
son et al., 2012; Lange et al., 2013; Decker et al., 2016; Redpath et al., 2017).
The three countries in Fennoscandia – Finland, Norway, and Sweden – are no
exception to this development. In all three countries, new approaches to large
carnivore governance and management have emerged since 2000, each includ-
ing some elements of collaborative governance or decentralization of authority
(Sandström et al., 2009; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
The approaches can be seen as a response to policy changes made in the
1960s and 1970s, when the three countries, after centuries of government-
sponsored persecution of large carnivores, decided to protect the bear (Ursus
arctos), the lynx, (Lynx lynx), the wolf (Canis lupus), and the wolverine (Gulu
gulo) and thereby ending the bounty-based system that had been the norm
since the 1600 (Pohja-Mykrä et al., 2005; Eriksson, 2017). The policy changes,
which have strong support among the public in the three countries, have
had a rather profound effect on the population numbers of the different spe-
cies, although with a certain time lag of 20–30 years (Ratamäki, 2008 Dres-
sel et al., 2015; Krange et al., 2017; Mykrä et al., 2017). However, partly due
to the existence of varying ecocentric to anthropocentric values among the
general public, different interests, and positive and negative experiences gained
from increasing large carnivore presence, human-animal conflicts, and human-
human conflicts are prevailing in the three countries (Eriksson, 2017; Krange
et al., 2017).
 270  Camilla Sandström et al.
In this chapter, we will compare the recent responses in terms of institutional
changes that have been initiated to promote large carnivore recovery amidst
human land uses. First, we will synthesize existing country-specific literature on
VetBooks.ir

policies and institutional design to advance the knowledge on the challenges,

incentives for, and constraints on attempts to mitigate these types of conflicts.
Thereafter, we will compare how different stakeholders and communities of
interest and practice perceive, conceptualize, and understand their participation
in decentralized large carnivore management. Finally, we discuss the findings of
our comparison.

Policies and institutional design

Finland
Large carnivores, and wolves in particular, have been the subject of conflict in
Finland for decades. The debate intensified after 1995, when Finland joined
the European Union and committed itself to the Habitats Directive (Euro-
pean Commission, 1992) and its conservation goals (e.g., Bisi and Kurki, 2008;
Ratamäki, 2008). As a consequence, tensions increased among some stakehold-
ers, but also in general between residents of urban and rural areas and between
ordinary citizens and authorities/researchers (Pohja-Mykrä, 2014). In light of
this development, wolf hunting became one of the core policy issues (Bisi et al.,
2010). Six years after Finland joined the European Union, the Commission ini-
tiated an infringement procedure against Finland. While the Finnish Hunting
Act (1993) was harmonized to match with the Habitat Directive, the Finnish
officials had allegedly issued too loosely derogations to the strict protection,
required by the Habitat Directive Annex IV (only Finnish Lapland belongs
to Annex V). The hunting had played a too dominant role in wolf manage-
ment. The procedure, the calling of Finland to the European Court of Justice
(ECJ) in 2005, and finally, the rendered judgement in June 2007, initiated many
adjustments to better fit the aims and methods of government, the routines of
administration, the practice of wildlife science, and the lifestyles of civil society
(Hiedanpää and Bromley, 2010; Hiedanpää, 2013). To solve this, wolf manage-
ment plans were prepared and enforced (MAF, 2005). Very similar guidelines
were soon formulated for the lynx (MAF, 2007a) and the brown bear (MAF,
2007b). However, the latter two species give reason to notably smaller societal
tension than wolves. The management plan for wolverine was published much
later (MAF, 2014).
The problems in wolf management initiated a new era in Finnish wildlife
policy. While the wolf population had increased since the beginning of the
2000s and spread to western Finland, it started to decrease few years after the
implementation of management plans, and after the ECJ found Finland guilty
of the unselective hunting of wolves. The monitoring of the population trend
indicated an increase in illegal killing of wolves – possibly as reaction to the
initial population increase and disability of killing them legally. After the ECJ
 Between politics and management 271
judgment, the administrative rules became stricter, i.e., wolf hunting licenses
were issued by the wildlife agency only regarding “problem individuals”,
defined as individual wolves causing demonstrably harm to private property. At
VetBooks.ir

that time, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) issued licenses out-
side of the hunting season, which slowed down the process. Consequently, the
Finnish Hunting Act was revised in 2008 to speed it up. It led the year-round
issuing of the wolf, lynx, and brown bear licenses being decentralized to the
regional administrative level and the regional wildlife agencies. However, the
MAF held power to decide the hunting-season-specific maximum quota for
the killing of wolves, lynx, and brown bear to ensure the sustainability of large
carnivore populations and to decide solutions to human-carnivore conflicts.
To further enforce the protection of large carnivores, the MAF also multiplied
the nominal value of illegally killed large carnivores (MAF Decree 214/2010).
A year later, a new penalty category, i.e., aggravated hunting offence, was added
in the Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889).
In parallel to the formal policy planning, there were regional attempts to
increase collaboration between stakeholders and mitigate tensions.This resulted
in the establishment of Regional Large Carnivore Committees (RLCCs), with
the first being established prior to the planning process in the Province of
North-Karelia in 1999. The initiative to set up the RLCCs came from the
members of the non-governmental and governmental bodies for the sake of
increasing the face-to-face-communication and cooperation among represent-
atives of stakeholders with conflicting interests (Sandström et al., 2009; Pellikka
and Sandström, 2011). This arrangement initiated a missed dialogue between
stakeholders and encouraged to establish similar committees, first in Kainuu in
2001, and then in Northern Savo in 2004. At the same time, some other regions
established forums that focused not only on large carnivores but also moose
and other ungulates, rabbit (metropolitan area), great cormorant, and grey seal
management. One could characterize the first decade of the 2000s as the era of
informal regional wildlife forums in Finland.
The consultative RLCCs and other forums did not have any formal tasks.
The informal role allowed them to rather freely define their specific purposes
and activities (Pellikka and Sandström, 2011). According to the representatives,
the main role of RLCCs was to exchange knowledge between stakeholders
and authorities. When inquired, nearly 70% of the respondents reported being
moderately to highly satisfied with the RLCCs’ overall activity in 2008 (Sand-
ström and Pellikka, 2008). The representatives were largely satisfied with the
internal communication, and reported that stakeholder relations were more
trustworthy. However, the opinions about the usefulness of the RLCCs and
overall satisfaction to activity varied among the stakeholders. The stakeholders
more concerned about the human interests were more positive to the RLCCs
compared with the ecocentric-minded stakeholders, such as the nature conser-
vation NGOs.
The reform of the wildlife administration in 2011 affected both the role
of the RLCCs (see next section) and the procedure of issuing wolf, lynx and
 272  Camilla Sandström et al.
brown bear hunting licenses. The issuing of the licenses was re-centralized
(back) to the national level (Wildlife and Game Administration Act 158/2011).
This adjustment made it possible to unify the specific conditions for issuing
VetBooks.ir

licenses that had varied to some extent from region to region and to still take
advantage of regional expertise (the regional officials prepare the decision).The
digitalization of the process ensured that the process remained fast enough.
The reform thus contributed to the separation of wildlife administration from
interest politics by removing the decision-making powers from the boards
(directors) of regional wildlife agencies (locally elected officials, most of them
representing hunters) to the director for public administration functions in the
Finnish Wildlife Agency.
The MAF commissioned an evaluation of the Finnish large carnivore
policy in 2013 to explore how the prevailing policy and its implementation
had succeeded in accomplishing ecological, economic, and social sustain-
ability in population management. The evaluators (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki,
2014) concluded that the management measures regarding brown bear and
lynx were found to be quite feasible but lacked place-based policy, i.e., the
policy where local and regional policy objectives influence decisions in
the desired manner. According to evaluators, “in the case of wolf outside
the reindeer-herding area, and wolverine in the reindeer-herding area,
severe conflicts have arisen” due to in particular loss of livestock but also, in
the case of the wolf, negative impact on hunting. By conflicts, they referred
to multitude of issues, rooted in the low legitimacy of top-down conser-
vation. The evaluation report concluded (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki, 2014,
p. 12, see also Ratamäki, 2008) that future large carnivore policy should
include a clear societal strategy and give equal weight to social and ecologi-
cal concerns.
The evaluation was the starting point for the updating processes of the man-
agement plans of wolf, lynx, and brown bear.The main aim of the updated wolf
management plan was to co-create concrete actions and thereby better facilitate
human-wolf coexistence in rural areas of Finland (Hiedanpää et al., 2016). The
management unit of the updated plan was not anymore based on the six man-
agement regions with different population trend goals, defined by the Working
Group for Large Terrestrial Carnivores in 1996 (MAF, 1996), or three manage-
ment regions defined in the original wolf management plan (MAF, 2005), but
on each wolf territory separately.
The implementation of the updated management plan (MAF, 2015) started
in 2015 with the managerial hunting of the wolf, the establishment of the
territory-level cooperation between groups representing local stakeholders, and
the intervention threshold pilot with the police, plus a dozen of other measures.
A survey from October 2016 showed that about one-third of adult citizens
living in the wolf regions actually knew that the wolf policy had changed in
2015 (Taloustutkimus, 2016). Among the measures initiated prior to the sur-
vey, the ones focusing on fencing the livestock or sheep pastured were gener-
ally regarded as having had the highest positive impact on both wolves and
 Between politics and management 273
local citizens, while killing or flushing wolves further from house yards were
regarded as having had the highest positive impact on local citizens.
VetBooks.ir

Norway
During the late 1980s, large carnivore populations started to increase in Norway,
and conflicts over them have been quite intense ever since. Several stakeholder
groups, like sheep farmers, reindeer herders, hunters, dog owners, and ordinary
rural dwellers claim that the growing number of large carnivores has a nega-
tive impact on their livelihoods, lifestyles and well-being. Among these groups,
there is no doubt that those involved in the livestock grazing industry, and
especially the sheep farmers, have had the strongest voice.The situation spurred
the first parliamentary white paper on large carnivore management in 1992
(Ministry of the Environment, 1992), outlining a dual goal for Norwegian large
carnivore management.The primary goal was to preserve viable large carnivore
populations. At the same time, the conflicts they caused should be limited as
much as possible. This is not an easy goal to reach and the environmental man-
agement agencies have not been able to reduce conflicts. Among researchers, it
has been claimed that the large carnivore management system is unsustainable,
since viability of the Norwegian populations is dependent on influx from the
larger Swedish populations of large carnivores (Krange et al., 2016). From early
on, large carnivore management was facing legitimacy problems, and the sys-
tem Norway has today is designed as a response to this challenge.
In 2005, the Norwegian parliament decided to divide the country into eight
management regions for large carnivores. In an effort to mitigate conflicts by
bringing large carnivore management closer to the “local level”, they trans-
ferred authority to regional large carnivore management boards. Population
goals are still decided on the national level, but the boards can set hunting
and culling quotas as long as population goals are met. The boards must pro-
duce management plans for their region, and they have fairly generous budgets
for damage prevention and conflict mitigation measures. Board members are
indirectly elected politicians from the county assemblies and from the Sámi
parliament (in regions with Sámi reindeer herding). Hence, board members are
nominated by the assemblies, but formally appointed by the Ministry of Cli-
mate and Environment. Although politicians in the boards are democratically
elected to the county assemblies, which nominate them as their representative
in the carnivore committees, they are accountable to a government bureau-
cracy and not their constituents. If not unique, this is an atypical system within
Norwegian public administration. The manager role is obviously unfamiliar to
most politicians. They are, however, expected to have intimate knowledge of
the situation in their regions, and it was hoped that decisions informed by such
insight would give large carnivore management increased legitimacy (St.meld.
nr. 15 [2003–2004]).
The county governor’s environmental department acts as secretariat for each
board, preparing proposals for decisions and providing scientific knowledge
 274  Camilla Sandström et al.
on the different species. The national Environment Agency has no power to
instruct the boards, unless regional population goals are not met, but the boards
are obliged to seek the agency’s advice. In the breeding period from Febru-
VetBooks.ir

ary 16 to May 31, the Agency has the management authority over wolves, wol-
verines, and lynx, and from October 16 to May 31 for the brown bear.
The boards are intended to be the central management bodies in Norwe-
gian large carnivore management. However, the system is still fundamentally
controlled at the national level, e.g., through exact population goals set by the
parliament, and hence the boards are faced with strict limitations to their pow-
ers. For instance, when they make decisions on hunting quotas, they make them
within very detailed frames that the national parliament has determined. The
regional population goals are precise, meaning that they are both a maximum
and a minimum, and the boards can only allow hunting if the population size
is spot on or exceeds the target. If the populations decrease below the target,
management is handed over to the national level and decisions on quotas, etc.
are made by the Environment Agency. This creates a mechanism whereby the
boards can manage themselves out of power, and they have done so on several
occasions. Another example of the detailed frames and the related constraints
that the national level has set up is that all boards are required to make a man-
agement plan where the core management tool is zoning, separating grazing
areas for livestock (and breeding areas for reindeer) from breeding areas for
large carnivores. The topography, area size, large carnivore biology, and even
sheep and reindeer behavior make this a very difficult, if not impossible, task.
In general, it is safe to say that the boards have been less than successful in their
efforts to reduce livestock depredation (Krange et al, 2016). Some of the boards
have found zoning to be contra-productive and have adopted practices that go
against what the ministry demands.This is, for instance, evident in the manage-
ment plan for the southernmost large carnivore management region, where
only a very small area in the southwestern part of the region is prioritized for
grazing livestock.
A special management zone for wolves has been established outside this
system, due to particular management challenges, including the virtual impos-
sibility of combining territorial wolf packs and free-ranging sheep and reindeer
husbandry. This zone involves four counties, covers two management regions
partially, and is managed by the two regional boards in collaboration. This is an
extremely complicated system, and even more so because the two regions are
different in terms of economic structure and demographics (e.g., one of them
contains Oslo, the capital and by far the largest city in the country).
Considerable resources are used on compensation for predation and meas-
ures to prevent livestock loss also within the wolf zone, although livestock
production is a limited economic activity there. Norwegian regional policy
is a factor that underpins the centrality of the farming perspective, which also
explains where the wolf zone boundaries were drawn (i.e., around an area
with few sheep). Maintaining rural settlement has been a stable political goal
in Norway, and stimulating the agricultural sector has been a cornerstone of
 Between politics and management 275
this policy. During the long period when large carnivores were almost absent,
husbandry methods entailing free-ranging sheep with limited supervision were
developed. When brown bears, lynx, and wolverines increased in numbers and
VetBooks.ir

expanded their ranges, effects were serious, and conflicts have been flourish-
ing ever since. Thus, the livestock/farming focus was well established when
the wolves returned. It has led to a single-sided implementation of mitigation
efforts (including the wolf zone and its intricate management system) that are
misguided when it comes to wolves, as sheep farming is very limited in Nor-
wegian wolf areas. Wolf conflicts in Norway are based on predominantly other
sources than livestock predation (Skogen et al., 2017).
The regional management system was evaluated in 2016 (Krange et al.,
2016), and one main conclusion was that it does not contribute to the reduc-
tion of conflicts. Management of the four Norwegian large carnivore species
has almost exclusively focused on livestock owners. Policies are quite blind to
conflicts other than those involving sheep farmers and reindeer herders (Sko-
gen et al., 2017).

Sweden
In a similar vein as in the neighboring countries, large carnivores have returned
to the Swedish landscape. Since the return of the brown bear, lynx, wolf, and
wolverine, large carnivore management has been conflict ridden, and debates
over wolf protective strategies, in particular, have been centered around a con-
trast between urban and rural interests (Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Cinque,
2008; Heberlein and Ericsson, 2008; Eriksson, 2017). People living in rural areas
have perceived themselves as not having sufficient control over wolf manage-
ment, which has led segments of the rural population to consider Swedish wolf
management as illegitimate (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2009; Sjölander-Lindqvist,
2011). Furthermore, the increasing numbers of wolves were jeopardized by
inbreeding and illegal hunting, with the latter reflecting current social conflict
(Committee of Environment and Agriculture, 2009; Liberg et al., 2005, 2011;
Sand et al., 2010; Government Official Report SOU, 2007).
Due to increasingly intense conflicts between stakeholder groups and
reduced trust in the authorities, the government decided to introduce the first
coherent large carnivore policy in Sweden in 2001. The policy, an adaptation
of the EU Habitats Directive (European Commission, 1992), defines ecologi-
cal criteria for the four species based on population targets. Already at this
time, both the brown bear and lynx had met the population target and were
assigned minimum levels for annual regeneration, opening up for license hunt-
ing above these targets. Wolf and wolverine species were assigned temporary
population targets which would be re-evaluated once achieved. The fact that
the long-term survival of large carnivores was to be taken as a starting point
was, however, not exclusive: According to the governmental investigation of
1999, hunting interests and the prospects for continued livestock husbandry
should also be taken into account since “the presence of large carnivores may
 276  Camilla Sandström et al.
affect the daily lives of people who reside in areas of large carnivores” (Govern-
ment Official Report SOU, 1999, p. 185).The policy opened up for concerned
stakeholders and agencies to be included in the management process within
VetBooks.ir

Regional Large Carnivore Committees (RLCCs) in order to support a socially

sustainable implementation of the predator policy (Cinque, 2008; Sandström
et al., 2009). The RLCCs were built according to ideas of interest representa-
tion, and consisted of a mix of governmental actors such as representatives of
the County Administrative Boards (CAB), municipalities, the police, and non-
governmental actors such as hunters’ organizations, landowners, nature con-
servancy, and reindeer herding communities (RHC). RLCCs were established
in every county with residential large carnivore populations (Duit et al., 2009;
Sandström et al., 2009).
A decade later, the RLCCs were deemed to have failed to address the per-
ceived lack of legitimacy, and were abolished (Government Bill, 2009); Lund-
mark et al., 2014). Instead, a new policy, adopted in 2010, replaced the RLCCs
with Wildlife Management Delegations (WMDs), to further increase regional
and local influence over large carnivore management. The WMDs are led by
the county governors and includes political party representatives and repre-
sentatives of the following interests: forestry, local business, outdoor recreation,
hunting, nature conservation, agriculture, reindeer herding, fishery, moun-
tain farming, and the Sámi Parliament (SFS 2009:1474). In contrast to the
RLCCs, the WMDs have been delegated formal decision-making powers. This
means that the WMDs have been given the authority to suggest minimum and
interim levels of county carnivore populations. The internal structure of the
WMDs decision making is planned to be consensus-driven, but the delega-
tions are allowed – when consensus cannot be achieved – to employ a major-
ity vote, with the county governor having the casting vote, in the case of a
tie (SFS, 2014:1242). Due to critique, both from research and specific interest
groups (e.g., environmental advocacy groups) about the representativeness of
the WMDs, the delegations were evaluated by the government in 2016. The
evaluation concluded that the representation was unbalanced and as a result,
environmental groups as well as representatives of eco-tourist organizations
have been granted one seat extra in every WMD by the government. This
has caused strong protests among organizations representing hunters, farmers,
reindeer herders, and landowners, further aggravating the conflicts instead of
reducing it, as intended.

Perceptions of participation in large

carnivore management

Finland
The management plans (MAF, 2005, 2007a, 2007b) were the first nationwide
attempts to bring structure and shared baseline understanding to plural and
often conflicting issues over large carnivores. While the process provided new
 Between politics and management 277
channels for collecting the ideas, views, experiences, and goals of the people,
the regional public hearings were criticized, in particular, on the basis that par-
ticipants did not widely represent the demographics or general citizens’ views
VetBooks.ir

in the area (Bisi and Kurki, 2008). While this was a true challenge to any par-
ticipation process, such a critique may also have arisen if the outcomes of the
process were not regarded as pleasing to one’s own interest (Hiedanpää and
Pellikka, 2017).
Some of the RLCCs, including the first one established in 1999, were still
operating in 2017. However, most of them finished their activity in the begin-
ning of the 2010s.The reason behind this turn was mainly the reorganization of
the wildlife administration in 2011, which has included, amongst other things,
the establishment of 15 regional wildlife councils and one national, appointed
by the MAF. The new National Wildlife Council (NWF) had 24 members,
while the new Regional Wildlife Councils (RWF) had 10 members each. Most
members in the latter were the same as in the RLCCs. However, a considerable
number of the animal husbandry, hunting, (hunting) dog breeding, and envi-
ronmental NGOs participating in the RLCCs were excluded from regional
councils – but not from the national council. According to Wildlife and Game
Administration Act (2011), regional wildlife council membership was granted
to the representatives from the Regional Council (the public authority respon-
sible for the general development of the region); the regional Centre for Eco-
nomic Development, Transport and the Environment; to the regional Forestry
Centre; and to a landowner organization (NGOs).
Both the national and the regional wildlife councils have a formal consul-
tative role regarding large carnivore management. They participate in strate-
gic planning, meet 3–4 times a year, and organize annually wildlife forums
for regional stakeholders to inquire their perceptions as additional input into
the planning processes. The annual feedback collected by the Finnish Wild-
life Agency indicates that three-fourths of the members view their influence
on strategic planning from moderate to very high (Finnish Wildlife Agency,
2017, unpublished). Over the years, the proportions of members who regarded
their influence as low has gradually increased, however. The major strengths of
wildlife councils, according to feedback given by participants, lay in exchange
of expert knowledge, while the main challenges were the mitigation of large
carnivore conflicts, and a perceived lack of influence on large carnivore policy.
A recent development in the participation of citizens and stakeholders was the
updating of the wolf management plan in 2014.The participatory process started
with facilitated online forum discussions, offering an opportunity for citizens
to share their wolf concerns nationwide (Salo et al., 2017). The forum had five
sections for different regions, each including several wolf territories, and a sixth
section for people living in areas with no known wolf territories. The purpose
was to identify participant beliefs about what they understood as problematic
behavior of the wolf, why these problems have emerged, and how to alleviate
the problems. In total, 100 participants took part in the discussions by writing
nearly 600 comments, suggesting different solutions to the related problems.
 278  Camilla Sandström et al.
The process continued with a survey made among a random sample of adult
citizens, stratified within and outside wolf regions. The survey inquired the
ordinary citizens’ preferences for large carnivore management methods, alter-
VetBooks.ir

native damage compensation schemes and their stated willingness to personally

participate in various management actions, or to serve as private donors in sup-
port of Finnish wolf management (Hiedanpää et al., 2016).The results revealed,
for example, that a major proportion of the adult population was willing to
participate in wolf monitoring, at least to a minor extent. Nearly half of the
respondents said they were willing to assist in the building of wolf-proof fences
around pastures. The willingness to voluntarily donate varied from 15–20% of
the population, depending on the specific target, showing public participation
had much potential to move beyond to commenting on management or par-
ticipating in the planning. The process ended with a series of eleven workshops
held in selected wolf territory areas (e.g., Hiedanpää et al., 2016). From 20–30
participants were invited to each of them, based on their residence or employ-
ment in a particular wolf territory.The idea was to identify, co-create, and come
to an agreement on territory-level management actions and potential projects
that could be pursued.The reception of the workshops was positive, based on the
verbal feedback given by participants, and raised hopes among participants that
many problems can be mitigated by new measures. As a concrete output of the
workshops, individual workshop participants identified 375 new measures.
These were condensed in the group discussions to 100 which could be fur-
ther elaborated. Each workshop also suggested some 5–10 draft development
projects. The whole process, the key findings of the material collected, and the
proposed management actions were introduced to the RWFs and stakeholders,
and their comments and suggestions were inquired. Before publication, the
draft of the management plan was again commented by some 30 organizations
and NGOs nationwide.
All the participatory methods applied in the updating of the wolf manage-
ment plan, except for the workshops, were also applied later in the updating
processes of lynx and brown bear management that took place in 2016.

Norway
As mentioned previously, the Norwegian carnivore management system seeks
to balance multiple interests that come into conflict with each other. One
important objective for the regional management boards is to reduce conflicts
between interest groups, and while grazing (sheep and reindeer) is given special
focus in the mandate of regional management, the system requires boards to
consider other stakeholders and interest groups as well. Research carried out in
areas with large carnivores has shown that interviewees have scant knowledge
about and, indeed, little interest in talking about details in the formal structure
of large carnivore management or the decision-making procedures that deter-
mine the current regime (see Skogen et al., 2017). Whatever opinions they
might have about carnivores, people are more concerned about the general
 Between politics and management 279
political level (to which they often refer in vague terms but with keen inter-
est) and highly specific local issues, like observations or incidents near their
own doorstep. The regional level is, at best, favored with general comments.
VetBooks.ir

The interviews show that both the politicians and the processes by which they
are appointed in the grand scheme of thing is unknown to the public (Sko-
gen et al., 2017). The fact that boards are made up of politicians only came as
a surprise to some otherwise well-informed interviewees (Bekk Norstad and
Skogen, 2017).
People often express a desire for more local power in decision-making (espe-
cially in connection with culling permits), but very few know much about the
role of the local authorities or have any practical ideas about how it should
be done. However, the power structures in this field seem unclear or even
unknown to many people. Moreover, few care how the management is organ-
ized, as long as they are not adversely affected by decisions made by the board.
Regardless of people’s attitudes toward large carnivores and their management,
most with a clear view on the situation link these consequences to elevated
political levels – that is, to the general policy on large carnivores – not what
are perceived to be organizational details that make no difference in the big-
ger picture. Few see the regional boards or other institutional arrangements as
relevant factors in this context.
The regional management system was evaluated in 2016 (Krange et al.,
2016). One of the main conclusions was that it had relatively little influence
on the large carnivore conflicts. Central actors in the field did not view the
boards as being especially important. Some interest groups (farming, hunting)
defended the boards on principled grounds, e.g., because they could have more
relevance if they were given greater authority, or because the regional model
represents a “normalization” of carnivore management (i.e., more similar to
management for other wildlife species). Few believe that the boards have any
practical consequences for management today.
The choice of management model reflects which aspects of the conflict are
given priority. A continuation of the present model will clearly have the sup-
port of farming interests and, probably, hunting interests. It is clearly possible
to choose to prioritize these interests, and especially grazing, if it is concluded
that they are the most important. However, this would only reflect a part of the
overall conflict, and there are interest groups that do not think their interests
are best served by the present system. Both conservation groups and the rein-
deer herder’s organization see problems with the boards, which they believe
systematically favor sheep grazing interests. These groups would be more open
to a system where all interest groups would have a seat, where no point of view
would be privileged or ignored, and where it would be possible to lead open
discussions.
Lack of trust among actors is another big problem in large carnivore man-
agement, partially because carnivore conflicts are embedded in wider societal
conflicts, entailing urban-rural power relations as well as socio-economic and
cultural change. Despite these tensions, dialogue and information exchange
 280  Camilla Sandström et al.
should be core objectives. Even if it will not solve conflicts, it will certainly give
management authorities a more complete understanding of how the large car-
nivore issue is viewed from different perspectives. The mandate of the regional
VetBooks.ir

boards clearly requires that such dialogue is to be established.

However, there is a great deal of variation in the way that different boards
manage to keep a dialogue with interest groups and the general public. Some
clearly bias their contact towards farming interests, which they see as their spe-
cial responsibility to accommodate. Although meetings are open to everybody
(to attend, but not partake the floor) and there is an opening for prepared talks
from NGOs, etc., daytime meetings and huge travel distances in some regions
clearly favor resourceful actors like the farmers’ trade organizations.
Everybody expresses a desire for including more “knowledge” into manage-
ment, but the different interest groups are not talking about the same type of
knowledge, or knowledge from the same sources. Some would prefer more
scientific knowledge from biology, others point to economics and livestock
research, while still others refer to experience-based local knowledge. The
exchange of diverse knowledge forms could be enabled by dialogue forums,
but these do not exist. We can conclude that the regional management system
does not contain many elements of collaborative governance. It consists largely
of interactions between the county governor’s office, large carnivore manage-
ment boards, the national Environment Agency, and the Ministry of Climate
and Environment.

Sweden
The purpose of the first measure introduced, namely the establishment of the
RLCCs, was to generate trust in, credibility for, and commitment to preda-
tor policy implementation, and to reduce conflict (Cinque, 2008; Sandström
et al., 2009; Cinque and Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2011; Hallgren and Westberg, 2015,
Lundmark and Matti, 2015). In 2005, the Swedish government evaluated the
operation of RLCCs. The evaluation concluded that the institutional structure
had been insufficiently designed, and the authorities have not been successful in
establishing efficient, trustworthy policy implementation and meaningful par-
ticipation standards (Faugert et al., 2005). Farmers and hunters continued to feel
excluded from management and decision making (Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008;
Sandström et al., 2009).This inspired the establishment of Large Carnivore Emer-
gency Groups in the counties of Dalarna and Värmland – an institutional struc-
ture intended to encourage dialogue between County Administrative Boards
(CABs), hunters, and farmers who had suffered economic damages due to large
carnivore attacks on dogs or livestock. The Large Carnivore Emergency Groups
were also expected to eventually lead to a reconstructed interface between the
state and the public that would more effectively address the challenges intro-
duced by large carnivore presence (Cinque and Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2011).
Despite these intentions, local leverage and locally-approved decisions have
failed. Continuously, some perceive the reappearance of large carnivores in the
 Between politics and management 281
forest fringe and mountainous areas as jeopardizing the prospects for the sur-
vival of the rural community. By establishing RLCCs, the authorities could
learn more about the local contexts and consequences of large carnivore pres-
VetBooks.ir

ence. It was also assumed that this would facilitate the dissemination of informa-
tion to the local level. RLCC members were encouraged to share information
and knowledge with their respective organizations. In this sense, the RLCCs
were planned to be sensitive to process, context, and time, and function as con-
nective and transformative arenas in which appropriate understandings of the
management effort and related actions would evolve (Sandström et al., 2009).
Despite these intentions, polarized understandings have remained. As indicated,
the RLCCs did not succeed in finding ways to deal with contradictory per-
spectives. Instead of promoting dialogue and the exchange of views on large
carnivore presence, the RLLCs had allowed social conflict to continue (Gov-
ernment Official Report SOU, 2007), primarily due to different interpretations
of mandate. The officials understood the RLCCs as a measure to facilitate pol-
icy implementation and increase public acceptance, while carnivore skeptical
parties interpreted the RLCCs as a channel to give voice to local concerns, and
as a means for contributing to a rearrangement of politics and administration
(Sjölander-Lindqvist, 2008, 2009).
If we move to the WMDs, we see similar patterns. Despite substantive decen-
tralization of decision-making, broadened base of competence and the inclusion
of additional interests, studies suggest that the WMD has failed to achieve legiti-
macy (Duit and Löf, 2015). The methods used have not been able to mitigate
between value conflicts within the WMDs, forming the base for two distinct
coalitions built on anti-carnivore/pro-WMD and pro-carnivore/anti-WMD
beliefs (Lundmark and Matti, 2015). Interestingly, this attitudinal divide can also
be found among the general public. When asked about what actors should be
included in large carnivore management, the respondents in urban areas pre-
ferred to be represented by conservation interest groups, while respondents in
rural areas preferred to be represented by utilitarian interest groups.The WMDs
thus tend to represent the attitudes found among the general public. However,
studies show that the actors within the WMDs, probably spurred by the presi-
dency of the WMDs, tend to focus on coalition building and strategic voting,
relating to one or the other value, instead of trying to bridge the gap through
deliberative processes as intended by the legislator (Duit et al., 2009; Lundmark
and Matti, 2015; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
Problems related to this gap are reflected in an ongoing study (Sjölander-
Lindqvist and Sandström, forthcoming) investigating in depth the ideas and
conceptualizations of participation in two WMDs. According to the results,
the current structure of the WMDs seems even to perpetuate the understand-
ing that there is an imbalance in representation, having to do with the design
of the delegation. In particular, we find that some members understand their
interests to be underrepresented, rendering a difficult position in the delega-
tion. One dimension refers to members who represent a concerned interest
who find that they should have more to say on issues that potentially may
 282  Camilla Sandström et al.
affect their livelihoods: “I believe that we are underrepresented. We who bear
the costs of having large carnivores in the landscape. It is the farming and the
reindeer interests that should have more to say”. The view of the delegation
VetBooks.ir

being improperly designed when it comes to representation is shared by the

nature conservation interests who also refer to the representational imbalance
as problematic, as more or less the only member, apart from some political party
representatives, proposing a careful protection of large carnivores. The issue
of underrepresentation also holds a gender dimension: “Sometimes I think
I should stand on her side [because they are both women] to show some sis-
terhood”. However, deviation from the line of representation on the grounds
of gender imbalance is not understood as a proper action but, allying with the
issue of certain interests being underrepresented that ““at least, there should be
more than one [representing the nature conservation interest] in the delega-
tion”. In contrast, hunting interests seem to be more optimistic about their
presence: “We have two politicians who always stand up for us. I guess it has to
do with them being hunters”.
Another dimension affecting the outcome of regionalized delegation of
power concerns interpretation of mandate and representation. Among Swedish
delegates, uncertainty seems to prevail regarding their actual role, and the role
of the CABs in the work of the WMDs. As held by the CABs:

[Y]ou have been nominated as a delegate because you are familiar with these ques-
tions, but when you attend the meetings of the delegations, you are in effect, a civil
servant. Once a delegate, you are no longer a representative of an organization, you
are here as your own with your knowledge.

Many delegates find this order of things confusing, referring that they are in
fact a representative for their organization, such as: “I must represent those who
have put me there, I must point out the shortcomings and stand up for the
views my organization has when it comes to the predator policy” (Sjölander-
Lindqvist and Sandström, forthcoming).
A third theme which recurred in the interviews was the lack of support
from many of the delegates’ respective organizations.While the hunting interest
representatives felt strongly supported by their organizations and had networks
of knowledge to consult if necessary, many delegates of the other organizations
indicated the opposite. They described lack of interest, that their organization
had no clue about the role and mandate of the WMDs, and that they wished
to have more support so they could hold a more knowledgeable position in
the delegation. The issue of support also referred to the regional authority. The
delegates asked for improved preparedness before meetings, including material
and meeting agenda in advance to allow for discussing the tasks of the upcom-
ing meeting with their organization. They also asked for more training, both to
raise their competence on the different aspects of large carnivore management
but also as an opportunity to better familiarize themselves with fellow delegates.
In sum, several issues relating to how the actors perceive the procedure, their
 Between politics and management 283
role and mandate, as well as representation and accountability, were highlighted
as problematic in relation to the current operation of the WMDs.
VetBooks.ir

Discussion
When comparing the policies and institutional design, all three countries share
attempts to decentralize power over large carnivore management through
various forms of regional forums (Table 14.1). The setup of these bodies is
motivated by the need to establish relationship-building processes among the
involved actors being close to the problems experienced so that they can fol-
low on the presence of large carnivores. In all three cases, the processes are
assumed – or at least hoped – to result in the sharing of information and
knowledge, joint agreements, dialogues, and conflict mitigation measures.These
endeavors are in line with international conventions, such as the Convention
on Biodiversity and the Bern Convention, which the three countries have rati-
fied. It also resonates well with research findings on identified benefits with
decentralization and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash, 2007; Emerson
et al., 2012). However, despite the ambitions to mitigate large carnivore related
conflicts, the results from different studies and evaluations show a rather mixed
outcome of the processes.
When it comes to the institutional arrangements, such as carnivore commit-
tees, Norway clearly differs from the two other countries. Instead of involving
stakeholders, Norway has chosen to involve indirectly elected politicians at the
regional level. This can partly be explained by the more decentralized structure
of the Norwegian society. It is also in line with recent developments in Nor-
wegian nature conservation policy, where the management of some protected
areas and national parks has been decentralized to lower level authorities (Sand-
ström et al., 2009; Hongslo et al., 2016). Despite the decentralized character of
Norwegian politics and administration, this form of decentralization in which
politicians more or less assume the role of wildlife managers is rather foreign
to the Norwegian system and has not been very successful in delivering the
desired output in terms of conflict management, according to a recent evalua-
tion (Krange et al., 2016).
Sweden and Finland have chosen another path for stakeholder involvement
in the 1990s and 2000s. While the Swedish parliament at first decided to set
up formal RLCCs based on stakeholder representation, the Finnish RLCCs
were based on informal, bottom-up processes, involving a wide array of inter-
est groups (NGOs) and authorities at the regional level. In both Finland and
Sweden, the RLCCs provided arenas for face-to-face communication, building
of trust, and exchange of knowledge and ideas. While consensus on difficult
large carnivore-related issues was not always reached, the need for such com-
mittees as instruments for mitigating tensions was largely recognized both by
stakeholders and state authorities.
Based on evaluations and academic studies, both Finland and Sweden decided
to substitute the RLCCs in the 2010s. In Sweden, the RLCCs were replaced by
 Table 14.1 Institutional design for large carnivore management in Finland, Norway, and
Sweden
VetBooks.ir

Finland Norway Sweden

International Bern Convention, Bern Convention, Bern Convention,

CBD CBD CBD
European EU Habitats Directive EU Habitats Directive
National The parliament of The parliament of The parliament of
Finland Norway Sweden
Ministry Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of
Agriculture and Environment and Environment and
Forestry Climate Energy
Agency Finnish Wildlife Norwegian Swedish
Agency Environmental Environmental
Agency Protection Agency
Council National Wildlife Three Cooperation
Council councils between
(consultative) the County
Administrative
Boards and the Sámi
Parliament (north,
middle, south
Sweden)
Regional Large • 15 regional wildlife • The county • The county
Carnivore councils (formal, governors administrative
Committees consultative) • Eight RLCCs boards
(RLCCs) • Two RLCCs (indirectly elected • 21 wildlife
(informal arenas, politicians with a management
consultative) decisive role) delegations
(indirectly elected
politicians and
stakeholder groups
with a decisive role)
Local • 295 game
management
associations (formal,
consultative)
• 21 wolf territory
based co-operation
groups (informal
arenas, consultative)
Responsibilities • Supporting, steering, • Approval of regional Approval of
at regional and and assisting in management plan management plan
local level the activity of the including zonation for the county,
regional office of • Preventive and including proposals
the Finnish Wildlife conflict-mitigation for minimum levels
Agency measures for the county’s
• Participation in • Decide LC hunting large carnivore
strategic planning quotas populations, zoning,
of large carnivore license hunting and
management protective hunting,
• Arranging of compensation
stakeholder schemes, and
participation distribution
 Between politics and management 285
21 WMDs. This change was somewhat influenced by the Norwegian RLCCs,
with political representation. However, the stakeholders from the various inter-
est organizations represented in the RLCCs did not want to lose their influ-
VetBooks.ir

ence over the process and this is why, ultimately, a combination of politicians
and stakeholder groups became the solution (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).
In Finland, 15 regional wildlife councils were established with the purpose
of exchanging information between regional experts and fostering the par-
ticipation of involved actors in strategic planning (http://mmm.fi/en/wildlife-
and-game/wildlife-and-game-administration). Later on, wolf territory level
cooperation groups were established as informal arenas to facilitate face-to-face
communication and more concrete bottom-up action initiated at the local level.
Although the changes in Finland implied a re-centralization of power, Finland
has a substantially higher formal local presence through the local game districts
and territory-level cooperation compared to the other countries. An important
difference between the countries is that the Finnish regional wildlife councils,
unlike the Swedish WMDs and the Norwegian RLCCs, have no authority
in deciding regional large carnivore quotas. However, the devolved power in
Norway and Sweden is also limited, primarily focusing on the implementation
of national policy objectives through zoning, compensatory schemes, and other
mitigation measures. This approach has contributed to confusion and to some
extent conflict regarding roles and responsibilities of the WMDs and RLCCs in
Sweden and Norway, respectively. As elaborated previously, the actors involved
at the regional level – in particular, stakeholder groups or politicians repre-
senting utilitarian interests – rather see themselves as primarily accountable
downwards towards their constituencies or stakeholder organizations, instead
of acting as if they were accountable upwards, which would better correspond
with the current situation, since they are formally appointed at the national
level, i.e., by the ministries (Sandström et al., 2009; Krange et al., 2016).
Since large carnivore governance is embedded in wider societal conflicts,
entailing urban-rural power relations, and socioeconomic and cultural change,
the level of trust – both from within but also from the wider public – towards
the institutional bodies tends to vary quite substantially, with the risk of under-
mining their legitimacy (Krange et al., 2016; Eriksson, 2017). This is among
other things reflected in perceptions of how various interests were considered
to be included in the process. In Norway, the conservation interests but also
reindeer husbandry were perceived to be underrepresented compared to farm-
ing interests (Krange et al., 2016). A similar pattern can be found in Sweden,
where in particular conservation interests perceive themselves to be under-
represented compared to hunting interests. Although it is possible to discern
similar attitudinal patterns in Finland as well, it is interesting to note that the
setting up of management plans in combination with participatory processes
seem to have played a substantial role in the wider involvement of both interest
organizations and the public (for the process and involvement, see Hiedanpää
et al., 2016). These processes may, at least to some extent, have contributed
to closing the gap between different interests. Although similar management
 286  Camilla Sandström et al.
plans have been set up in both Norway and Sweden, they do not seem to have
played a similar role as a participatory planning tool to mitigate conflicts and
develop new and shared knowledge on how to manage conflicts, opening up
VetBooks.ir

opportunities for social learning between actors and policy learning among the
three countries.

Conclusion
The attempts to govern and manage complex socio-ecological conflicts such
as the presence of large carnivores in Finland, Norway, and Sweden through
decentralized or collaborative approaches has proven to be a demanding task.
Given the challenges identified in this chapter, the three countries are still
searching for modes of governance capable for accommodating multiple objec-
tives and activities.
In relation to this search, one of the problems that the three countries share
is the difficulty of delegating or decentralizing authority from the national to
regional levels. Despite the ambitions to introduce collaborative or decentral-
ized measures, often adapted to fit into already established institutional struc-
tures, our review showed that the competent authority primarily remains at
the central level. Any decentralized tasks mainly focus on conflict management,
and thereby, regional or local levels are responsible for the implementation of
already defined policies. There are limited opportunities to adapt these policies
to local needs and desires. As a consequence, the conflicts related to large car-
nivore governance do not only include different values, e.g., anthropocentric
vs. ecocentric values. They also relate to multi-level governance and divergent
opinions regarding the most appropriate level for decision making (see, e.g., the
Malawi principles which were developed already in 1998; UNEP, 2017).
Another problem is that there is no panacea, quick fix, or blueprint for a
single type of governance system that has the capacity to accommodate multi-
ple objectives and activities. The three different modes of governance that have
been chosen in the three countries have both strengths and weaknesses. As our
comparison showed, the countries have tried to successively adjust their gov-
ernance systems to handle the weaknesses. However, given that the three coun-
tries more or less share large carnivore populations, what seems to be missing
is a more designated learning process not only within the respective countries,
but also among the three countries. As our review demonstrated, considerable
efforts should be undertaken to share experiences and best practices between
the countries.

References
Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008) ‘Collaborative governance in theory and practice’, Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, vol 18, pp543–571.
Bekk Norstad, A., and Skogen, K. (2017) Jervejakt og jervejegere, NINA-rapport, Oslo.
 Between politics and management 287
Bisi, J., Liukkonen, T., Mykrä, S., Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2010) ‘The good bad
wolf – Wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict’, European Journal of
Wildlife Research, vol 56, no 5, pp771–779.
VetBooks.ir

Bisi, J., and Kurki, S. (2008) ‘The wolf debate in Finland: Expectations and objectives for the
management of the wolf population at regional and national level’, in Julkaisuja 3. Ruralia
Institute, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Cinque, S. (2008) I vargens spår. Myndigheters handlingsutrymme i förvaltningen av varg [In the
Wolf Track: Administrative Discretion in Wolf Management], PhD thesis, University of
Gothenburg, Gothenburg.
Cinque, S., and Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2011) ‘L’evoluzione degi esperimenti partecipativi in
Svezia’, in A.Valastro (ed) La Regole della Democrazia Partecipativa: Itinerari per la Costruzione
di un Metodo di Governo, Joveno Editore, XX.
Committee of Environment and Agriculture (2009/10:MJU8) (2009) ‘A new large carni-
vore management’ (En ny rovdjursförvaltning) – Swedish Parliament, 21 October 2009.
Council of Europe (1979) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Heritage, Bern, Switzerland, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/104.
html.
Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889) Unofficial translation, www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannok
set/1889/en18890039.pdf.
Decker, D., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle-Capitman, C., Schuler,
K., and Organ, J. (2016) ‘Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st cen-
tury’, Conservation Letters, vol 9, pp290–295.
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) ‘A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes
toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012’, Conservation Biology, vol 29, no 2,
pp565–574.
Duit, A., Galaz,V., and Löf, A. (2009) ‘Fragmenterad förvirring eller kreativ arena? Från hier-
arkisk till förhandlad styrning i svensk naturvårdspolitik’, in J. Pierre and G. Sundström
(eds) Samhällsstyrning i förändring, Liber, Malmö.
Duit, A. and Löf. A. (2015) ‘Dealing with a wicked problem? A dark tale of carnivore
management in Sweden 2007 – 2011’. Administration & Society, DOI: 10.1177/
0095399715595668.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., and Balogh, S. (2012) ‘An integrative framework for collaborative
governance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol 22, no 1, pp1–29.
Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. A. (2003) ‘Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public
in Sweden now that the wolves are back’, Biological Conservation, vol 111, no 2, pp149–159.
Eriksson, M. (2017) Changing Attitudes to Swedish Wolf Policy Wolf Return, Rural Areas, and
Political Alienation, PhD thesis, Department of Political Science 2016:4, Umeå University,
Umeå.
European Commission (1992) ‘The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC)’,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm,
accessed 11 April 2018.
Faugert, S., Sandberg, B., and Blomfeldt, D. (2005) ‘Rovdjursrådet. En utvärdering av Rovd-
jursrådets funktion för att främja arbetet med rovdjursfrågor’ Faugert and Co. Utvärdering,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Finnish Hunting Act (1993) Unofficial translation www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1993/
en19930615.pdf, accessed 21 April 2018.
Finnish Wildlife Agency (2017) ‘Palautekysely sidosryhmille ja riistaneuvostoille 2016’ by
Antti Impola, unpublished document.
 288  Camilla Sandström et al.
Government Bill (2009) ‘En ny rovdjursforvaltning’, https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/0A22
C7CA-D5C8-48D3-9855-E150760B3DBF, accessed 21 April 2018.
Government Official Report SOU (1999) Rovdjursutredningen-Slutbetänkande om en samman-
VetBooks.ir

hållen rovdjurspolitik, Miljö-och samhällsbyggnadsdepartementet (Ministry of Environment

and Social Structure).
Government Official Report SOU (2007)‘Rovdjurens och deras förvaltning’, http://www.
regeringen.se/49bbac/contentassets/4ccf9b41c310420a9e1030fc0459ab05/rovdjuren-
och-deras-forvaltning.-hela-utredningen.-sou-200789, accessed 21 April 2018.
Hallgren, L., and Westberg, L. (2015) ‘Adaptive management? Observations of knowledge
coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game management’ Wildlife Biol-
ogy, vol 21, no 3, pp165–174.
Heberlein, T. A., and Ericsson, G. (2008) ‘Public attitudes and the future of wolves, canis
lupus, in Sweden’, Wildlife Biology, vol 14, no 3, pp391–394.
Hiedanpää, J. (2013) ‘Institutional misfits: Law and habits in Finnish wolf policy’, Ecology and
Society, vol 18, no 1.
Hiedanpää, J., and Bromley, D. W. (2010) ‘The harmonization game: Reasons and rules in
European biodiversity policy’, Environmental Policy and Governance, vol 21, no 2, pp99–111.
Hiedanpää, J., Kalliolevo, Salo, M., Pellikka, J., and Luoma, M. (2016) ‘Payments for improved
ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the coexistence of humans and wolves in Finland’, Envi-
ronmental Management, vol 58, no 3, pp518–533.
Hiedanpää, J., and Pellikka, J. (2017) ‘Preadaptative transactions and institutional change:
Wolf-critical activism in southwestern Finland’, Environmental Policy and Governance, vol
27, no 3, pp270–281.
Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., Zachrisson, A., and Aasen Lundberg, A. K. (2016) ‘Decentralization of
conservation management in Norway and Sweden – Different translations of an interna-
tional trend’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 29, no 8, pp998–1014.
Krange, O., Odden, J., Skogen, K., Linnell, J. D. C., Stokland, H. B.,Vang, S., and Mattisson, J.
(2016) Evaluering av regional rovviltforvaltning, Oslo: NINA Rapport 1268, 190.
Krange, O., Sandström, C., Tangeland, T., and Ericsson, G. (2017) ‘Approval of wolves in
Scandinavia: A comparison between Norway and Sweden’, Society and Natural Resources,
vol 30, no 9, pp1127–1140.
Lange, P., Driessen, P. P. J., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., and Burger, P. (2013) ‘Governing towards
sustainability: Conceptualizing modes of governance’, Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, vol 15, no 3, pp403–425.
Liberg, O., Andrén, H., Pedersen, H-C., Sand, H., Sejberg, D.,Wabakken, P., Åkesson, M., and
Bensch, S. (2005) ‘Severe inbreeding depression in a wild wolf (canis lupus) population’,
Biology Letters, vol 1, no 1, pp17–20.
Liberg, O., Chapron, G., Wabakken, P., Pedersen, H.C., Hobbs, N.T. and Sand, H. (2011)
‘Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic illegal killing slows restoration of a large carni-
vore in Europe’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol 279,
pp910-915.
Lundmark, C., and Matti, S. (2015) ‘Exploring the prospects for deliberative practices as a
conflict-reducing and legitimacy-enhancing tool: The case of Swedish carnivore manage-
ment’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp147–156.
Lundmark, C., Matti, S., and Sandström, A. (2014) ‘Adaptive co-management: How social
networks, deliberation and learning affect legitimacy in carnivore management’, European
Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 4, pp637–644.
MAF (1996) ‘Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito. Suurpetotyöryhmän raportti’,
Maa-ja metsätalousministeriön julkaisuja 6/1996.
 Between politics and management 289
MAF (2005) ‘Management plan for the wolf population in Finland’, Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry 11b/2005.
MAF (2007a) ‘Management plan for the lynx population in Finland’, Ministry of Agriculture
VetBooks.ir

and Forestry 1b/2007.

MAF (2007b) ‘Management plan for the bear population in Finland’, Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry 2/2007.
MAF (2014) ‘Management plan for the wolverine population in Finland’, Ministry of Agricul-
ture and Forestry 9/2014.
MAF (2015) ‘Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland’, Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Helsinki, Finland.
MAF Decree (241/2010) ‘Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön asetus elävän riistaeläimen ohjeel-
lisista arvoista’.
Ministry of the Environment (1992) ‘Om forvaltning av bjørn, jerv, ulv og gaupe’, St.meld.
nr.27(1991-92).
Mykrä, S., Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Vuorisalo, T. (2017) ‘Hunters’ attitudes matter: diverging
bear and wolf population trajectories in Finland in the late nineteenth century and today’,
European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 63, DOI 10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1.
Newig, J., and Fritsch, O. (2009) ‘Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level – And
effective?’, Environmental Policy and Governance, vol 19, pp197–214.
Pellikka, J., and Sandström, C. (2011) ‘The role of large carnivore committees in legitimising
large carnivore management in Finland and Sweden’, Environmental Management, vol 48,
no 1, pp212–228.
Pohja-Mykrä, M. (2014) ‘Vahinkoeläinsodasta psykologiseen omistajuuteen. Petokonfliktien
historiallinen tausta ja nykypäivän hallinta’, Julkaisuja 33 Ruralia-instituutti, Helsingin
yliopisto.
Pohja-Mykrä, M., and Kurki, S. (2014) ‘Kansallisen suurpetopolitiikan kehittämisarviointi’,
Raportteja 114, Ruralia-Instituutti, Helsingin yliopisto.
Pohja-Mykrä, M.,Vuorisalo, T., and Mykrä, S. (2005) ‘Hunting bounties as a key measure of
historical wildlife management and game conservation: Finnish bounty schemes 1647–
1975’, Oryx:The Journal of the Fauna Preservation Society, vol 39, no 3, pp284-291
Ratamäki, O. (2008) ‘Finland's wolf policy and new governance’, The Journal of Environ-
ment & Development, vol 17, no 3, pp316−339.
Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A.,
Gutiérrez, R. J., Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sand-
ström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A., Young, J.,
and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘Don’t forget to look down – Collaborative approaches
to predator conservation’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, no 4, pp2157–2163.
Sabatier, P., Focht,W., Lubell, M.,Trachtenberg, Z.,Vedlitz, A., and Matlock, M. (2005) Swim-
ming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA and London.
Salo, M., Hiedanpää, J., Luoma, M., and Pellikka, J. (2017) ‘Nudging the impasse? Lessons
from the nationwide online wolf management forum in Finland’, Society and Natural
Resources, vol 30, no 9, pp1141–1157.
Sand, H., Wabakken, P., and Liberg, O. (2010) ‘Vargens biologi: karaktärer och konsekvenser
för små populationer’, in H. Sand et al. (eds) Den skandinaviska vargen. En sammanställning av
kunskapsläget 1998–2010 från det skandinaviska vargforskningsprojektet SKANDULV, Grimsö
forskningsstation, SLU, Rapport till Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning,Trondheim, Norge.
Sandström, C., and Pellikka, J. (2008) ‘Rovdjursgrupper i Finland och Sverige – form, funk-
tion och framtid’, Technical Report to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
 290  Camilla Sandström et al.
Sandström, C., Pellikka, J., Ratamäki, O., and Sande, A. (2009) ‘Management of large car-
nivores in Fennoscandia: New patterns of regional participation’, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, vol 14, no 1, pp37–50.
VetBooks.ir

SFS (Svensk författningssamling) (2009) ‘Förordning om viltförvaltningsdelegationer’,

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/
forordning-20091474-om_sfs-2009-1474, accessed 21 April 2018.
SFS (Svensk författningssamling) (2014: 1242) ‘Förordning om ändring i förordningen
(2009:1474) om viltförvaltningsdelegationer https://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/sfs/2014
1242.pdf, accessed 21 April 2018.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2008) ‘Local identity, science and politics indivisible: the Swedish
wolf controversy deconstructed’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol 10,
pp71–94.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2009) ‘Social-natural landscape reorganised: Swedish forest-edge
farmers and wolf recuperation’, Conservation and Society, vol 7, no 2, pp130–140.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2011) ‘Predators in “agri-environmental” Sweden: Rural heritage
and resistance against wolf propagation’, in H. Gökçekus, U. Türker, and J. W. LaMoreaux
(eds) Survival and Sustainability: Environmental Concerns in the 21st Century, Springer Verlag,
Berlin.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M., and Sandström, C. (2015) ‘Individual and collective
responses to large carnivore management: The roles of trust, representation, knowledge
spheres, communication and leadership’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 3, pp175–185.
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., and Sandström, C. (forthcoming) ‘Collaborative governance of
large carnivores: A pathway to consensus or continued dispute?’ Paper to be presented at
the conference ‘Democracy and Public Administration’ 14–15 March 2018. Institute for
Futures Studies, Stockholm.
Skogen, K., Krange, O., and Figari, H. (2017) Wolf Conflicts: A Sociological Study (Interspecies
encounters; volume 1), Berghahn Books, New York.
Taloustutkimus (2016) ‘Susitutkimus 2016’, unpublished report of the survey commissioned
by the Finnish Wildlife Agency.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda
21, United Nations, New York.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (1998) Aarhus Convention,
www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html, accessed 21 April 2018.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) Convention on Biodiversity, www.cbd.
int, accessed 21 April 2018.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2017) Ecosystem approach, www.cbd.int/
ecosystem/principles.shtml, accessed 21 April 2018.
Wildlife and Game Administration Act (158/2011) (2011) Unofficial translation, www.fin
lex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110158.pdf, accessed 21 April 2018.
 15 Trans-boundary and trans-
regional management
VetBooks.ir

of a large carnivore
Managing brown bears across
national and regional borders
in Europe
Vincenzo Penteriani, Djuro Huber, Klemen Jerina,
Miha Krofel, José Vicente López-Bao, Andrés Ordiz,
Alejandra Zarzo-Arias, and Fredrik Dalerum

Introduction
Because of uneven spatial distribution of resources, population processes are
often not homogenously distributed in space. This frequently leads to spatial
variation in features such as density, mortality rate, phenology, movement, and
space use (e.g., Turgeon and Kramer, 2012; Gervasi et al., 2015). However, this
spatial variation is rarely aligned with political or administrative borders, which
may result in mismatches between the scale of population processes and the
level at which management and conservation actions are implemented (Trou-
wborst, 2010). Such incongruities can be deeply problematic, partly because
management strategies may not be well designed for local conditions, and
partly because demographically cohesive units may be subject to contrasting
management strategies and interventions. Indeed, it has been long recognized
that different management regimes within different portions of the same popu-
lation can alter vital processes and, thus, negatively influence local management
goals (Andreasen et al., 2012; Gervasi et al., 2015).
The wide-ranging nature of large carnivores makes them difficult to manage
within national or regional borders (Linnell et al., 2005, 2016). For instance,
29 out of 33 large carnivore populations in Europe are trans-boundary (Lin-
nell et al., 2008). Populations are often subject to different or even poten-
tially contrasting management regimes, so that a trans-boundary population
can be simultaneously fully protected or heavily harvested on the two sides
of an administrative unit (Gervasi et al., 2015). Therefore, the sustainability of
management actions executed in a given area also depends on adopted policies
in neighbouring areas (Bischof and Swenson, 2012). Subsequently, integrated
trans-boundary decision-making is paramount for effective management of
many large carnivore populations (Linnell and Boitani, 2011; Blanco, 2012;
Chapron et al., 2014).
 292  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
The European populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos) are particularly prone
to conflicting management regimes. Many bear populations inhabit large areas
(Dahle and Swenson, 2003; Mertzanis et al., 2005; Krofel et al., 2010, Ćirović
VetBooks.ir

et al., 2015; Gavrilov et al., 2015), and single populations often extend across
multiple administrative borders at multiple levels, from borders between neigh-
bouring countries to different jurisdictions within the same country. Hence,
the same brown bear populations are often subject to different monitoring
programmes, management, and conservation policies (see Annexes 15.1 and
15.2). Under European Union (EU) legislation, the brown bear is strictly pro-
tected (Swenson et al., 2000). Brown bear populations are listed in Annexes II
and IV of the Habitats Directive (European Commission, 1992). However, EU
legislation does allow for relatively flexible management through local deroga-
tions (e.g., hunting/culling), which consequently open up the possibility for
conflicting management strategies among countries. For example, the Dinaric
Mountains in southeast Europe contain one of the largest and most important
brown bear meta-populations in Europe, stretching from Greece to the Alps
(Linnell et al., 2016).The species is protected in Greece, Serbia, and the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, protected but hunted through derogations
in Slovenia and Croatia, and managed as game species in Bosnia and Herze-
govina and Montenegro (Knott et al., 2014; see also Annex 15.2). Actually,
although the management or conservation status is always the same within each
bear population, even if it is trans-boundary, heterogeneity arises in conflict
management policies and hunting practices (Annex 15.2). In some cases, such
heterogeneity in bear management between neighboring countries may make
it more challenging for individual countries to achieve their national manage-
ment goals. For example, the increasing bear population in Croatia and result-
ing emigration to neighboring Slovenia augmented the need for bear culling
in the latter country, where the management goal was to keep the population
stable to prevent an increase of human-bear conflicts (Jerina and Adamič, 2008).
High culling rates in turn caused public opposition towards bear management
in the country (Kryštufek et al., 2003).
In the present chapter, we present an overview on brown bear conservation
and management in Europe, including population monitoring, hunting regula-
tions, damage compensation schemes, management of problematic bears, and
viewing tourism concentrated on the bear. This chapter will thus address the
interplay among management, policies, population sizes, and the economics of
the management of brown bears, which can help improve our understanding of
how to efficiently manage large carnivores under conflicting management goals
caused by their trans-boundary distribution.

Bear conservation and management in Europe

After a long period of intense persecution, the brown bear is currently the
most common large carnivore species in Europe and is present in 22 Euro-
pean countries (excluding Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia; Chapron et al., 2014).
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 293
VetBooks.ir

Figure 15.1 Geographic ranges of the 10 different sub-populations of brown bears in Europe

(dark shaded areas). 1: Scandinavian; 2: Karelian; 3: Baltic; 4: Carpathian; 5:
Alpine; 6: Dinaric-Pindos; 7: Eastern Balkan; 8: Central Apennine; 9: Pyrenean;
10: Cantabrian. All but two (the Central Apennine and the Cantabrian popula-
tions) are trans-boundary at an international level.The distribution map is taken
from IUCN’s official range data (www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/
spatial-data) and the delineation of sub-populations from Chapron et al. (2014).

The estimated 17,000 bears in Europe can be clustered into 10 populations

(Figure 15.1). All of these populations are relatively stable or slightly increas-
ing, although a few remain critically small (Chapron et al., 2014). Eight out
of the 10 brown bear populations in Europe have distributions that overlap
several countries (three countries on average, range 1–9; Annex 15.1). Only
the Central Apennines (Italy) and Cantabrian Mountains (Spain) brown bear
populations occur within a single country. The management of bears occurs
from national down to regional levels, and in several countries management is
carried out at several levels simultaneously. Hunting, which we here define as
the deliberate killing of bears for either recreational or conflict prevention and
resolution purposes, occurs in 12 of the 22 European countries that are home
to brown bears (Annex 15.1).

Population monitoring
Despite the heavy reliance on accurate estimates of population size for most
bear management strategies, there is a general absence of trans-boundary and
 294  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
trans-regional approaches towards homogeneous and coordinated monitor-
ing. Instead, multiple methods are being used throughout Europe to estimate
brown bear numbers (Chapron et al., 2014). These methods include genetic
VetBooks.ir

capture-mark-recapture, hunting data, damage reports, direct observations (e.g.,

monitoring of females with cubs), snow tracking, telemetry, questionnaires, and
camera trapping.
Moreover, since national and local authorities often conduct monitoring in
isolation from one another, the comparison of bear data across administrative
borders and populations is very difficult. An illustrative example is provided
by the monitoring of brown bears in Norway (Bischof et al., 2015). Recently,
the implementation of a spatially explicit capture-recapture model based on
genetic data suggested that up to 49% of female bears detected in Norway had
their centres of activity in neighbouring countries (Finland, Russia, and Swe-
den).This resulted in the double counting of these bears and, thereby, in inflated
estimates of bear abundance in Norway (Bischof et al., 2015). The length of
the borders with other countries, as well as the terrain along these bounda-
ries, might dramatically influence these estimates, which may be the case for
both Norway with Sweden and the Dinaric-Pindos population, if we take into
account all borders between countries that share the latter population. Such
biased estimates can have strong implications for policy making, such as popu-
lation status assessments, establishment of sport hunting quotas, and the adop-
tion of population control actions. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that some
trans-boundary initiatives have been put into practice. For example, consider-
able effort is currently being expended in the Pyrenees, which are inhabited
by bears on both the Spanish and French sides of the mountain range (Piédallu
et al., 2016) and in the Northern Dinaric Mountains and the south-eastern
Alps, where trans-boundary non-invasive genetic monitoring of bears has been
implemented (http://dinalpbear.eu).

Conflict resolution
Human-bear conflicts represent a major challenge for brown bear management
across neighbouring countries (Majić and Krofel, 2015). Trans-boundary man-
agement of human-bear conflicts are complex because conflicts involving bears
are particularly diverse, including damage to crops and property, damage to
beehives, livestock depredation, and attacks on humans. Given these numerous
types of human-bear conflicts, there is a requirement for a variety of conflict
resolution measures.These policies need to be case-specific and adapted to local
situations because the causes and factors behind human-bear conflicts can vary
considerably across regions in respect to local ecological, cultural, and manage-
ment contexts.
The majority of human-bear conflicts are associated with the opportunis-
tic foraging behaviour of bears. It is therefore not surprising that anthropo-
genic food sources are among the most frequently identified drivers of conflict
(Swenson et al., 2000; Herrero, 2002). Anthropogenic food sources include
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 295
garbage, crops, animal carcasses, and slaughter remains, as well as food provided
through some sort of intentional feeding of bears. Hence, limiting access to
such food sources is often regarded as the most effective way to prevent human-
VetBooks.ir

bear conflicts (Herrero, 2002; Majić and Krofel, 2015). A first step to limit access
to anthropogenic food is regulation and strict enforcement of direct bear feed-
ing by people, accompanied by public education. The next step is to prevent
bears from accessing anthropogenic food sources such as garbage. There are
numerous approaches to effectively achieve this, including bear-proof garbage
containers and compost bins, physical obstacles, and electric fences (for a review
see Sowka, 2009).
A key factor causing conflict is the occurrence of potential problem indi-
viduals, i.e., bears that have changed their behaviour through habituation to
human presence or conditioning to anthropogenic food (Majić and Krofel,
2015). Although such bears represent only a small portion of a bear popu-
lation, they usually cause most human-bear conflicts, while the majority of
the bear population comes into conflict only rarely or never. Therefore, deal-
ing with problem bears is often the focal point in bear conflict management
in Europe (Majić and Krofel, 2015) and, in particular, among neighbouring
countries (Kaczensky et al., 2011). Indeed, bears may become conditioned to
anthropogenic food in one country and generate conflicts in adjacent ones. For
this reason, for example, there has been a proposal for common trans-boundary
risk assessment protocols and management recommendations in dealing with
conflict bears (Majić and Krofel, 2015).
A rapid response is required to face up to the issue of problematic bears.
Non-lethal approaches typically rely on aversive conditioning (Majić and Kro-
fel, 2015), which may be effective if applied early in the development of conflict
behaviour in an individual bear, but usually fail for bears in later stages of the
process of food-conditioning or habituation to human presence (Gillin et al.,
1995; Herrero, 2002; Mazur, 2010). In these cases, lethal removal is the most
effective short-term solution (Gunther et al., 2004). Translocations of problem
bears to another area are largely considered to be ineffective, as translocated
bears usually return to the capture site or start causing problems in the new area
(Linnell et al., 1997). For lethal removals to be effective, it must be ensured that
the correct bear is dispatched and that the removal is coupled with effective
measures to prevent the development of new problem bears. The feasibility of
lethal removal also depends on the conservation status of a given bear popula-
tion, as well as the socio-political context of a given country. For example, in
the case of threatened bear populations managers should invest more effort
into non-lethal options, while for larger populations, especially where regular
culling is practiced, lethal removal of problem bears may be used more liberally.
Because of the often complex considerations in handling problem bears,
most policies are developed within administrative boundaries without signifi-
cant trans-boundary or trans-regional coordination. Although we appreciate
the difficulties related to trans-boundary coordination in terms of such poli-
cies, we note three principal issues with regard to this lack of coordination.
 296  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
First, since aversive conditioning is largely dependent on the context within
which the conditioning is done, a lack of coordination across borders may
result in some individuals experiencing several different types of conditioning.
VetBooks.ir

Second, a lack of coordination in terms of lethal removal may cause different

demographic pressures, in terms of increased mortality, among neighbouring
zones of the same population. Such spatial variation in mortality could dis-
rupt social structure, which is actually the reason why some bears approach
human settlements, rather than being attracted by food (e.g., Elfström et al.,
2014), and hence, this may have secondary demographic impacts beyond the
direct removal of the animals considered as problematic. Finally, because lethal
removal is only a short-term solution, a potential lack of coordinated effort in
terms of limiting human habituation and food conditioning could lead to an
excess removal of bears, particularly if a country that implements lethal removal
coupled with actions towards limiting further habituation and food condition
is neighboured by countries and regions which are doing this less efficiently.

Hunting
Legal, biological, ecological, ethical, and economic aspects need to be taken
into account when bear hunting is allowed. Legal issues seem to be routinely
solved through derogations from the Habitats Directive and other international
agreements (e.g., the Bern Convention), together with appropriate national
regulations followed by sound monitoring and management. From a biological
perspective, hunting has to be sustainable and non-disruptive to the sex and age
structure of the hunted population, bearing in mind the potential effects on the
bear populations of neighbouring countries. Ecologically, brown bears are apex
predators, i.e., highly interactive species that ultimately affect community diver-
sity. Therefore, the hunting of apex predators may undermine their ecological
role by (a) reducing predator numbers and thus their potential to affect lower
trophic levels, and (b) forcing predators to adjust their own behaviour under
hunting risk, which may limit a predator’s contribution to the “landscape of
fear” that they create for their own prey (Ordiz et al., 2013). Ethically, hunting
has to satisfy the minimum requirement of not provoking unnecessary suffer-
ing (e.g., not leaving wounded animals), and local bans are often set on bait
hunting and/or shooting of bear families (e.g., females with cubs are protected
from hunting in Sweden and in several other countries). Economically, hunt-
ing can be designed in a way that hunters pay (a) only the trophy value, e.g.,
through CIC points (i.e., the scoring ascribed to a given trophy bear following
the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation [CIC] rules),
or (b) only for the right to hunt (Knott et al., 2014). Although the first option
provides more income for bear managers, it often leads to the targeted hunt-
ing of the biggest bears, i.e., old males. This often results in age- and sex-biased
hunting, which can have undesirable demographic effects (Swenson et al.,
1997). While the biological, ecological, and ethical considerations of hunting
are relatively similar among neighbouring countries and management regions,
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 297
the legal and economic considerations can differ dramatically. Hence, although
there are obvious benefits of coordinating the number of hunted animals in
trans-boundary populations, both legal and economic aspects may be too dif-
VetBooks.ir

ficult to coordinate across borders or may demand a long-term horizon.

The Dinaric-Pindos brown bear population probably best exemplifies the
trans-boundary hunting of bears in a European population, and thus it is worth
exploring in further detail. This bear population is shared by nine countries
(Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Alba-
nia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Greece), and consists of ca.
3,070 bears distributed over an area of 114,100 km2 (Kaczensky et al., 2013).
These bears are hunted in the countries where they are most numerous, with
Croatia having the largest number of individuals (ca. 1,000 bears). In the last
12 years (2005–2016), a total of 1,305 dead bears have been recorded, of which
1,009 (77.3%) were quota hunted, with the majority (69%) of these being adult
male bears. The hunting of bears in Croatia appears to be sustainable in terms
of the impact on population size, but some concerns have been raised about
possible high adult male mortality. Some possible trans-boundary effects can
be seen across the Croatian-Slovenian border. In the period 1998–2008, the
total recorded bear mortality in Slovenia was 927 individuals, of which 724
were hunted (Krofel et al., 2012). This represents an average annual harvest
mortality rate of 16% for an estimated population of 400–500 individuals (in
2007), which is one of the highest harvest rates reported for the species world-
wide (Krofel et al., 2012). Until 2007, this heavy harvest was probably partially
sustained by bears from Croatia, but has since become self-sustainable. In con-
trast to Croatia, the hunting of bears in Slovenia is concentrated on young
bears to reduce side effects on the bear social system. The removal of mature
males has been reported to increase infanticide, i.e., the killing of bear cubs by
neighbouring males that expand their home range in response to male removal
(Swenson et al., 1997; Leclerc et al., 2017).

Viewing tourism
Brown bears are a common target of wildlife-related viewing tourism (Pente-
riani et al., 2017). Bear viewing can take place from permanent or temporary
viewing spots. Permanent viewing sites usually include camouflaged observa-
tory posts near artificial feeding sites (e.g., Finland, Romania, and Slovenia in
Europe) or some other location with a predictable occurrence of bears (e.g.,
Italy and Spain). Temporary viewing sites are typically opportunistic, and com-
monly include observation sites targeting females with cubs of the year, bear
mating areas and natural bear feeding sites, such as berry-rich mountain slopes.
From the perspective of the potential consequences of bear viewing on bear
trans-boundary conservation and management, it is important to highlight the
potential effect of viewing sites associated with artificial feeding.
An example of a potential trans-boundary management problem related to
bear viewing practices comes from Finland (Penteriani et al., 2010), where
 298  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
about 4,000 visitors arrive annually to observe bears (Eskelinen, 2009; Kojola
and Heikkinen, 2012). In this country, bear viewing is associated with an
increased development of sites for the artificial feeding of brown bears. The
VetBooks.ir

Finnish bear population plays an important role in linking the bear popula-
tions of Russian Karelia and Scandinavia. Thus, the provision of food to bears
in the Finland-Russia border region could (a) disrupt the daily and seasonal
movement patterns of bears, as individuals may converge on artificial feeding
areas that are outside their natural home range; (b) alter bear population density
and distribution around artificial food sources; and (c) artificially increase local
density, exceeding the natural carrying capacity. Moreover, bears conditioned to
artificial feeding may lose their natural instinct to avoid people and also become
aggressive towards humans. Under this scenario, artificial feeding sites associated
with bear viewing practices at the border of two or more countries may attract
bears from a neighbouring country and create food-conditioned individuals,
which might later create conflicts in both countries, as discussed previously. As
artificial feeding has been detected at 57% of the European bear viewing sites
(Penteriani et al., 2017), management policies should not overlook the poten-
tial effects of bear viewing practices on bear management in trans-boundary
populations.

Trans-regional management of
brown bears in Sweden
Although most trans-boundary issues associated with bear management occur
across international borders, contrasting local conditions and regional manage-
ment strategies may also influence bear management on smaller administrative
scales (i.e., trans-regional management). The Swedish brown bear population
was widespread until the mid-18th century, but drastically declined afterwards
due in part to an active policy of trying to exterminate the species.The Swedish
population was estimated at approximately 130 bears by the time its protection
was introduced back in 1927 (Sahlén et al., 2006). Since then, the population
has recovered and the current population status is stable with 2,800–3,000 bears
(Swenson et al., 2017). It is worth noting that Norway, which shares the same
population, only stopped paid bounty on brown bears in 1973. This continued
hunting led to a serious reduction in terms of both the size and geographic
range of the Norwegian part of the bear population, which further led to an
almost total population collapse in Norway.
In Sweden, large carnivores are owned and managed by the government. Cen-
tral policies regarding large carnivore management are dictated by the national
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, Sweden has adopted the
Ecosystem Approach, founded at the UN convention on biodiversity (United
Nations, 1992), which, among other requisites, demands that decisions regard-
ing environmental management should be made at scales as local as possible
(Smith and Maltby, 2003). Hence, although the national policies are outlined in
national management plans published by the EPA, management is carried out
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 299
by regional county boards. These are localized regional governments in each
of Sweden’s 21 counties, which are mandated to make independent manage-
ment decisions as long as they are aligned with national policies.These regional
VetBooks.ir

management policies are outlined in regional management plans, which are

produced for all large carnivores, including brown bears. However, to facili-
tate some coordination of management at the regional level, the counties are
grouped into three separate large carnivore management regions. Although
each county still formulates its own independent management plan, counties
within management regions attempt to coordinate their plans in terms of goals
and management actions.
Currently, the Swedish brown bear population is based in seven counties,
including all four counties in the northern region and three counties in the
central region. Of these, five counties share a border with Norway and one also
a border with Finland. Dispersing bears may, however, occur outside these seven
counties, as well. Hence, although there are clear national goals with regard to
Swedish brown bear management, these goals are intended to be met by imple-
menting seven independent management plans, of which five are from areas
that share international borders and six include annual hunting quotas. These
quotas are based on minimum desirable population levels, which are set in
coordination within each region, although the hunting quotas may be defined
completely independently. Counties are allowed to set independent quotas as
long as the management region to which they belong meets minimum popula-
tion sizes defined by the EPA. Contrary to this independence, policies regard-
ing damages are relatively centralized, particularly with respect to the removal
of bears that cause problems during the calving season of semi-domesticated
reindeer and compensation for livestock and crop damage. However, the imple-
mentation of these central policies still largely resides within each county, so
that the removal of problematic bears, in particular, may be coordinated with
annual hunting quotas.

Trans-regional management of the

Cantabrian bear population in Spain
Brown bears once occupied the entire Iberian Peninsula, but during the 17th
century bear distribution shrank northwards. Separation between the Canta-
brian (northwest Spain) and Pyrenean bear ranges (Spanish-French border)
occurred between the 17th and 18th centuries. The bear range in the Canta-
brian Mountains decreased from approximately 14000 km2 in the 19th century
to only about 9000 km2 during the 20th century, with the population separated
into two areas (Nores, 1988; Nores and Naves, 1993). Cantabrian bears reached
their lowest historic levels in the 1990s, after which the trend reversed, and now
about 200 bears inhabit the range (Martínez Cano et al., 2016).
A ban on brown bear hunting has been in place in Spain since 1973, and
bears are currently listed as “critically endangered” (Naves and Fernández-Gil,
2002). Recovery plans for each of the four Spanish Autonomous Regions in
 300  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
the Cantabrian Mountains (Asturias, Cantabria, Castilla-León, and Galicia)
were approved between 1989 and 1992, and a National Strategy for the Con-
servation of the Brown Bear was established in 1999 (CNPN, 1999). Although
VetBooks.ir

bear conservation and management in Spain is decentralized to the autono-

mous regions, it is the country of Spain, as an EU member state, that is ulti-
mately responsible for meeting its EU obligations regarding the conservation
of this population. Nevertheless, due to the administrative organization of
Spanish territory, even this small brown bear population represents a case of
a trans-regional population shared among four different and administratively
independent regions.
All of these autonomous regions have agreed to conservation goals similar
to those outlined in the Action Plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear
in Europe (Swenson et al., 2000), which aimed at maintaining and restoring,
in coexistence with people, viable populations of brown bears as an integral
part of the ecosystems. The plan highlighted the need to identify and mitigate
or remove threats to brown bear populations and their habitat (Swenson et al.,
2000). Securing the viability of small, isolated bear populations, such as the
Cantabrian one, by increasing population size and geographic range was also a
major goal. Protective legislation and conservation initiatives for brown bears
in the Cantabrian Mountains have played a role in the ongoing, partial recov-
ery of this population. Recently, it has been suggested that changes in resource
availability may be the main mechanism behind the trend observed in the Can-
tabrian bear population (Martínez Cano et al., 2016). However, the effect of
changes due to human pressure, protective legislation, or conservation actions
on the observed trend for this population deserves further evaluation. Up-to-
date conservation plans confronting existing threats are essential to secure the
long-term viability of the still small Cantabrian bear population. In addition,
there is a need to improve monitoring techniques and coordinated assessments
of conservation actions among the neighbouring Autonomous Regions.
About a decade after the four Spanish Autonomous Regions in the Canta-
brian Mountains approved their bear recovery plans (between 1989 and 1992,
as mentioned previously), the National Strategy for the Conservation of the
Brown Bear (CNPN, 1999) argued that specific objectives, such as eliminat-
ing the loss of bears caused by people, securing a connection between the
two bear nuclei in the Cantabrian Mountains, and preventing habitat loss, had
not been achieved. In recent years, however, the negative trend of the brown
bear population reversed and the bear population has been increasing (e.g.,
Martínez Cano et al., 2016). Although conservation efforts may have helped
to bring about the current trend to some extent, management issues still arise.
For instance, each autonomous region should have updated its respective bear
recovery plan several times since the plans were approved, but this has not been
the case. Such periodic revisions should provide a great opportunity to review
conservation achievements and failures, outline further needs, and eventually
set joint plans for the conservation of this unique bear population shared by
four administrative units.
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 301
Conclusions
Differences among countries or regions may create serious challenges for
VetBooks.ir

addressing the trans-boundary or trans-regional character of bear conserva-

tion and management. Indeed, political and economic realities do not facilitate
such an approach where administrative boundaries and bear movements need
to be integrated; in most cases, each jurisdiction independently manages its
own part of a shared population (Bischof and Swenson, 2012). This situation
urgently calls for the adoption of coordinated population approaches in brown
bear conservation and management in Europe, where individuals can routinely
cross international borders. Today, trans-boundary populations represent a chal-
lenge for Europe, which would only benefit from coordinated monitoring and
management between those jurisdictions that share the same carnivore popula-
tions. Because the number of individuals within a jurisdiction, or some proxy
thereof, represents the basic information for guiding management policies (Bis-
chof et al., 2015), the first step of appropriate trans-boundary management
is to increase our knowledge of bear status in neighbouring countries. This
is the basic premise to successfully confront, in turn, human-bear conflicts,
leisure activities related to bears (hunting included), and consequently, bear
conservation in Europe. Yet, effective decision making and policies concern-
ing human dimensions in bear conservation and management need to take
into account the dense web of political and administrative borders within and
between countries.
Trans-boundary and trans-regional attempts to manage bear populations are
not a novelty. For example, management plans published in 2005 in Croatia
(Dečak et al., 2005) and in 2002 in Slovenia (Ministry of Agriculture, For-
estry and Food, 2002) included concrete proposals and directives for manag-
ing local bear populations by taking into account bear movements across the
borders (Huber et al., 2008), since bear management in Croatia and Slovenia is
expected to influence bear populations in neighbouring countries.These direc-
tives included development of trans-boundary management strategies, main-
taining habitat connectivity across national borders, harmonization of research/
monitoring methodology, regular meetings, and the sharing of data/information.
Similarly, even though brown bear management in Norway and Sweden differs,
in March 2015 the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environ-
mental Protection Agency formalized coordination of carnivore monitoring
between these two countries, which represents an official recognition that car-
nivore populations are shared across their borders. This coordination involves,
for instance, a common set of regulations and definitions for how monitoring is
to be carried out, as well as a shared data base that is capturing all monitoring
activities. Moreover, the Scandinavian Brown Bear Project (www.bearproject.
info) coordinates research activities related to brown bears in Norway and Swe-
den. The leadership of this project is directly shared among members of several
Norwegian and Swedish institutions, and funding is sought from both coun-
tries to contribute to common research goals.
 302  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
However, a thorough trans-boundary and trans-regional understanding still
needs to be incorporated into most management and conservation policies
across Europe.The authorities responsible for the implementation of such prac-
VetBooks.ir

tices generally have a jurisdiction limited to areas that are smaller in size than
those typically affected by population dynamics of large carnivores (Linnell
et al., 2008; Gervasi et al., 2015). Together with the evidence that contrast-
ing management regimes within the same population can affect population
dynamics and reduce the impact of conservation and management goals on
both sides of a border, incongruities in management actions also result in a
waste of economic resources for conservation, which reduces the already lim-
ited resources allocated for large carnivore conservation. At the same time, dif-
ferent management practices can reduce some of the unwanted side effects of
hunting, as in the case of Slovenia and Croatia (Krofel et al., 2012), for example.
As remarked by Bischof et al. (2015), the current geopolitical reality of Europe,
and the sometimes divergent interests of various local lobbies and stakeholders,
might make the management of trans-boundary bear populations a utopian
goal, but this is, indeed, a crucial challenge to be urgently taken into account.
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 15.1 C
 haracteristics of European bear populations and
related management policies by country

Country Population size1,2 Percentage of bear Bear Range size Range size % Conservation Average Management agency Conflict Hunting Viewing
population3 population (1)4 (2)5 range status human management or culling points6
density

Albania 180–200 6.3% Dinaric- 6,600 km2 13,200 km2 1.1% VU 123/km2 Ministry of Guardian dog NO N/A
Pindos Environment, breeding
Forestry and Water for livestock
Administration herding
Austria 3 6% Alpine 0 km2 2,300 km2 < 1% CR 97/km2 Hunting and natural Damage NO NO
conservation compensation
authorities of each (voluntary),
province damage
prevention
Bosnia and 550 18.3% Dinaric- 21,600 km2 33,200 km2 3% VU 78/km2 Ministry of Supplemental YES N/A
Herzego- Pindos Agriculture feeding,
vina damage
compensation
Bulgaria 100–130 & 92.6% Eastern 16,700 km2 32,800 km2 3. 3% VU 69/km2 Ministry of Damage YES 8
430–460 Balkan Environment and compensation,
Waters (MOEW) prevention
and Ministry of measures
Agriculture and (electric
Foods fences)
Croatia7 1,000 32.6% Dinaric- 10,400 km2 12,372 km2 10.8% VU (favou- 75/km2 Ministry for Damage YES 3
Pindos rable) Agriculture compensation,
(Hunting Unit) hunting,
emergency
removals,
supplemental
feeding

(Continued)
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 15.1 (Continued)

Country Population size1,2 Percentage of bear Bear Range size Range size % Conservation Average Management agency Conflict Hunting Viewing
population3 population (1)4 (2)5 range status human management or culling points6
density
Estonia 700 98.6% Baltic 20,800 km2 37,000 km2 3.9% LC 28/km2 Environmental Damage YES 3
Board under the compensation,
jurisdiction of subsidies
Ministry of the for damage
Environment prevention,
hunting
Finland 1,600–1,800 85% Karelian 66,800 km2 35,7900 km2 10% LC 16/km2 Ministry of Damage YES 10
Agriculture and compensation,
Forestry public funding
for prevention,
fast removal in
villages
France 22 including 100% with Pyrenean 3,400 km2 8,200 km2 < 1% CR 111/km2 Ministries of Damage NO N/A
Spanish side Spain Ecology and compensation,
(8 translocated Agriculture financial help
from Slovenia) for prevention
measures,
awareness
campaign for
hunters
Greece 50 (Eastern 8.2% Eastern Eastern 20,300 km2 25,000 km2 2.2% VU 81/km2 Ministry of the Damage NO 2
Balkan), plus Balkans, Balkan; Environment, compensation,
350 (Dinaric- 11.7% Dinaric- Energy and prevention
Pindos) Dinaric- Pindos Climate Change, measures, Bear
Pindos regional Management
administration Team for bears
and local forestry approaching
services human
settlements
 VetBooks.ir

Country Population size1,2 Percentage of bear Bear Range size Range size % Conservation Average Management agency Conflict Hunting Viewing
population3 population (1)4 (2)5 range status human management or culling points6
density
Italy8,9 41–51 (Alpine, 88% Alpine, Alpine; 10,000 km2 10,000 km2 < 1% CR 192/km2 Ministry of Damage NO 5
reintroduced), 100% Central Central Environment, compensation,
plus 35–67 Apenn- Apennines regional prevention
(Central ines governments and measures
Apennines, authorities of
autocht- protected areas,
honous) ISPRA, Forestry
and Wildlife
Department
of Trento
Autonomous
Province
Kosovo N/A N/A Dinaric- 400 800 NA VU 159/km2 NA Damage YES N/A
Pindos compensation
(failed due
to economic
recession)
Latvia 10–15 sporadic 1.4% Baltic - 1,400 km2 < 1% LC 37/km2 Ministry of Damage NO N/A
Environment compensation
and Regional by law
Development (failed due
to economic
recession)
Former 160–200 6% Dinaric- 13,500 km2 17,200 km2 1.1% VU 81/km2 Ministry of No strategy NO 2
Yugoslav Pindos Agriculture
Republic
of Maced-
onia 10
Montenegro 270 9% Dinaric- km2 km2 1.5% VU 48/km2 Ministry of No strategy YES N/A
Pindos Agriculture
2 2 2
Norway 46 (Karelian), 2.3 % Karelian, Karelian; 38,600 km 19,4200 km < 1% LC 13/km Directorate Damage YES N/A
plus 105 3% Scandina- Scandina- for Nature compensation,
(Scandi- vian vian Management lethal control,
navian) few prevention
and mitigation
measures

(Continued)
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 15.1 (Continued)

Country Population size1,2 Percentage of bear Bear Range size Range size % Conservation Average Management agency Conflict Hunting Viewing
population3 population (1)4 (2)5 range status human management or culling points6
density
Poland 80–150 1% Carpathian 6,600 km2 10,400 km2 < 1% LC 124/km2 Ministry of Damage NO N/A
Environment compensation,
along with electric fences,
General bear-resistant
Directorate for garbage
Environmental containers
Protection and its
regional branches
Romania 6,000 74% Carpathian 72,000 km2 89,900 km2 33.1% LC 80/km2 Ministry of Plan for the YES 14
Environment and prevention of
Forestry damage and
compensation,
supplemental
feeding
Serbia 8 (Carpathian), 0.1 % Carpathian; 3,100 km2 9,600 km2 < 1% VU (Dinaric- 97/km2 Ministry of Energy, Damage NO 1
plus 60 Carpathian, Dinaric- Pindos & Development and compensation,
(Dinaric- 2% Dinaric- Pindos Eastern Environmental supplemental
Pindos) Pindos Balkans), Protection feeding
LC (MEDEP)
(Carpat-
hian)
Slovakia11 770–870 12% Carpathian 21,200 km2 21,200 km2 4.8% LC 111/km2 Environment Damage YES 8
Ministry and compensation
the Agriculture and
Ministry prevention,
bear-proof
rubbish bins,
dissuasive
methods,
hunting,
supplemental
feeding
 VetBooks.ir

Country Population size1,2 Percentage of bear Bear Range size Range size % Conservation Average Management agency Conflict Hunting Viewing
population3 population (1)4 (2)5 range status human management or culling points6
density
Slovenia12 5-10 (Alpine), 16% Alpine, Alpine; 5,800 km2 13,700 km2 2.5% CR (Alpine), 95/km2 Ministry of the Damage YES 8
450 (Dinaric- 15% Dinaric- Dinaric- VU Environment and compensation,
Pindos) Pindos Pindos (Dinaric- Spatial Planning Bear Response
Pindos) Team, hunting,
supplemental
feeding
Spain13 222 (Cantabrian) 100% Cantabrian; 7,700 + 7,700 + 1.4% EN (Cantab- 92/km2 Autonomous regions Damage NO 18
+ 22-27 Pyrenean 5,100 km2 5,100 km2 rian compensation,
(Pyrenean) mountains), prevention
CR measures
(Pyrenees)
Sweden14 2,800-3,000 97% Scandinavian 14,9800 km2 31,6300 km2 18.2% LC 18/km2 Swedish Prevention YES 9
Environmental measures,
Protection Agency damage
(Naturvårdsverket) compensation,
and regional protective
county boards hunting
1
 Kaczensky et al., 2013; 2Skrbinšek et al., 2015; 3Percentage of bear population represents the % of the whole European population that inhabits a given country; 4Range size (1) is the
extent of the permanent range size only; 5Range size (2) is the extent of the whole bear range size within a given country; 6Viewing points refer to the presence or not of specific areas
for touristic bear viewing; 7Kocijan and Huber, 2008; 8Gervasi et al., 2008; 9Ciucci and Boitani, 2008; 10Melovski and Godes, 2002; 11Rigg and Adamec, 2007; 12Kavčič et al., 2013; 13Pérez
et al., 2014; 14Swenson et al., 2017
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 15.2 Heterogeneity in conservation status, conflict

management policies and hunting practices by
European bear population

Bear population1 Countries Population size2,3 Conservation Conflict management4, 5 Hunting or culling
status

Carpathian Poland, Romania, Serbia, 6,858–7,028 Least concern Damage prevention, Allowed in
Slovakia6 damage compensation, Romania and
hunting, dissuasive Slovakia
methods, supplemental
feeding
Scandinavian Norway, Sweden7 2,905–3,105 Least concern Damage compensation, Allowed
lethal control,
prevention and
mitigation measures
Dinaric- Albania, Bosnia and 2,990–3,020 Vulnerable Damage prevention, Allowed in Bosnia
Pindos Herzegovina, Croatia8, damage compensation, and Herzegovina,
Greece, Kosovo, Former supplemental feeding, Croatia, Kosovo,
Yugoslav Republic of hunting, emergency Slovenia
Macedonia9, Montenegro, removals, Bear
Serbia, Slovenia10 Management Team/
Bear Response Team
for bears approaching
human settlements
Karelian Finland, Norway 1,646–1,846 Least concern Damage compensation, Allowed
public funding for
prevention, fast removal
in villages, lethal control,
mitigation measures
 VetBooks.ir

Baltic Estonia, Latvia 710–715 Least concern Damage compensation, Allowed in Estonia
subsidies for damage
prevention, hunting
Eastern Balkan Bulgaria, Greece 150–180 & 480– Vulnerable Damage compensation, Allowed in Bulgaria
510 damage prevention,
Bear Management Team
for bears approaching
human settlements
Cantabrian Spain11 222 Endangered Damage compensation, Not allowed
damage prevention
Alpine Austria, Italy12,13, Slovenia10 49–64 Critically Damage compensation, Allowed in Slovenia
(reintroduced in endangered damage prevention,
Italy) Bear Response Team,
hunting, supplemental
feeding
Central Italy12,13 35–67 (Central Critically Damage compensation, Not allowed
Apennines Apennines, endangered damage prevention
autochthonous)
Pyrenean France, Spain 22–27 (8 Critically Damage compensation, Not allowed
translocated endangered financial help for
from Slovenia) prevention measures,
awareness campaign for
hunters
1
 Bear populations are listed in decreasing order of population size; 2Kaczensky et al., 2013; 3Skrbinšek et al., 2015; 4Damage prevention includes e.g., electric fences, bear-proof
garbage and compost bins, use of guardian dogs for livestock protection; 5Not all countries that share a single bear population apply all the listed practices; 6Rigg and Adamec,
2007; 7Swenson et al., 2017; 8Kocijan and Huber, 2008; 9Melovski and Godes, 2002; 10Kavčič et al., 2013; 11Pérez et al., 2014; 12Gervasi et al., 2008; 13Ciucci and Boitani, 2008
 310  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
References
Andreasen, A. M., Stewart, K. M., Longland, W. S., Beckmann, J. P., and Forister, M. L. (2012)
VetBooks.ir

‘Identification of source-sink dynamics in mountain lions of the Great Basin’, Molecular

Ecology, vol 21, no 23, pp5689–5701.
Bischof, R., Brøseth, H., and Gimenez, O. (2015) ‘Wildlife in a politically divided world:
Insularism inflates estimates of brown bear abundance’, Conservation Letters, vol 9, no 2,
pp122–130.
Bischof, R., and Swenson, J. E. (2012) ‘Linking noninvasive genetic sampling and traditional
monitoring to aid management of a trans-border carnivore population’, Ecological Applica-
tions, vol 22, no 1, pp361–373.
Blanco, J. C. (2012) ‘Towards a Population Level Approach for the Management of Large Carnivores
in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities, European Commission, Brussels.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-
Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F.,
Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov,
A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu,
O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J.,
Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E.,
Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis,Y., Mysłajek, R. W., Nowak, S., Odden,
J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer,
G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J.
E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E.,Váňa, M.,Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P.,
Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. (2014) ‘Recovery of
large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, 6216,
pp1517–1519.
Ćirović, D., de Gabriel Hernando, M., Paunović, M., and Karamanlidis, A. A. (2015) ‘Home
range, movements, and activity patterns of a brown bear in Serbia’, Ursus, vol 26, no 2,
pp79–85.
Ciucci, P., and Boitani, L. (2008) ‘The Apennine brown bear: A critical review of its status and
conservation problems’, Ursus, vol 19, no 2, pp130–145.
CNPN (1999) Estrategia para la Conservación del Oso pardo Cantábrico (Ursus arctos) en España.
Comisión Nacional para la Protección de la Naturaleza, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Madrid, Spain.
Dahle, B., and Swenson, J. E. (2003) ‘Seasonal range size in relation to reproductive strategies
in brown bears Ursus arctos’, Journal of Animal Ecology, vol 72, no 4, pp660–667.
Dečak, D., Frković, A., Grubešić, M., Huber, D., Iviček, B., Kulić, B., Sertić, D., and Štahan,
Ž. (2005) Brown Bear Management Plan for the Republic of Croatia. Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Management, Zagreb, Croatia.
Elfström, M., Zedrosser, A., Støen, O. – G., and Swenson, J. E. (2014) ‘Ultimate and proximate
mechanisms underlying the occurrence of bears close to human settlements: Review and
management implications’, Mammal Review, vol 44, no 1, pp5–18.
Eskelinen, P. (2009) Karhut elinkeinona – millaisia ovat katselupalveluja tarjoavat yritykset?, Riista-
ja kalatalouden tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki, Finland.
European Commission (1992) ‘The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC)’,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm,
accessed 11 April 2017.
Gavrilov, G.V., Zlatanova, D. P., Spasova,V.V.,Valchev, K. D., and Dutsov, A. A. (2015) ‘Home
range and habitat use of brown bear in Bulgaria: The first data based on GPS-telemetry’,
Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, vol 67, no 4, pp493–499.
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 311
Gervasi, V., Brøseth, H., Nilsen, E. B., Ellegren, H., Flagstad, Ø., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2015)
‘Compensatory immigration counteracts contrasting conservation strategies of wolverines
(Gulo gulo) within Scandinavia’, Biological Conservation, vol 191, pp632–639.
VetBooks.ir

Gervasi,V., Ciucci, P., Boulanger, J. B., Posillico, M., Sulli, C., Focardi, S., Randi, E., and Boi-
tani, L. (2008) ‘A preliminary estimate of the Apennine brown bear population size based
on hair-snag sampling and multiple data source mark-recapture Huggins model’, Ursus,
vol 9, no 2, pp105–121.
Gillin, C. M., Hammond, F. M., and Peterson, C. M. (1995) ‘Aversive conditioning of grizzly
bears. Can bears be taught to stay out of trouble?’, Yellowstone Science Winter, vol 3, no 1,
pp1–7.
Gunther, K. A., Haroldson, M. A., Frey, K., Cain, S. L., Copeland, J., and Schwartz, C. C.
(2004) ‘Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992–2000’,
Ursus, vol 15, no 1, pp10–22.
Herrero, S. (2002) Bear Attacks:Their Causes and Avoidance (2nd ed.), Nick Lyons Books, New
York.
Huber, Ð., Kusak, J., Majić-Skrbinšek, A., Majnarić, D., and Sindičić, M. (2008) ‘A multidi-
mensional approach to managing the European brown bear in Croatia’, Ursus, vol 19, no
1, pp22–32.
Jerina, K., and Adamič, M. (2008) ‘Fifty years of brown bear population expansion: Effects of
six-biased dispersal on rate of expansion and population structure’, Journal of Mammalogy,
vol 89, no 6, pp1491–2501.
Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., and Linnell, J. (2013) Status,
Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores – Bear, Lynx, Wolf & Wolverine – In Europe,
Report to the EU Commission.
Kaczensky, P., Jerina, K., Jonozovič, M., Krofel, M., Skrbinšek,T., Rauer, G., Kos, I., and Gut-
leb, B. (2011) ‘Illegal killings may hamper brown bear recovery in the Eastern Alps’, Ursus,
vol 22, no 1, pp37–46.
Kavčič, I., Adamič, M., Kaczensky, P., Krofel, M., and Jerina, K. (2013) ‘Supplemental feeding
with carrion is not reducing brown bear depredations on sheep in Slovenia’, Ursus, vol 24,
no 2, pp111–119.
Knott, E. J., Bunnefeld, N., Huber, D., Reljić, S., Kerež,i V., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2014)
‘The potential impacts of changes in bear hunting policy for hunting organisations in
Croatia’, European Journal of Wildlife Research, vol 60, no 1, pp85–97.
Kocijan, I., and Huber, Đ. (2008) Threat to the Brown Bear in Croatia, Annex 7: Conservation
Genetics of Brown Bears in Croatia: Final Report. Report by the Ministry of Environment
and Nature Protection (BBI -Matra/2006/020 through ALERTIS).
Kojola, I., and Heikkinen, S. (2012) ‘Problem brown bears Ursus arctos in Finland in relation
to bear feeding for tourism purposes and the density of bears and humans’, Wildlife Biology,
vol 18, no 3, pp258–263.
Krofel, M., Filacorda, S., and Jerina, K. (2010) ‘Mating-related movements of male brown
bears on the periphery of an expanding population’, Ursus, vol 21, no 1, pp23–29.
Krofel, M., Jonozovič, M., and Jerina, K. (2012) ‘Demography and mortality patterns of
removed brown bears in a heavily exploited population’, Ursus, vol 23, no 1, pp91–103.
Kryštufek, B., Flajšman, and Griffiths, H. I. (eds) (2003) Living with Bears. A Large European
Carnivore in a Shrinking World, Ecological Forum of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia,
Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Leclerc, M., Frank, S. C., Zedrosser, A., Swenson, J. E., and Pelletier, F. (2017) ‘Hunting pro-
motes spatial reorganization and sexually selected infanticide’, Scientific Reports, vol 7,
45222.
 312  Vincenzo Penteriani et al.
Linnell, J., Salvatori,V., and Boitani, L. (2008) Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans
for Large Carnivore in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, Report Prepared for
the European Commission (contract 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2).
VetBooks.ir

Linnell, J. D., and Boitani, L. (2011) ‘Building biological realism into wolf management pol-
icy: The development of the population approach in Europe’, Hystrix, the Italian Journal of
Mammalogy, vol 23, no 1, pp80–91.
Linnell, J. D. C., Aanes, R., Swenson, J. E., Odden, J., and Smith, M. E. (1997) ‘Translocation
of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: A review’, Biodiversity and Con-
servation, vol 6, no 9, pp1245–1257.
Linnell, J. D. C., Nilsen, E. B., Lande, U. S., Herfindel, I., Odden, J., Skogen, K., Andersen,
R., and Breitenmoser, U. (2005) ‘Zoning as a means of mitigating conflicts with large
carnivores: Principles and reality’, in R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz (eds)
People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (pp. 162–175), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Linnell, J. D. C., Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L., Kaczensky, P., Huber, D., Reljic, S., Kusak, J.,
Majic, A., Skrbinsek,T., Potocnik, H., Hayward, M.W., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Buuveibaatar,
B., Olson, K. A., Badamjav, L., Bischof, R., Zuther, S., and Breitenmoser, U. (2016) ‘Border
security fencing and wildlife: The end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia?’, PLoS
Biology, vol 14, no 6, e1002483.
Majić, A., and Krofel, M. (2015) Defining, Preventing, and Reacting to Problem Bear Behaviour in
Europe, Technical report to DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels.
Martínez Cano, I., Taboada, F. G., Naves, J., Fernández-Gil, A., and Wiegand, T. (2016)
‘Decline and recovery of a large carnivore: environmental change and long-term trends
in an endangered brown bear population’, Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B, vol
283, no 1843, p20161832.
Mazur, R. L. (2010) ‘Does aversive conditioning reduce human-black bear conflict?’, Journal
of Wildlife Management, vol 74, no 1, pp48–54.
Melovski, L., and Godes, C. (2002) ‘Large carnivores in the “Republic of Macedonia” (rec-
ognised by Greece as: “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)’, in S. Psaroudas
(ed) Protected Areas in the Southern Balkans-Legislation, Large Carnivores, Transborder Areas
(pp. 81–93), Arcturos and Hellenistic Ministry of the Environment, Physical Planning, and
Public Works, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Mertzanis, Y., Ioannis, I., Mavridis, A., Nikolaou, O., Riegler, S., Riegler, A., and Tragos, A.
(2005) ‘Movements, activity patterns and home range of a female brown bear (Ursus arctos,
L.) in the Rodopi Mountain Range, Greece’, Belgian Journal of Zoology, vol 135, no 2,
p217.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (2002) Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) Management Strat-
egy in Slovenia, Ministry for Agriculture and the Environment, Ljubljana, Slovenia, www.
mop.gov.si/, accessed 21 February 2017.
Naves, J., and Fernández-Gil, A. (2002) ‘Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758’, in L. J. Palomo and
J. Gisbert (eds) Atlas de los Mamíferos terrestres de España (Ministerio de Medioambiente,
SECEM and SECEMU) (pp. 282–285), Madrid, Spain.
Nores, C. (1988) ‘Reducción de areal del oso pardo en la Cordillera Cantábrica’, Acta Bio-
logica Montana, Série Documents de Travail, vol 2, pp7–14.
Nores, C., and Naves, J. (1993) ‘Distribución histórica del oso pardo en la Península Ibé-
rica’, in J. Naves and G. Palomero (eds) El oso pardo (Ursus arctos) en España (ICONA)
(pp. 13–33), Madrid, Spain.
Ordiz, A., Bischof, R., and Swenson, J. E. (2013) ‘Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex
predator?’, Biological Conservation, vol 168, pp128–133.
 Trans-boundary and trans-regional management 313
Penteriani,V., Delgado, M. M., and Melletti, M. (2010) ‘Don’t feed the bears!’, Oryx, vol 44,
no 2, pp169–170.
Penteriani,V., López-Bao, J.V., Bettega, C., Dalerum, F., Delgado, M. M., Jerina, K., Kojola, I.,
VetBooks.ir

Krofel, M., and Ordiz, A. (2017) ‘Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: A review’,
Biological Conservation, vol 206, pp169–180.
Pérez,T., Naves, J.,Vázquez, J. F., Fernández-Gil, A., Seijas, J., Albornoz, J., Revilla, E., Delibes,
M., and Domínguez, A. (2014) ‘Estimating the population size of the endangered Can-
tabrian brown bear through genetic sampling’, Wildlife Biology, vol 20, no 5, pp300–309.
Piédallu, B., Quenette, P. Y., Jordana, I. A., Bombillon, N., Gastineau, A., Jato, R., Miquel,
C., Munoz, P., Palazón, S., Sola de la Torre, J., and Gimenez, O. (2016) ‘Better together:
A transboundary approach to brown bear monitoring in the Pyrenees’, bioRxiv, pp075663.
Rigg, R., and Adamec, M. (2007) Status, Ecology and Management of the Brown Bear (Ursus
arctos) in Slovakia, Slovak Wildlife Society, Liptovský Hrádok, Slovakia.
Sahlén,V., Swenson, J., Brunberg, S., and Kindberg, J. (2006) Björnen i Sverige. En rapport från
det Svenska björnprojektet, Report n° 2006–4 from the Scandinavian Brown Bear Project.
Skrbinšek, T., Bragalanti, N., Calderolla, S., Groff, C., Huber, D., Kaczensky, P., Majić, A.,
Molinari-Jobin, A., Molinari, P., Rauer, G., Reljić, S., and Stergar, M. (2015) Annual Popu-
lation Status Report for Brown Bears in Northern Dinaric Mountains and Eastern Alps. Action C5.
Population Surveillance, LIFE DINALP BEAR, Report LIFE13 NAT/SI/000550.
Smith, R. D., and Maltby, E. (2003) Using the Ecosystem Approach to Implement the Convention on
Biological Diversity: Key Issues and Case Studies, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.
Sowka, P. (2009) Techniques and Refuse Management Options for Residential Areas, Campgrounds,
and Group-Use Area, Living with Predators Resource Guide Series. 3rd ed. Living with
Wildlife Foundation, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Swan Valley, Montana.
Swenson, J. E., Gerstl, N., Zedrosser, A., and Dahle, B. (2000) Action Plan for the Conservation
of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe, Nature and Environment, No 114. Strasbourg,
Council of Europe Publishing.
Swenson, J. E., Sandegren, J., Söderberg, A., Bjärvall, A., Franzén, R., and Wabakken, P. (1997)
‘Infanticide caused by hunting of male bears’, Nature, vol 386, no 6624, p450.
Swenson, J. E., Schneider, M., Zedrosser, A., Söderberg, A., Franzén, R., and Kindberg, J.
(2017) ‘Challenges of managing a European brown bear population; Lessons from Swe-
den, 1943–2013’, Wildlife Biology, no 4, wlb.00251.
Trouwborst, A. (2010) ‘Managing the carnivore comeback: International and EU species
protection law and the return of lynx, wolf and bear to Western Europe’, Journal of Envi-
ronmental Law, vol 22, no 3, pp347–372.
Turgeon, K., and Kramer, D. L. (2012) ‘Compensatory immigration depends on adjacent
population size and habitat quality but not on landscape connectivity’, Journal of Animal
Ecology, vol 81, no 6, pp1161–1170.
United Nations (1992) ‘Convention on Biological Diversity’, https://www.cbd.int/doc/
legal/cbd-en.pdf, accessed 11 April 2017.
 16 Good practice in large
carnivore conservation
VetBooks.ir

and management
Insights from the EU Platform
on Coexistence between People
and Large Carnivores
Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden

Introduction
Population trends and range distribution of the four large carnivore species
in Europe (brown bear [Ursus arctos], wolf [Canis lupus], Eurasian lynx [Lynx
lynx], and wolverine [Gulo gulo]) indicate that they have experienced recent
recovery. This implies that coexistence between people and large carnivores is
possible even in Europe’s heavily human-dominated landscapes (Chapron et al.,
2014), where protected areas are not large enough to sustain viable popula-
tions of large carnivore species (Boitani and Ciucci, 2009; see also Trouwborst
et al., 2017). However, the population increase and return of large carnivores
has raised tensions between stakeholder groups whose views range between
wholeheartedly supporting these developments to believing that large carni-
vores have no place in the existing cultural landscape of Europe.The latter often
bear the brunt of the financial or social costs associated with large carnivore
return; for instance, livestock depredation and fear for human safety. Both natu-
ral and socio-economic factors contribute towards the controversies and dis-
putes around decisions on large carnivore conservation and management: large
home ranges that cross physical and administrative borders, local regions with
rich histories and narratives around large carnivores but in many cases little
practical knowledge or financial means to deal with the adverse consequences
of living with these species, and various factors related to dimensions of social
identity and inter-group relations (Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2012; Lüchtrath and
Schraml, 2015; von Essen, 2017).
To address these multifarious challenges, a range of organizations which rep-
resent different stakeholder groups on the EU level were supported by the
European Commission in creating the EU Platform on Coexistence between
People and Large Carnivores (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/con
servation/species/carnivores/coexistence_platform.htm). The Platform, which
was established in 2014, consists of seven members: ELO – European Land-
owners’ Organization (which currently co-chairs the Platform, together with
 Good practice in large carnivore management 315
the European Commission); the Joint representatives of Finnish and Swedish
reindeer herders; FACE – The European Federation of Associations for Hunt-
ing & Conservation; CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife
VetBooks.ir

Conservation; IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature, Euro-

pean Union Representative Office;WWF – Worldwide Fund for Nature, Euro-
pean Policy Office; and EUROPARC Federation – Federation of Nature and
National Parks of Europe. All Platform members have signed an agreement
for joint action, committing to: “promote ways and means to minimize, and
wherever possible find solutions to, conflicts between human interests and the
presence of large carnivore species, by exchanging knowledge and by working
together in an open-ended, constructive and mutually respectful way” (http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/EN_
Agreement.pdf). This mission statement has been implemented since 2014
through jointly organized plenary meetings, regional workshops, and pieces of
analysis involving consultation of and gathering information from the Platform
members’ own membership in the member states, as well as between the Plat-
form members on the EU level.
The European Commission funds a Secretariat to support the Platform mem-
bers, with the important task, amongst others, of collecting and analyzing case
studies identifying good practice in large carnivore conservation and manage-
ment in various regional contexts. Given the complex nature of  human-carnivore
conflicts and the inter-group tension it usually causes, in order to be consid-
ered good practice, a case must accommodate the complex inter-relationships
among stakeholder positions. The objective of the activities promoted are nor-
mally to produce a change in terms of stakeholder relations – reduced disputes
and disagreement and/or increased collaboration – potentially even establishing
a common vision among stakeholders over time. Since damage caused by large
carnivores is the main origin of human-carnivore conflicts and related disputes,
good practice examples can deliver concrete results to reduce financial losses;
for instance, decreased frequency of livestock depredation events or improved
damage prevention methods and compensation systems. Successful implemen-
tation of these measures will require adequate funding, most probably over the
long term, especially if stakeholders are to be encouraged to maintain their
involvement over a significant period of time. In regard to this last point, dura-
bility of funding can also characterize good practice and provide an index of
sustainability; for example, when selected actions and stakeholder collaboration
continued after the initial funding of an initiative or project had been termi-
nated, suggesting they are self-sustaining in the long-term.
This chapter aims to present the main results of the task of the Secretariat
in showcasing examples of good practice in selected locations across Europe,
analyzing good practice and discussing implications and recommendations for
large carnivore conservation and management. We have abstained from refer-
ring to concepts or terms which would denote a supposed “ideal” situation,
readily transferrable between different contexts. The context-bound charac-
ter of large carnivore conservation and management involves both natural
 316  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
dimensions and human dimensions, and their various interactions, and these
require careful consideration before any transfer is attempted (e.g., Redpath
et al., 2017). Interactions between natural and human dimensions have been
VetBooks.ir

increasingly taken into account in recent research; for instance, in breeding

site selection by large carnivores (Sazatornil et al., 2016), model simulations of
habitat suitability for large carnivores (Behr et al., 2017) and identification of
“ecological traps” (i.e., where large carnivore species may be attracted to due
to habitat suitability but where human disturbance is relatively high) (Milanesi
et al., 2017). These interactions between natural and human aspects and their
effects show how place-based characteristics and practices may be decisive for
large carnivore conservation and management.
Another reason for avoiding terminology suggesting “ideal” situations can
be attained is a critical reading of the win-win perspective (see in this regard
Pooley et al., 2017). We regard good practice as the result of ongoing interac-
tion and compromise between stakeholder groups, reached through negotia-
tion. Therefore, we find it very unlikely that there will be stakeholder groups
either benefiting or losing entirely (see Redpath et al., 2013). Instead, our
“mixed-motive” alternative to the win-win model seeks to detect the mixed
impacts expected after negotiations are held and compromises reached,
weighted within and across stakeholder groups (e.g., Hoffman et al., 1999;
Hovardas, 2012). Indeed, stakeholders involved in large carnivore conservation
and management seem to be aware of the demanding nature of negotiating
solutions, and their readiness to reach a compromise should be reflected in a
fair allocation of both benefits and costs in some good practice examples. The
mixed-motive approach distinguishes itself from win-win conceptualizations
in the sense that win-win tends to downplay the need for compromises and
accepting loss and emphasizes only the possibility of all parties gaining from
the process (e.g., Sunderland et al., 2008; Galuppo et al., 2014). However, when
the costs which exist in reality are downplayed, largely for the purposes of
encouraging convergence of viewpoints and positions amongst stakeholders
in the short term, then this may have a perverse impact, since conflict may
re-surface once the costs become apparent (e.g., McShane et al., 2011). The
mixed-motive perspective has been used to study examples of good practice
and showcase how stakeholders involved were able to negotiate tradeoffs in
order to move towards the necessary compromises.

Methods

Sampling good practice

The first stage of data collection involved an extensive and non-selective sam-
pling of case studies of good practice in large carnivore conservation and man-
agement with a concentration on stakeholder interaction. A range of experts
from the Platform members and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe
 Good practice in large carnivore management 317
(LCIE), as well as speakers at Platform events, were requested to suggest such
examples. At this stage, no further or more detailed criteria were formulated
to guide respondents and data selection aimed at gathering as many examples
VetBooks.ir

as possible. For each case study, a series of characteristics were described by the
Secretariat using a standard template.The case characteristics were then used to
assign case studies to different categories. A list was prepared with 35 case stud-
ies (Table 16.1; for a detailed description of case studies: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/case_studies.htm) and
these were subjected to a screening procedure for further analysis.1

Screening good practice

Two reviewers scored each case study based on the following criteria:
(1) impact on stakeholder relations (e.g., disagreements or disputes among
stakeholders reduced, collaboration among stakeholders increased, common
vision among stakeholders established), to examine whether pre-existing ten-
sion among stakeholder groups was addressed; (2) socio-economic benefits
for residents of the target area (e.g., damage due to large carnivores decreased,
compensation systems improved, income/employment opportunities created),
indicating that benefits were diffused to local people; and (3) durability of
funding (e.g., if all or some of the actions continued after the end of the
initial funding), reflecting a mid- to long-term sustainability of the actions.
For each criterion, reviewers could indicate whether changes had actually
occurred in the case study under consideration or not (binary response vari-
able). Reviewers were then encouraged to provide written comments to jus-
tify their reasoning for each response. As part of this screening, funding source
and amount, geographic location and species targeted were also recorded.
Background literature was consulted, including scientific papers, websites and
project reports. In addition, experts and the representatives who had first sug-
gested the case studies were contacted to provide a full overview of potential
information sources. Based on this screening procedure, a ranking of case
studies was performed by taking into account: (1) case studies with the high-
est positive score across criteria (binary responses indicating that the desired
change had occurred), and (2) homogeneity in reviewer responses (matches
between the two reviewers across criteria for each case study and justifica-
tion in their written comments in the open-ended items). The screening also
involved weighting for geographical location (Mediterranean, Balkan, Central
European and Nordic dimension) and large carnivore species (wolf, bear, lynx,
wolverine). The screening procedure resulted in a long list of 16 case studies.
The Secretariat assessed the feedback of Platform members on the long list,
from which no significant concerns or remarks emerged, and arrived at a short
list of 10 case studies based again on score, divergence between reviewer rat-
ings, geographical location, and large carnivore species. These ten case studies
were further examined (Annex 16.1).
 Table 16.1 Categorization of case studies depicting good practice in large carnivore conser-
vation and management
VetBooks.ir

Category Description Species Member States Number

of cases

Advice/ Sourcing of information from Bear, wolf, Austria, 8

Awareness individual contact points lynx Germany,
raising1 (websites, experts, volunteers) for Lithuania,
the general public, responsible Finland
authorities or stakeholders
Awareness raising for tourists to Bear Bulgaria, 2
avoid conflict with bears Poland
Avoiding infrastructure Wolf Portugal 1
development in areas important
for wolf breeding
Innovative Volunteer programmes supporting Wolf France, Italy 3
financing livestock keepers in protecting
their flocks from wolves
Eco-labelling schemes to increase Bear, wolf Austria, 3
value of farm produce coming Croatia,
from areas where livestock France, Italy,
coexist with large carnivores Slovenia
Eco-tourism development Wolf Italy 1
based on the presence of large
carnivores
Payment for results scheme Wolverine Sweden 1
(number of successful young
wolverines)
Practical Practical measures to improve Bear, wolf, Bulgaria, 5
support coexistence such as provision lynx Greece, Italy,
of fencing or livestock guarding Slovenia
dogs
Establishment of emergency teams Bear Greece 1
to respond to call-outs
Monitoring Good practice in involving Bear, wolf, Slovenia, 4
stakeholders in monitoring of lynx, Croatia, Italy,
wolverine Finland,
large carnivores and sharing the
results with stakeholders Sweden,
Norway
Good practice in cross border Bear, wolf Finland, 1
monitoring Norway,
Russia
Understanding Studies understanding stakeholder Bear, wolf Greece, Italy, 2
viewpoints attitudes to different large Slovenia
carnivore species
Intensive efforts to encourage Bear, wolf, Germany, 3
stakeholders to work together lynx Switzerland,
Spain
 No case study in this category was retained for further analysis, after screening and weighting; see
1

“Methods,” subsection “Screening good practice”.

 Good practice in large carnivore management 319
Interviews with members of stakeholder groups involved in the case studies

Selection of interviewees and data collection

VetBooks.ir

For each case study, at least three informants were selected. The procedure
started with experts among Platform members, the LCIE and presenters in Plat-
form events, who had submitted the case studies, suggesting potential inform-
ants among members of stakeholder groups who had been actively and deeply
involved and had gained a thorough experience of the implementations at the
local level. These included local producers (e.g., stock breeders, farmers, bee
keepers), hunters, landowners, authorities (e.g., regional/local and managing
authorities), foresters, scientists (e.g., biologists, conservation scientists, experts
in human dimensions) and members of environmental non-governmental
organizations. After a first informant had been secured for each case study, he/
she was asked to indicate other people engaged. When selecting interview-
ees, care was taken to include at least one member from all core stakeholder
groups involved. By means of the snowball sampling method, a total of 34
interviewees were identified, and semi-structured interviews were conducted
based on an interview matrix developed by the Secretariat. Before the inter-
view, interviewees were informed about the aim of the study and granted their
informed consent. Since the nature of the study was exploratory, the main aim
was not to follow up all points raised by interviewees exhaustively but to arrive
at an understanding of stakeholder positioning on the issues at hand. Therefore,
one interviewee representing each interest group was regarded as sufficient and
additional informants were only sought in the case that a very wide range of
different groups were involved or if the complexity of issues handled indicated
that additional interviews were needed.These requirements were generally met
for each case after the third or fourth interview. Semi-structured interviews
focused on pre-defined themes (e.g., what has worked well and what could be
improved, with a concentration on stakeholder interaction, transferability and
continuation of the implementation) but also gave interviewees the opportu-
nity to expand on topics of interest to address any relevant concern. All inter-
views were carried out by national experts commissioned for that purpose in
the national language of interviewees, and they were digitally recorded, tran-
scribed, and translated into English.

Data analysis
Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts involved developing codes and
then coding of all interview extracts. Key themes were identified in terms
of: (1) perceived benefits and gains of participation, which could also refer
to the added value of participation (e.g., direct or indirect financial or other
benefits), and (2) costs of participation, also including unanticipated negative
side effects acknowledged by respondents during or after the implementation.
Perceived benefits and costs of participation were allocated across two main
 320  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
topics – namely, large carnivore conservation and agricultural production/
primary sector (mainly livestock raising or herding) activities – while game
management and developments in the tourism sector also emerged as second-
VetBooks.ir

ary topics in some case studies. This mixed-motive perspective was employed
in each individual case study to account for aspects that had worked well and
aspects that could or should be improved, and the trade-offs that should be met
for effective stakeholder interaction, transferability and viability of the imple-
mentation. Particular attention was paid to discursive positioning, whereby
interviewees elaborated on their viewpoints on a range of developments at
the local level focusing particularly on contrasting lines of argumentation (see
Hovardas, 2017a). To provide a measure of consistency in coding, 20% of tran-
scripts have been coded by two independent raters and inter-rater reliability
amounted to more than 85% across themes.

Results

Examples of good practice and stakeholder positioning

Practical support under the Slovenian rural development programme

By the end of the 19th century, habitat alterations and policies of poisoning
and hunting large carnivores had driven Slovenia’s brown bear and wolf popu-
lations nearly to extinction. Conservation measures introduced at the end of
the 19th century allowed recovery of the populations to around 533–598 bears
and around 52 wolves, according to government monitoring (Skoberne, 2017).
Although estimates for both bear and wolf populations show increasing popu-
lation trends, there are several concerns in terms of having reached favourable
conservation status or not, which mainly refer to population dynamics (e.g.,
Jerina and Adamič, 2008).
The main conflict around large carnivores is depredation of livestock by
both bears and wolves. A wide range of management measures have been put
in place including education and awareness raising, monitoring, waste manage-
ment, lethal population management and a series of compensation and pre-
vention measures targeted specifically at the livestock sector. Measures have
been trialled through a number of EU LIFE projects (e.g., “SLOWWOLF”;
“DINALP”), but Slovenia has also one of the longest standing uses in the EU
of their Rural Development Programme to support prevention measures, hav-
ing included measures in the programme since entering the EU. The Rural
Development Programmes are funded through the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), part of the EU Common Agricul-
tural Policy, together with national co-financing. The advantage of this funding
stream is that it is available across the EU, is significantly larger than the LIFE
Nature and Biodiversity fund and can be accessed both by individuals and
groups (Marsden et al., 2016). The activities funded under the sub-measure
Animal husbandry in central areas of appearance of large carnivores include herd
 Good practice in large carnivore management 321
protection using mobile electric fences and nets, shepherding and support for
livestock guarding dogs. In the 2007–2014 period, the total expenditure for the
sub-measure was €1,304,443.28. There were 642 applications in total, mean-
VetBooks.ir

ing that payments were on average €2,090 per applicant (Slovenian Ministry of
Agriculture, 2015). Numerous stakeholder groups were involved in the design
of the measure, including farmer representatives, the Slovenian Forest Service
and environmental non-governmental organizations. These stakeholder groups
are also represented on the Programme Monitoring Committee.
Interviewees in the Slovenian case study highlighted that implementation
of damage preventions methods is expected to bring about benefits such as
increased tolerance of beneficiaries towards large carnivore species and a will-
ingness to coexist with these species (Table 16.2). An increase in large carnivore
populations had been also recorded within the period during which the meas-
ures were in place. The costs referred to by interviewees concentrated on the
additional input required for the effective implementation of damage prevention
methods – for instance, maintaining and breeding or training of livestock guard-
ing dogs – that may not be covered by the programmes and need to be partly
taken on by conservation organizations. Interviewees also underlined a series
of costs of participation or unintended side effects for agricultural production
and primary activities, which were related to either institutional arrangements
or on-the-ground implementation of damage prevention methods. Specifically,
they pointed out that when costs of participation were not fully covered for
farmers, then this may force them to increase the price of agricultural products.
Interviewees also criticized the programme for not allowing for a joint imple-
mentation of more than one measures (e.g., combining electric fences with live-
stock guarding dogs), which may have compromised the optimum potential for
damage prevention methods. With regard to on-the-ground implementation,
interviewees pointed out the crucial importance of installing the fences properly,
since damage can be worse otherwise. Another issue to be tackled was the ability
of wolves to learn how to get around fences unless they were moved frequently.

Innovative funding: conservation performance payments for wolverines, Sweden

Wolverines are rare in Europe, being found only in four northern countries:
Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Overall numbers are low, at around 1,200
in the three Nordic countries, with more than half of these found in Sweden
(Linnell, 2014). The population decreased in the 19th century due to persecu-
tion and the fur trade. Habitat changes have also had an impact over time. The
fact that the Nordic population is small and groups are often isolated means that
genetic variability is low (Abramov, 2016).
Depredation of reindeer is the main cause of conflict related to wolverines.
In order for wolverines to survive in an area, a certain amount of depreda-
tion must be tolerated by the indigenous Sámi reindeer herders. A compensa-
tion system for damages based on reindeer carcass documentation was put in
place. Lethal control of large carnivores is also carried out based on a quota
 322  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
Table 16.2 Elaboration of the benefits and costs of participation by interviewees in the
Slovenian case study (Practical support under the Slovenian Rural Development
Programme)
VetBooks.ir

Main focus of Benefits and gains of Costs of participation; unanticipated

stakeholder interest participation; added value side effects

Large carnivore • Adoption of damage • Livestock guarding dogs

conservation prevention measures is need training, which is quite
usually accompanied by demanding, before they can
increased tolerance towards be effective in preventing
large carnivores and better damage to livestock from large
acceptance of coexistence carnivores; not all of these costs
with people for maintaining, breeding and
• The population of large training livestock guarding dogs
carnivores has increased are covered by the programmes
over the period the and they are sometimes partly
measures have been in place taken on by conservation
(though this is likely due organizations
to a range of conservation
activities)
Agricultural • The implementation • Where costs for farmers are not
production, of damage prevention fully covered, this increases their
livestock, primary measures has decreased overall costs and potentially has
sector activities the number of attacks on a knock-on impact on the price
livestock of agricultural products
• Implementing multiple
measures is not allowed under
the programme, e.g., combining
electric fences with livestock
guarding dogs
• If fences are incorrectly
installed, damage can be worse
than when it has not been there
at all
• Wolves can learn how to get
around fences if they are not
moved frequently
Note: Interviewees included one farmer, staff of the Slovenian Forest Service and a member of an envi-
ronmental non-governmental organization.

scheme and reacting to problem individuals. In 1996, the Swedish government

replaced compensation payments with a Conservation Performance Payments
(CPP) scheme, paying reindeer herders for the number of successfully breed-
ing wolverines in their area regardless of predation levels as well as for wol-
verine occurrence in districts without confirmed reproductions. A monitoring
scheme is attached to the CPP in which reindeer herders are also engaged. The
CPP is government funded and payments have been set at around 200,000
SEK (1 SEK = approximately €0.10) per documented wolverine reproduc-
tion (Zabel and Holm-Müller, 2007; Persson et al., 2009). This measure has
 Good practice in large carnivore management 323
been successful in reducing illegal killing, which was the primary reason for
adult mortality of Swedish wolverines. The population doubled over a 10-year
period (from 57 in 2002 to 125 in 2012), and expanded into previously unoc-
VetBooks.ir

cupied areas (Persson et al., 2015).

Interviewees agreed that the scheme had reduced conflict around wolver-
ines. Since payments were received whether or not reindeer were killed, it had
also encouraged better stock protection measures (Table 16.3). Additionally,
herders saved time as they were not obliged to go out to search for the carcasses
of reindeer in order to support compensation claims.The joint monitoring was
also instrumental in reaching an agreed understanding of the background situ-
ation. While the scheme had significant benefits over the previous compensa-
tion method, it was not without its detractors and certain unanticipated side
effects were experienced by those involved. The monitoring needed to back
up the scheme has its weaknesses: It may disturb females with young since a
close approach to the den is required in order to count young. Additionally,
weather conditions may sometimes lead to false estimations of the population
and potentially underpayment and local people may not always agree with the
methods used. The payments are based on location of dens within administra-
tive boundaries. If wolverines hunt within an administrative district other than
the one in which they have their dens, herders may not be sufficiently compen-
sated for their losses. Another problem is that there may be a mismatch between
the CPP and other large carnivore management measures. In particular, a 10%
tolerated damage threshold (10% of stock lost) has been set and in the case this
is reached, lethal control may be agreed even though it may be unclear which
large carnivore species is responsible for damages. Finally, some herders may
take advantage of the timing of the monitoring and illegally kill young wolver-
ines after they know it has been carried out. Since they will still receive their
payment without accepting the loss of reindeer caused by the wolverines, this
can be regarded as “free riding” the system.

Understanding viewpoints: Core Group Wolf, Bern, Switzerland

After the extermination of wolves in Switzerland in the 19th century, the first
returning wolf was recorded in the Canton of Bern in 2006 (KORA, 2012).
A pair established themselves in the area in 2016, but the female wolf was later
found poisoned in the canton of Fribourg. Single wolves are present, and it is
expected that there will be further pairing attempts in the area.
Depredation of livestock, particularly sheep, is the main cause of conflict.
Farmers received adequate compensation, but face emotional stress due to loss
of livestock and additional work to implement protection measures. Tourism is
dependent on the grazed landscapes of the Alps, and there are concerns that a
growing population of wolves will put this at risk through reducing the viabil-
ity of livestock farming – conflict between tourism and the presence of live-
stock guarding dogs and potentially putting tourists off due to fear of wolves.
Illegal killing of wolves still has the potential to be a major problem in the area.
 Table 16.3 Elaboration of the benefits and costs of participation by interviewees in the Swedish
case study (Conservation performance payments [CPP] for wolverine)
VetBooks.ir

Main focus Benefits and gains of Costs of participation; unanticipated side

of stakeholder participation; added value effects
interest

Large carnivore • An increase in the • Pressure is put on people working with

conservation wolverine population monitoring – the field personnel or
and distribution has been the methodology are blamed for any
observed and documented inconsistencies and local people may
through monitoring which not agree that the methodology used
can be directly attributed to is suitable, leading to a resurfacing of
the CPP conflict
• A corresponding reduction • The monitoring system may disturb
of human-carnivore females, since inspection needs to
conflict can be observed; approach quite close to the den so that
this has set the stage for an reproduction can be documented
improvement in stakeholder • The CPP may not always align with
relations other large carnivore management
measures; specifically, there is a 10%
tolerated damage threshold for all large
carnivore species – if damage is above
this level, lethal action may be taken,
and it may be difficult to attribute
damage to a specific species
• Illegal killing of wolverines does still
exist as a type of “free riding”, e.g.,
young shot after documentation of
reproduction has been undertaken
Agricultural • Payments in the form of • Weather conditions may not always
production, CPP encourage efficient allow for a reliable assessment of
livestock, herding (i.e., prevention monitoring indices, which may
primary of depredation) and do lead to an underestimation of CPP
sector not penalize with a lower (dependence of monitoring on snow)
activities compensation • Reindeer herders underlined that
• They are certainly an CPP cannot fairly balance livestock
improvement over the losses and request an increase; they also
compensation systems highlight that the system has not been
based on documentation of updated since 2002, and they would
livestock depredation for like a higher fee/subsidy for local
a variety of reasons (many people involved
depredated animals may • CPP payments are dependent on
be never found, significant the number of reproductions from a
effort is required to look for location as well as the location of the
them) den in relation to the border of the
• Involvement in monitoring focal district – a herder may not get
increases belief in the compensation even though they are
system and can provide an close to the site, if they are located on
additional source of income the wrong side of the focal district
border
Note: Interviewees included a reindeer herder, county administration personnel and member of an
environmental non-governmental organisation.
 Good practice in large carnivore management 325
Compensation schemes have been in place since the reintroduction of the lynx
in the 1970s. Originally paid by the Swiss League for the Protection of the
Nature (now “Pro Natura”), they have now been taken over by Government
VetBooks.ir

authorities (federal and cantonal), and payments are dependent on confirma-

tion of an attack by a game warden. In order to engage stakeholders with large
carnivore management, the Department of Economic Affairs of the Canton of
Bern developed an Official Strategy on Coexisting with Wolves (Kanton Bern,
2007). The Core Group Wolf was established to implement the strategy and
to encourage and facilitate discussions between stakeholders in the light of an
increasing wolf population (Juesy, 2015). Such groupings, which have also been
established in other cantons, look at the practical implementation of damage
prevention measures. Biannual meetings take place in Bern, as well as an annual
excursion to look at prevention measures on the ground. Meeting venues and
excursion costs are financed by the authorities, though members must attend in
their own time and cover their travel costs to the meeting point.
Interviewees highlighted that by working together in the group and particu-
larly by taking part in excursions together, relationships had been improved,
meaning that on the local level, joint solutions could be found, even if the
different interest groups had opposing opinions. The group has succeeded in
developing a common vision and a joint understanding of their aims. Particu-
larly important for building trust was signing and respecting an agreement not
to release any press statements without prior discussion with the group mem-
bers (Table 16.4). Farmer participants could learn how to better protect their
flocks, and also appreciated the increased understanding of their position and
the additional difficulties they faced in putting in place protection measures.
Farmers, however, also faced negative side effects which were especially related
to their standing with other farming colleagues and in-group dynamics. Those
participating were regarded by colleagues as being “pro-wolf ” and not fully
representing their group’s viewpoints. This also meant that the trust built up
within the group was not necessarily disseminated outwards to other farmers.
Additionally, concern was expressed that those farmers who did not implement
protection measures would be disproportionately affected by any wolf attacks
and could end up bearing substantial costs.While conservationists largely bene-
fited from the group, participation meant that they also have to accept compro-
mise and potentially consider lethal control in the case that damages increase
beyond a threshold acceptable to farmers.

TASSU monitoring system and volunteer-based large carnivore

contact network, Finland
All four European large carnivores (wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine) are pre-
sent in Finland. In recent years, there has been some recovery of numbers and
range. Current population estimates are as follows: wolves, 150–180 individu-
als, considered endangered according to IUCN criterion; bears, 1,980–2,100
individuals, near threatened; lynx, 2,355–2,495 individuals, near threatened
 326  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
Table 16.4 Elaboration of the benefits and costs of participation by interviewees in the Swiss
case study (Core Group Wolf)
VetBooks.ir

Main focus of Benefits and gains of Costs of participation; unanticipated

stakeholder interest participation; added value side effects

Large carnivore • Legal requirements • The increase in wolf numbers

conservation concerning the protected has also led to an increase
status of the wolf are in the damage extent and to
generally respected occasional illegal killing
• Public insecurity related • Lethal wolf management may
to wolves in the area be considered if wolf numbers
stirred up by the media increase dramatically
can be avoided through
previously agreed upon
communication flows
Agricultural • Farmers are recognized • If damage prevention
production, by stakeholder groups as measures are not uniformly
livestock, primary possible victims of damages implemented at the local level,
sector activities caused by large carnivores; then those local producers who
the additional burden in have not implemented the
time and investment for measures may suffer substantial
farmers implementing damage
livestock protection • Professional colleagues (e.g.,
measures is acknowledged other farmers) outside of the
• Excursion participants Core Group Wolf assume
broaden their knowledge that a member of this group
on protection measures automatically is in favour of
against wolf attacks the return of the wolf, leading
to potential conflict within this
interest group
Note: Interviewees included a representative of a farming organization, a nature conservation association
and a game warden.

(LUKE, 2017); wolverines, 220–250 individuals, endangered (Metsähallitus,

2017a). Finnish wolf and wolverine populations are still small and suffer from
lack of genetic exchange. Wolverines suffer the effects of climate change as
full snow cover during winter influences the success of reproduction of this
species. Lynx and bear populations are healthier (near threatened, recently
down-ranked from threatened), and exchange occurs with the Russian bear
population.
National management plans have been created for all large carnivore species
(Metsähallitus, 2017b). The plans consist of a range of actions which aim to
find solutions both to conservation issues and to conflict with other interests.
Hunting quotas are allocated for all four species. In 2017, a hunting quota
for wolverine was issued for the first time in 35 years. The biggest problem
of coexisting with large carnivores in the case study area is damage to rein-
deer herding. A damage evaluation and compensation system is in place, while
the compensation claimed in 2016 was €10 million (Metsähallitus, 2017c). The
 Good practice in large carnivore management 327
threat wolves pose to hunting dogs is also a significant issue, and damage caused
by large carnivore species to other agricultural activities (livestock, beekeeping
and other forms of agriculture) can also be a problem locally. There are also
VetBooks.ir

some problems with fear of large carnivores and the danger they might pose
to humans.
The TASSU data collection system for large carnivores (TASSU is the Finn-
ish word for “paw”) has been in place since 1978. The aim of the system is
to improve accessible scientific data and monitor population sizes though the
establishment of an electronic database to which all stakeholders have access.
The system is run by the Finnish State and costs between €10,000–25,000/year
to run. It involves identifying and training suitable volunteers from a range of
different interest groups, to collect information on the signs of the presence of
large carnivores. Once confirmed by an expert, the information is entered into
a publically available database. According to the interviewees, TASSU has been
successful in increasing the knowledge of the engaged stakeholders about large
carnivores and their trust in the monitoring system (Table 16.5). Stakeholders
now at least start from a common understanding of the facts when discussing

Table 16.5 Elaboration of the benefits and costs of participation by interviewees in the Finn-
ish case study (TASSU monitoring system and volunteer-based large carnivore
contact network)

Main focus of stakeholder Benefits and gains of Costs of participation;

interest participation; added value unanticipated side effects

Large carnivore • Better documentation of • “Problem” wolves to be

conservation presence and numbers of detected and removed
large carnivores
Agricultural • Damage evaluation is • Compensation after damage
production, livestock, deemed satisfactory evaluation is not satisfactory,
primary sector especially for beekeepers
activities • Damage caused by wolves
increases with number of
wolves
Game management • Hunters are the main social • Hunters’ rights and quotas
actor to collect data on may be renegotiated among
large carnivores stakeholders following new
information gathered from
monitoring.
Tourism sector • Employment and • Inappropriate tourism
development opportunities activities have been
in the tourism sector recorded, resulting in large
carnivores being attracted
to certain areas/food
conditioned
• Public opinion may be
against increased tourism
Note: Interviewees were representatives from the local game management association, a research institu-
tion and a conservationist.
 328  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
large carnivore management. This has supported agreement of a common
vision at least on certain issues such as dealing with “problem” wolves, and
conservationists have also had to accept some lethal control. Although damage
VetBooks.ir

caused by large carnivores is thought to be satisfactorily evaluated, there have

been some complaints for compensation, especially from beekeepers. Moreover,
the basic conflict related to the number of reindeer in particular lost to wolves
has not yet been effectively addressed. Any increase in wolf numbers is likely
to result in an increase in damages. Hunters have been the main social actors
to contribute in data collection on large carnivores. However, hunters’ rights
and quotas may be renegotiated among stakeholders following new informa-
tion gathered from monitoring. While there may be potential to carry out new
tourism activities, these are often negatively perceived locally, with concerns
expressed that they encourage large carnivores to return to particular areas and
potentially habituate to humans.

Discussion and implications for large carnivore

conservation and management
The examples of good practice in large carnivore conservation and management
which have been presented in this chapter are among the most acknowledged
and valued instances of successful stakeholder involvement and collaboration
as identified by Platform members and national experts. The mixed-motive
approach highlights how stakeholder positioning took into account trade-offs
and potential points of focus and improvement in terms of stakeholder interac-
tion, transferability of the various implementations and their viability. We have
showcased how interviewees raised points related not only to the difficulties
they themselves experienced in participating (time commitment needed or
compromises to be made), but also how the implementation of good practice
itself may have unanticipated consequences, which need to be very carefully
considered in future decision-making at the local level. Unanticipated conse-
quences may take the form of an interplay of positive or negative feedback loop
effects, reinforcing unwanted outcomes or halting desired developments. In this
overall frame, good practice cannot be conceptualized as a flawless trajectory
of intended and fully anticipated events and outcomes, but as stakeholder joint
action including adapting plans to deal with the difficulties or barriers emerg-
ing at the local level with the constellation of stakeholder interests present.This
conceptualization will always incorporate some kind of compromise among
stakeholders reached through negotiation and under the frame of what we
have termed a mixed-motive perspective in large carnivore conservation and
management.
Perhaps the most well documented positive feedback loop effect is that the
increase in large carnivore numbers is highly likely to increase the odds of
damage caused by large carnivores (e.g., the Swiss and Finnish case studies). In
some cases, this may exceed a tolerance threshold and result in calls for lethal
management of large carnivores or removal of “problem” animals.These actions
 Good practice in large carnivore management 329
will not be readily supported by all stakeholders, particularly in the light of
recent research, questioning the effectiveness of lethal methods over non-lethal
ones, when it comes to damage prevention (e.g., Treves et al., 2016). Disagree-
VetBooks.ir

ment in this case exemplifies how stakeholder interaction may give rise to new
tension in inter-group relations (see also the Finnish case study, where hunters
may need to renegotiate hunting rights and quotas with other stakeholders).
However, positive outcomes for inter-group relations were also described by
interviewees (e.g., the Swiss and Finnish case studies), especially that mutual
recognition of the points of view of the actors involved allowed for trust build-
ing (see Young et al., 2016). A common finding in all case studies examined is
that stakeholder interaction is possible even if the conflict has not been resolved
and even when a fully-fledged consensus on controversial issues related to large
carnivore conservation and management will never be achieved (see also Red-
path et al., 2013;Young et al., 2013).
A second positive feedback was that operation of damage prevention meth-
ods was associated with additional workload (i.e., the greater the number the
damage prevention methods introduced, the larger the workload needed).
Stakeholders interviewed in the Slovenian case study suggested that this addi-
tional input could eventually increase the price of agricultural products. Unde-
sirable developments after the implementation of damage prevention methods
were also recorded. For instance, a negative feedback loop emerges if damage
prevention methods are not taken up by all local producers uniformly in an
area, which renders those not implementing them disproportionally vulnerable
to large carnivore attacks (see the Swiss case study). Interviews revealed another
negative feedback loop related to measures that were not put in place properly
(see the Slovenian case study). For instance, incorrect installation of electric
fences or the habituation of large carnivores to electric fences installed will not
help decrease livestock losses and can even increase them if sheep are trapped
by an incorrectly installed fence.
Conservation performance payments in Sweden reverse the burden of proof
for damage caused by large carnivores: the ex-post compensation schemes was
replaced by an ex-ante compensation scheme; i.e., participants were paid for
the number of young wolverines born. Stakeholder input, expertise and work-
load is redirected from searching for livestock carcasses to prove damage and
access compensation (a work-intensive and often frustrating process if the car-
cass is never found), towards documenting wolverine reproduction to justify
payments. Indeed, this may result in a positive feedback in that engaging Sámi
people in reproduction documentation may provide a means of recognizing
their knowledge and expertise. The rewarding incentives cultivated by this ex-
ante scheme may trigger a further positive feedback loop in encouraging imple-
mentation of damage prevention methods and efficient herding (e.g., Zabel
et al., 2011). Namely, payments could be wiped out by damages unless damage
prevention methods are put in place. Therefore, our findings support those of
Skonhoft (2017) showing that ex-ante compensation schemes are more efficient
than ex-post compensation.
 330  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
However, even this example of good practice is not without unantici-
pated side effects. Indeed, aspects related to the local setting (weather condi-
tions, which may influence monitoring systems and leave some reproductions
VetBooks.ir

unaccounted for) and aspects related to how monitoring is operationalized

(approaching close to dens to document reproduction is likely to disturb female
wolverines), as well as social norms related to monitoring (social pressure put
on field personnel who perform monitoring), may result in resentment build-
ing up locally between reindeer herders. What is more, our interviewees sug-
gested that poaching may sometimes take place after reproductions have been
documented, despite the fact that previous research indicated that beneficiar-
ies refrain from illegal killing of wolverines (Zabel et al., 2014). Such events
may be characterized as “free riding” behaviour, since undiscovered poachers
may enjoy the benefits of the ex-ante compensation scheme without losing
reindeer, having to adapt their herding practices or implement any damage
prevention method. Future research needs to reflect on the motives behind this
“free riding” and whether it is related to an apparent lack of full correspond-
ence between the allocation of conservation performance payments, on the one
hand, and allocation of wolverine damages on the other. Payments are directed
to villages in the administrative area where the reproduction is located, and not
at each herder separately. Each village then is responsible for distributing the
reward. Since damage caused by wolverines may not be uniformly distributed
across the reindeer herding area, some herders may not receive fair allocation
compared to the damage they have to bear. This is particularly problematic
for herders located on the wrong side of the focal district border. This distri-
butional issue in conservation performance payments has been underlined by
previous studies (Zabel et al., 2014, p. 616; Skonhoft, 2017, p. 922).
There were two cases that pointed to the need for planning synergies
between different measures carefully. In the Slovenian case study, interviewees
highlighted that producers were only eligible for funding for individual meas-
ures through the rural development programmes rather than a range of compli-
mentary measures (e.g., installing electric fences together with using livestock
guarding dogs). In addition, the Swedish case study showed how the incentive
structures for two different management measures may prove to be incompat-
ible. In this case, interviewees underlined the inconsistency between conserva-
tion performance payments, on the one hand, and the 10% tolerance level set
for damage caused by large carnivores, on the other.Whereas conservation per-
formance payments involve an incentive structure in linear proportionality (i.e.,
the more reproductions documented the more payments directed to local com-
munities), the 10% tolerance level introduces a change in management practices
after the threshold has been surpassed (lethal control if damage is too high).
These findings show the need to plan measures for large carnivore conservation
and management in an integrated manner within a region. Any desirable syner-
gies should be supported, allowing beneficiaries to take full advantage of the
entire toolbox of measures offered by different funding schemes (e.g., European
Rural Development funding, national compensation measures, etc.). Moreover,
 Good practice in large carnivore management 331
incentive structures in all sectors should also be addressed in a coherent manner.
This should apply to tourism development and employment opportunities, as
well, for which there were indications that some stakeholder hold reservations
VetBooks.ir

(see the Finnish case study).

Good practice in large carnivore conservation and management, as reflected
in our examples, seems to imply a procedural conceptualization of social sus-
tainability (see Hovardas, 2017b); i.e., that the procedures that promote con-
structive stakeholder interaction may prove more important for the transfer of
good practice than concrete content or outcomes which are context bound and
location dependent. Good practice can indicate the circumstances under which
human-carnivore coexistence may be achievable, but needs to be accompanied
by a thorough situational analysis before attempting transfer to another location.
Our analysis reflects the potential of deliberation and consultation processes to
nurture social learning (e.g., Keen et al., 2005; Newig, 2011;Young et al., 2013).
Working together on common goals may set the stage for the mutual recogni-
tion of the positions of all involved actors, catalyzing stakeholder empowerment
and collaboration further. The experience gathered and analyzed from the case
studies across Europe implies that good working relationships among stake-
holders are a valuable resource themselves and may contribute to empowering
local networks of actors, who may continue the implementation of measures
even after their initial funding has expired. The mixed-motive perspective we
have employed in this research could be taken up by stakeholders in local stake-
holder platforms (as demonstrated by the Swiss case study) to monitor their
interactions and plan their future cooperation in a structured manner.

Acknowledgments
CALLISTO and adelphi consult GmbH provide the Secretariat of the EU
Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores. This work
was produced following research carried out by the Platform Secretariat
for DG Environment of the European Commission, Service Contract No.
07.0202/2016/738209/SER/ENV.D.3. It does not necessarily reflect the views
of the Platform or the official view of the European Commission.
 VetBooks.ir

Annex 16.1 Short list of the 10 case studies depicting

good practice in large carnivore conservation
and management

Category Geographical Title Short description Dates

location (member
state)

Practical support Balkan (Slovenia) Practical support under the Payment per hectare of grassland with top 2004–present
Slovenian Rural Development ups depending on a range of protection
Programme (RDP) measures adopted (livestock guarding dogs,
shepherds, electric fences)
Balkan (Greece) Developing a network of A network of owners of LGDs was created 2009–2012
livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) facilitating coordination and the exchange
of puppies and adult dogs
Balkan (Greece) Damage prevention measures Installation of electric fences around apiaries 2004–2013
(e.g., fences) through the Greek and sheepfolds for minimizing damages
RDP caused by bears
Mediterranean Livestock protection measures LIFE project encouraging collaboration among 2012–2017
(Italy) through Medwolf provincial administration, environmental
non-governmental organizations and
professional agricultural associations
Innovative Central (France) Labelling schemes for farm Marketing approach using the bear foot 1995–ongoing
financing cheeses in the Haut Béarn imprint to give value to cheese, creating
socio-economic benefits for shepherds
through the presence of bears
Nordic (Sweden) Conservation performance The Swedish government replaced 1996–2011
payments compensation payments with conservation
performance payments for successfully
breeding wolverines
 VetBooks.ir

Understanding Central Transfer and Communication Management of conflicts and development 2012–ongoing
viewpoints (Germany) Project – Baden-Württemberg of sound solutions, mainly by enlarging
the awareness on conflict dynamics among
parties through mediated discussions
Central Core Group Wolf Cantonal Wolf Groups established in several 2006–ongoing
(Switzerland) Swiss cantons to objectify discussions and
improve relationships between stakeholders
Mediterranean Cooperation of stakeholders in A project facilitatating collaboration using 1993–2015
(Spain) the Cantabrian mountains formal agreements with hunting associations
and federations to foster the social
acceptance of bears, reduce poaching with
illegal snares and avoid the indirect impacts
of hunting activities
Monitoring Nordic (Finland) TASSU system and volunteer- Electronic database which tracks the presence 1978–ongoing
based large carnivore contact of large carnivores based on the input from
network volunteers who are trained by state agencies
 334  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
Note
1 It should be noted that the process of collecting cases has been continued by the Platform
members. Although 35 cases had been collected when this work commenced and were
VetBooks.ir

considered in the screening described in this chapter, more have since been added to the
Platform website.

References
Abramov, A. V. (2016) Gulo gulo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T9561A45198537, http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T9561A45
198537.en, accessed 11 December 2017.
Behr, D. M., Ozgul, A., and Cozzi, G. (2017) ‘Combining human acceptance and habitat
suitability in a unified socio-ecological suitability model: A case study of the wolf in Swit-
zerland’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 54, no 6, pp1919–1929.
Boitani, L., and Ciucci, P (2009) ‘Wolf management across Europe: Species conservation
without boundaries’, in M. Musiani, L. Boitani, and P. C. Paquet (eds) A New Era for Wolves
and People:Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and Policy, University of Calgary Press, Calgary.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J.
V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys,V., Bedö, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J.
C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder,
T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić,
J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S.,
Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F.,
Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis,Y., Mysłajek, R. W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J.,
Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt,
I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori,V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J. E., Szemethy, L.,
Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E.,Váňa, M.,Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl,
S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., and Boitani, L. (2014) ‘Recovery of large carnivores in
Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes’, Science, vol 346, no 6216, pp1517–1519.
Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G., and Kaneklin, C. (2014) ‘Building social sustainability:
Multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management’, Social Responsibility Journal, vol 10,
no 4, pp685–701.
Hoffman, A. J., Gillespie, J. J., Moore, D. A., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Thompson, L. L., and Baz-
erman, M. H. (1999) ‘A mixed-motive perspective on the economics versus environment
debate’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol 42, no 8, pp1254–1276.
Hovardas, T. (2012) ‘Can forest management produce new risk situations? A mixed-motive
perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi Forest National Park, Greece’, in J. Martin-
Garcia and J. J. Diez (eds) Sustainable Forest Management: Case Studies (pp. 239–258),
INTECH, Rijeka.
Hovardas,T. (2017a) ‘ “Battlefields” of blue flags and seahorses: Acts of “fencing” and “defenc-
ing” place in a gold mining controversy’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 53,
pp100–111.
Hovardas, T. (2017b) ‘Gold mining in the Greek “Village of Gaul”: Newspaper coverage of
conflict and discursive positioning of opposing coalitions’, Environmental Communication,
vol 11, no 5, pp667–681.
Hovardas, T., and Korfiatis, K. J. (2012) ‘Adolescents’ beliefs about the wolf: Investigating
the potential of human – Wolf coexistence in the European south’, Society and Natural
Resources, vol 25, no 12, pp1277–1292.
 Good practice in large carnivore management 335
Jerina, K., and Adamič, M. (2008) ‘Fifty years of brown bear population expansion: Effects of
sex-biased dispersal on rate of expansion and population structure’, Journal of Mammalogy,
vol 89, no 6, pp1491–501.
VetBooks.ir

Juesy, P. (2015) ‘Bericht Wolf/Herdenschutz Kanton Bern (2006 bis 2015)’, www.vol.
be.ch/vol/de/index/natur/jagd_wildtiere/publikationen.assetref/dam/documents/
VOL/LANAT/de/Natur/Jagd_Wildtiere/PUB_LANAT_JW_Bericht_Wolf_Herdens
chutz_2006-2015_Kt-Bern.pdf, accessed 27 November 2017.
Kanton Bern, Volkswirtschaftsdirektion (2007) ‘Strategie Umgang mit dem Wolf im Kan-
ton Bern’ [in German], www.vol.be.ch/vol/de/index/natur/jagd_wildtiere/projekte.asse
tref/content/dam/documents/VOL/LANAT/de/Natur/Jagd_Wildtiere/LANAT_JW_
Umgang_mit_dem_Wolf_de.pdf, accessed 27 November 2017.
Keen, M., Brown,V. A., and Dybal, R. (2005) Social Learning: A New Approach to Environmental
Management, Earthscan, London.
KORA (2012) ‘KORA News – Wölfe im Kanton Bern’ [in German], News on KORA
website, www.kora.ch/index.php?id=214&L=3&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=406&cHas
h=b6fd1afad0f04e02c4b57103493e2538, accessed 27 November 2017.
Linnell, J. (2014) ‘Status of wolverine in Europe’, www.lcie.org/Blog/ArtMID/6987/Arti
cleID/69/Status-of-wolverines-in-Europe, accessed 11 December 2017.
Lüchtrath, A., and Schraml, U. (2015) ‘The missing lynx – Understanding hunters’ opposi-
tion to large carnivores’, Wildlife Biology, vol 21, no 2, pp110–119.
LUKE, Natural Resources Institute Finland (2017) ‘Game and hunting’, LUKE Website,
www.luke.fi/en/natural-resources/game-and-hunting/, accessed 27 November 2017.
Marsden, K., Hovardas, T., Psaroudas, S., Mertzanis,Y., and Baatz, U. (2016) ‘EU platform on
large carnivores: Supporting good practice for coexistence – Presentation of examples and
analysis of support through the EAFRD’, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/con
servation/species/carnivores/pdf/96_LC%20Platform-case%20studies%20and%20RD.
pdf, accessed 26 November 2017.
McShane,T. O., Hirsch, P. D.,Trung,T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mute-
kanga, D., Van Thang, H., Dammert, J. L. Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius,
J. P., Coppolillo, P., and O’Connor, S. (2011) ‘Hard choices: Making trade-offs between
biodiversity conservation and human well-being’, Biological Conservation, vol 144, no 3,
pp966–972.
Metsähallitus (2017a) ‘Degree of endangerment’, website on Finland’s large carnivores, www.
largecarnivores.fi/conservation-and-hunting/conservation/degree-of-endangerment.
html, accessed 27 November 2017.
Metsähallitus (2017b) ‘Large carnivores and reindeer herding’, website on Finland’s large
carnivores, www.largecarnivores.fi/large-carnivores-and-us/damages/reindeer-damages.
html, accessed 27 November 2017.
Metsähallitus (2017c) ‘Damages caused by large carnivores’, website on Finland’s large
carnivores, www.largecarnivores.fi/large-carnivores-and-us/damages.html, accessed 27
November 2017.
Milanesi, P., Breiner, F.T., Puopolo, F., and Holderegger, R. (2017) ‘European human-dominated
landscapes provide ample space for the recolonization of large carnivore populations
under future land change scenarios’, Ecography, vol 40, pp1359–1368.
Newig, J. (2011) ‘Partizipation und neue Formen der Governance’, in M. Gross (Hrsg) Hand-
buch Umweltsoziologie (pp.  485–502),VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Persson, J., Ericsson, G., and Segerstrom, P. (2009) ‘Human caused mortality in the endan-
gered Scandinavian wolverine population’, Biological Conservation, vol 142, pp325–331.
 336  Tasos Hovardas and Katrina Marsden
Persson, J., Rauset, G. R., and Chapron, G. (2015) ‘Paying for an endangered predator leads
to population recovery’, Conservation Letters, vol 8, pp345–350.
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart,W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Mac-
VetBooks.ir

donald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Zimmermann, A., and Milner-
Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to
improving human – Predator relations’, Conservation Biology, vol 31, no 3, pp513–523.
Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A.,
Gutiérrez, R. J. Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sand-
ström, C., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A., Young, J.,
and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017) ‘Don’t forget to look down – Collaborative approaches
to predator conservation’, Biological Reviews, vol 92, no 4, pp2157–2163.
Redpath, S. M.,Young, J. Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A.,
Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., and Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013) ‘Understanding and
managing conservation conflicts’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol 28, no 2, pp100–109.
Sazatornil, V., Rodríguez, A., Klaczek, M., Ahmadi, M., Álvares, F., Arthur, S., Blanco, J. C.,
Borg, B. L., Cluff, D., Cortés, Y., García, E. J., Geffen, E., Habib, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Kaboli,
M., Krofel, M., Llaneza, L., Marucco, F., Oakleaf, J. K., Person, D. K., Potočnik, H., Ražen,
N., Rio-Maior, H., Sand, H., Unger, D., Wabakken, P., and López-Bao, J. V. (2016) ‘The
role of human-related risk in breeding site selection by wolves’, Biological Conservation, vol
201, pp103–110.
Skoberne, P. (2017) ‘The approach of Slovenia to manage the relationship between large
carnivores and human presence’, Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Plan-
ning, Presentation at the 5th Regional Workshop of the EU Platform on Coexistence
between People and Large Carnivores, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/con
servation/species/carnivores/pdf/128_Skoberne_LC%20Management%20Slovenia.pdf,
accessed 26 November 2017.
Skonhoft, A. (2017) ‘The silence of the lambs: Payment for carnivore conservation and live-
stock farming under strategic behavior’, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 67, no
4, pp905–923.
Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture (2015) ‘Annual progress report Rural Development Pro-
gramme’, www.program-podezelja.si/images/SPLETNA_STRAN_PRP_NOVA/2_
PRP_2007-2013/2_4_Spremljanje_in_vrednotenje/Letna_porocila_o_napredku/
Letno_poro%C4%8Dilo_PRP_07-13_2015_OS_final.pdf, accessed 11 December 2017.
Sunderland, T., Ehringhaus, C., and Campbell, B. M. (2008) ‘Conservation and development
in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs?’, Environmental Conservation, vol
34, no 4, pp276–279.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., and McManus, J. (2016) ‘Predator control should not be a shot in the
dark’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 14, pp380–388.
Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2017) ‘Interpreting “favourable conservation
status” for large carnivores in Europe: How many are needed and how many are wanted?’,
Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 26, no 1, pp37–61.
von Essen, E. (2017) ‘Whose discourse is it anyway? Understanding resistance through the
rise of “barstool biology” in nature conservation’, Environmental Communication, vol 11, no
4, pp470–489.
Young, J. C., Jordan, A. R., Searle, K., Butler, A. S., Chapman, D., Simmons, P., and Watt, A. D.
(2013) ‘Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?’, Biological
Conservation, vol 158, pp359–370.
 Good practice in large carnivore management 337
Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A. S., Simmons, P., Watt, A. D., and Jordan, A. R. (2016) ‘The
role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts’, Biological Conservation, vol 195,
pp196–202.
VetBooks.ir

Zabel, A., Bostedt, G., and Engel, S. (2014) ‘Performance payments for groups: The case of
carnivore conservation in Northern Sweden’, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 59,
no 4, pp613–631.
Zabel, A., and Holm-Müller, K. (2007) ‘Conservation performance payments for carnivore
conservation in Sweden’, Conservation Biology, vol 22, pp247–251.
Zabel, A., Pittel, K., Bostedt, G., and Engel, S. (2011) ‘Comparing conventional and new
policy approaches for carnivore conservation: Theoretical results and applications to tiger
preservation’ Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 48, no 2, pp287–311.
 Index
VetBooks.ir

abductive 64 attitude 26, 37, 40, 42 – 43, 62, 81 – 82, 89,

administration: national level of 30; public 202; change/shift 82, 169 – 170, 175 – 176,
20, 29, 30, 203, 272, 273; wildlife 271, 180, 192 – 200; public 25 – 26, 32, 168,
272, 277 181, 196, 201, 203, 281; rural 168, 172,
administrator 21, 22, 265 175, 181, 193 – 195, 204; stakeholder
Africa 39, 132, 256, 257 28, 46, 90, 101, 120, 133, 208; towards
agency: for non-humans 142, 143, 148 bears 26, 48, 178, 181, 200; towards large
agriculture 22, 67, 134, 195, 276, 327 carnivores 3, 26 – 27, 100, 140, 170, 176,
Alps 100, 155 – 157, 161, 292, 294, 323 178 – 179, 180 – 181, 191, 194 – 195, 197,
Andes 58, 59, 74 279; towards wolves 22, 26 – 27, 38, 43,
anthropocentric 238, 240 – 241; values 37, 49, 52, 178, 180, 192, 195, 196, 200
39, 269, 286; see also ecocentric; intrinsic authority 20, 21 – 22, 24, 31, 39, 42 – 43, 47,
value; value, instrumental 51, 240, 270 – 271, 275, 281, 302, 319;
anthropocentrism 231 – 233, 237; see also competent 173, 286; local 46, 89, 279,
ecocentrism; geocentrism 294; management 43 – 47, 53, 235, 269,
anthropogenic food 294 – 295 273 – 274, 280; public 23, 25, 203, 277;
anti-carnivore 79, 281; see also pro-carnivore regional 12, 282 – 283, 286; state
anti-protectionist 206; see also protectionist 283, 325
apex predator 99, 112, 115, 296 awareness 99, 134, 140, 229, 262; campaign
argumentation 4 – 10, 42 – 43, 51, 86, 320 159, 171, 180 – 181; conservation
Asia 57, 132, 148, 254, 256, 259 – 263, 265 257, 264; raise 13, 106, 260, 320;
assessment 65, 88, 92, 102, 211, 241, 262, self-awareness 142
300; environmental 239; population
status 294; risk 42, 103, 295; see also bear: Andean 58 – 78; bear population and
evaluation sub-populations in Europe 291 – 313;
assumption 10, 32, 63, 66, 68, 157, 197, black 212; brown 4, 48, 99, 190 – 205,
208 – 209, 214 – 216, 234; based on the 39, 168, 256, 269 – 290, 291 – 313, 314,
43, 47, 138, 143, 145, 161; core 12, 91; 320; management 278, 292 – 294,
underlying 65, 206, 242 298 – 299, 301
attack: bear 73, 173, 178, 209; on children beehive 209, 294
114; coyote 213; on dogs 22, 153, 236; bee keeper 319
on humans 5 – 6, 22, 115, 134 – 135, 138, behaviour 216, 234, 240; bear 170,
142 – 144, 174, 178, 234, 236, 294; large 294 – 295; change 13, 48, 132, 149;
carnivores 22, 24 – 25, 168, 176, 182, 209, deviant 39; free riding 330; human
280, 329; leopard 135, 138, 143 – 144; 38, 39, 52, 82; illegal 45; intention
lynx 109; 115; on pets 236; on reindeer 81 – 82, 210; leopard 139 – 140; 143;
7; wolf 20, 22, 147, 149, 150 – 151, 153, nonhuman 142; personal 228; prey 115;
155 – 156, 158 – 159, 161 – 162, 173, stakeholder 46, 51, 53, 81 – 82, 88, 91,
180 – 181, 325 101, 212 – 213; towards carnivores 202;
 Index  339
towards environment 53; towards wildlife 22, 68, 254, 265; attitudes 120; biotic
210; towards wolves 45, 52; wolf 8, 22, 232; community-based 119 – 121, 206,
148 – 150, 153, 158 – 159, 161, 277 213, 257 – 259, 261, 264; concerns 106,
VetBooks.ir

belief: normative 64; participant 277; 213, 216; consultation 120; diversity
personal 23, 25, 106; pro-carnivore 39, of biocommunity 296; ecological
281; stakeholder 22, 28, 82; towards large 232; engagement 105 – 106; events 68;
carnivores 192; uncritical 86 farming 99, 105, 108 – 109; health 259;
best practice 252, 286 herding 142, 276; human 137, 140, 143,
biodiversity 8, 20, 143, 254, 257, 260, 298; 230, 256; of interest 270; local 7, 9 – 12,
conservation 51, 156; loss 21, 232, 263 23 – 24, 27, 32, 39, 42, 46 – 47, 103, 115,
bottom-up 283, 285; see also top-down 138, 141, 143, 257 – 265, 330; meeting
business as a target/stakeholder group 102, 102; members 43, 46, 102, 105, 107,
105, 120, 263, 276 117 – 120, 144, 258; minority 216; moral
227, 229 – 230, 232, 234, 237, 240 – 242;
capacity: to accommodate 286; building needs 102; nomadic 140; participation
92; carrying 87, 298; conservation 264; 256; partnership 257; population 196;
enhancement 261; management’s 203 professional 62; rural 11, 27, 29, 37, 40,
Carpathians 168 – 171, 179 – 180, 182 44 – 45, 47, 49 – 50, 52, 63, 68, 79, 99,
case study 82, 86, 90, 158, 212, 234, 101, 209, 281; science/scientific 23, 253;
314 – 337 support 43; tribal 138 – 139; welfare 49
cattle 21, 58 – 61, 65 – 71, 73 – 74, 147, 162, compensation: claim 110, 323; ex-ante 6 – 7,
192, 236, 254 329 – 330; ex-post 6 – 7, 322, 329; fair 84,
China 64, 257, 263 323; funds 25, 170, 326; of damage 6, 25,
citizen 25 – 26, 63, 203, 231, 241, 270, 102, 143, 181, 274, 299, 321; scheme/
272 – 273, 277 – 278 system 6, 25, 82, 87, 105, 109, 110, 116,
climate change 73, 208, 217, 259, 263, 326; 256, 278, 292, 315, 317, 320, 325 – 326,
see also global warming 330; stakeholder 24; state 30
coalition 79, 84, 86 – 87, 207, 281 compromise 6, 12, 148, 260, 316, 325, 328
co-creation 13, 27, 92, 272, 278 conflict: conservation 252, 264;
coexistence 6, 10, 227; human-bear 300; development of 44; in-group 89; human-
human-carnivore 87, 100, 142 – 143, animal 269; human-bear 58 – 61, 71, 74,
162, 179, 197, 213, 254 – 256, 314, 321, 180 – 181, 209 – 210, 292, 294 – 295, 298,
326, 331; human-leopard 134, 257, 264; 301; human-carnivore 6, 20, 73, 90,
human-wildlife 19, 241; human-wolf 26, 101, 134, 147, 168, 179, 181 – 182, 190,
38, 148, 272, 325; landscape of 115, 161 194 – 195, 197, 201 – 203, 256, 270 – 271,
cognitive polyphasia 7 – 10, 13 273, 275, 277, 279, 283, 286, 315, 320,
collaboration: stakeholder 3, 24, 87 – 88, 323; human-elephant 64; human-
101, 191, 203, 212, 214 – 216, 257, human/stakeholder 3, 21, 24, 26, 37,
259 – 260, 262, 264 – 265, 271, 274, 315, 39, 53, 61, 64, 79, 86, 135, 206 – 207,
317, 328, 331 210 – 211, 252 – 253, 269, 272, 275 – 276,
collaborative: approach 24, 214, 286; 278, 285, 316, 326, 329; human-leopard
arrangement 203, 209; decision-making 134, 138, 143, 144; human-lynx 116;
212; governance 269, 280, 283; learning human-tiger 254; human-wildlife 19,
92; management 24; workshop 71 28, 71; human-wolf 27, 37, 53, 147 – 148,
communication 24, 62, 65, 67, 74 – 75; 159, 176, 179, 181, 194, 275, 323, 328;
campaign 159, 171, 181; ineffective human-wolverine 321, 323; inter-group
216; informal 68; interspecies 231; risk 90, 208, 210 – 211, 214; land use 252;
206; science 13; stakeholder 80, 85, 102, local 24; management/mitigation/
105 – 106, 115, 118 – 120, 181 – 182, 202, resolution 25, 28, 39, 53, 80, 90, 106, 149,
210, 258, 271, 283, 285 161 – 162, 212, 217, 236, 240 – 241, 257,
community 61, 65 – 68, 100, 102 – 103, 264, 269 – 270, 273, 275, 278 – 280, 283,
107, 111, 115, 117, 119 – 120, 133, 286, 292 – 293, 294 – 295; of identity 208;
208, 213, 228, 231, 240, 258; affected moral 228; resolution 80, 90, 293–294;
 340 Index
situation 43; social/societal 30, 80, depredation 194; bear 68; livestock 134,
111 – 112, 116, 208 – 209, 211, 275, 279, 144, 162, 197, 202, 232, 254, 274, 294,
281, 285; of values 179, 281 314 – 315, 320, 323; prevention of 215;
VetBooks.ir

consensus 5, 24, 209, 276, 283, 323, 329 reindeer 321; sheep 161 – 162; victims 74;
consent 20, 22, 137, 319 wolf 140, 156, 236 – 237
conservation: community-based 119, 121, dialogue 59, 105, 120, 133 – 134, 139,
213, 257 – 259, 261, 264; evidence- 143 – 144, 214, 242, 263, 271,
based 253; performance payments 6 – 7, 279 – 281, 283
321 – 322, 329 – 330; status 51, 292, discourse 21, 42, 50 – 52, 203; analysis 45;
295, 320 ecological 51; environmentalist 8, 11, 22;
construction: cultural 20; infrastructure 263; sustainability 86
road 259; social 61 discursive 4, 7, 9, 214; positioning 4 – 5, 7,
controversy 19, 20, 85, 142, 203, 208; in 10, 86 – 87, 90, 320
carnivore conservation/management dispute 19, 53, 314 – 315; see also conflict
206, 210, 314, 329; complexity of 30; dissemination 22, 51, 119, 210, 281, 325
conservation 90; due to reintroduction distribution: of benefits 92; of educational
119 – 120; environmental 21, 27, 213; material 171; of large carnivore
management of 24; wolf 20 – 21, 23, 28, species 10, 72, 79, 86, 90, 147, 157,
37, 191 161, 169, 191 – 193, 197, 292 – 293,
cooperation: inter-group 22, 209, 215 – 216, 298 – 299, 314; of livestock 150; of
271 – 272, 285, 331; moral 228; trans- resources 291
boundary 261
cost 150, 152, 252, 325, 327; and benefit ecocentric 37, 39, 51, 231, 241, 269, 271;
5, 46, 84 – 87, 201, 316, 319, 321; direct/ see also anthropocentric; intrinsic value;
indirect 155; hidden 72; of management value, instrumental
29, 234; related to large carnivores 74, ecocentrism 232, 233, 237; see also
196, 236, 256, 282, 314; transaction anthropocentrism; geocentrism
211, 216 ecological trap 316
countryside 22 – 23, 40, 59, 69, 71, 151, ecologist 8 – 10, 61, 254
155, 195 ecosystem: services 231, 239, 252, 260,
crime 38 – 40, 45 – 46 264 – 265
crop 58, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 294 – 295, 299 Ecuador 58 – 78
culling 48, 162, 273, 279, 292, 295 education 74, 171, 209, 320; conservation
Czech Republic 168 – 189 190; environmental 13; ethical/ethics
242; program 74; public 295; science 13,
damage prevention 4, 6 – 7, 24, 81, 84, 208; as socio-demographic variable 27,
88, 91, 158 – 159, 273, 315, 321, 325, 137, 169 – 170, 172, 174 – 175, 180 – 181,
329 – 330; see also electric fences; livestock 202, 210
guarding dogs electric fences 6, 81, 84, 91, 156, 209, 256,
danger 5 – 6, 149, 254, 327; see also risk 295, 321, 329 – 330; see also damage
dangerous 8, 138, 143, 170, 174, prevention
178, 254 emotion 5, 24 – 25, 27, 30, 38, 43, 50 – 52,
decision-making 4, 22 – 25, 51, 92, 110, 65, 207
117, 132, 206 – 209, 214 – 216, 272, 276, empowerment 87, 91 – 92, 109, 256, 331; see
279 – 281, 286, 301, 328; collaborative also social learning
212; informed 90; mechanism of endangered: species 21, 31, 235; status 216,
32; procedures 278; process 23, 120, 235, 254, 262, 299, 325 – 326
209, 213 – 214, 216; scheme 12; trans- environmentalism 213
boundary 291; wildlife 210, 216 environmentalist 8, 11, 22, 38, 207
deficit model of science communication 13 equality 172, 208; see also inequality
degradation 230, 232, 252 ethics 227 – 234, 240, 242, 259
deliberation 12, 51, 90, 92, 230, 331 EU Platform on Coexistence
demographic 107, 191, 201, 274, 277, 296; between People and Large
see also socio-demographic Carnivores 314
 Index  341
Europe 26, 37, 45, 48, 79, 99 – 100, 119, 132, 48, 50 – 51, 292; stock 22; warden 46,
140, 147, 155, 157, 168, 176, 178, 182, 152 – 153, 325; wild 173
256, 291 – 313, 314 – 337 gamekeeper 89
VetBooks.ir

European Agricultural Fund for Rural gender 42, 63, 66, 107, 137, 282
Development 320 geocentrism 232 – 233, 237, 241; see also
European Commission 314 – 315 anthropocentrism; ecocentrism
European Court of Human Rights 50 global warming 230; see also climate change
European Court of Justice 270 good practice 81 – 82, 84 – 85, 87 – 88, 90 – 91,
European Union (EU) 31, 38 – 40, 44 – 45, 314 – 337
47, 49, 152, 270, 275, 292, 300, governance: collaborative 280, 283;
314 – 315, 320 environmental 80, 269; large carnivore
evaluation 10, 65, 105, 272, 276, 280, 283, 52, 73, 201, 269, 285 – 286; natural
300, 326; see also assessment resource 202; protected area 11; scheme/
expectation 12, 20, 24 – 26, 28 – 30, system 12, 286; wildlife 48, 190, 192, 201
215, 230 Greece 8, 81 – 82, 84, 86, 292, 297
expert 7, 10, 25, 51, 277, 285, 316 – 317,
319, 327 – 328 habitat 31, 99, 320 – 321; bear 58, 72 – 73,
expertise 38, 48, 51, 87, 203, 272, 329 300; connectivity 301; fragmentation
of 252; large carnivore 212, 253, 316;
facilitator 30, 53, 85, 216 leopard 257 – 264; loss 71 – 72, 230, 263,
farming 108 – 110, 150, 168 – 170, 172, 300; lynx 103, 112; protection of 235;
274 – 276, 279, 323, 325; activity 109; suitability 111, 116, 316; tiger 254;
community 99, 102, 105, 108 – 109; wildlife 156, 260; wolf 147, 154
holding 6; interests 279 – 280, 282, 285; habituation 295 – 296, 329; see also food
meeting 120; practice 109; small-scale 21, conditioning
30; system 168 herding 142, 147, 154, 156, 320, 329 – 330;
fear 229; of attacks 174, 178; of bears 178; reindeer 7, 39, 272 – 273, 276, 326
of humans 9 – 10, 158 – 159, 161; for heterogeneity 3, 7, 79 – 80, 132 – 133, 137,
human safety 5, 314; landscape of 115, 142, 144, 190 – 205, 206, 210 – 212, 292
161, 296; of large carnivores 5, 169, 173, Himalayas 133 – 134, 264
179, 327; of leopards 133, 138, 143; of household 37, 66 – 69, 72, 105, 115, 141, 152
wolves 22 – 23, 43, 45, 48, 178, 203, 323 human dimensions 81, 202, 204, 206,
feedback 48, 80, 86, 90, 101, 277 – 278, 317, 213, 215, 316, 319; of large carnivore
328 – 329 conservation and management 3, 59, 62,
Finland 23, 38 – 40, 42, 45, 47 – 48, 50 – 52, 75, 301
269 – 272, 276, 283, 285 – 286, 294, human safety 5, 38, 48, 147, 174, 200, 202,
278 – 299, 321, 325 234 – 236, 253, 316
First Nation 212, 216 hunting: bear 272, 296 – 299, 301 – 302;
flock 158 club 40, 50; dog 22, 37, 45, 153, 200,
focus groups 81 – 82, 90, 102, 105, 137 327; ground 50, 152; group 211; illegal
food conditioning 295 – 296, 298; see also 38 – 40, 42 – 44, 45, 47, 49, 173, 175, 275;
habituation interest 174, 179, 275, 279, 282, 285;
forester 190, 319 management 40, 153; quotas 273 – 274,
fragmentation 71 – 72, 80, 252, 256 294, 299, 326; permit 49; practice 37, 50,
France 149, 155 – 159, 179 99 – 100, 148 – 149, 159, 292; regulation
free riding 323, 330 161, 190; right 40, 154, 329; subsistence
frustration 43, 45 – 46, 68, 329 49, 232; tradition 49 – 50; traditional 37,
funding 117, 253, 262, 301, 315, 317, 47 – 49; trophy 49, 296; violation/violator
320 – 321, 330 – 331 40, 42 – 47, 49; wolf 27, 48 – 49, 52,
149 – 150, 153 – 154, 159, 182, 200, 212,
game: animals 153, 155, 197, 235, 254, 214, 235 – 236, 270 – 272
256; competition for/over 197, 234; husbandry 22, 148 – 149, 162, 191, 237, 275,
districts 285; management 40, 43 – 44, 277; reindeer 274, 285
320; numbers 234; policy 40; species 38, hybrid wolves 8 – 10, 51
 342 Index
illegal killing 6, 38 – 39, 42 – 47, 49, 101, 173, legitimacy 20, 25 – 30, 39, 44, 46 – 50, 80,
270, 323, 330; see also poaching 196, 202, 272 – 273, 276, 281, 285
inbreeding 275 leopard 132 – 135, 137 – 144, 252 – 253,
VetBooks.ir

India 64, 67, 69, 132 – 135, 138 – 139, 256 – 257, 259 – 265

141 – 142, 257, 259 – 260, 263 lethal 26, 140, 161, 227, 230, 295 – 296, 320,
indigenous: group 137; knowledge 50; 329; control 4, 10, 206, 239, 254, 321, 323,
people 49 – 50, 71; Sámi 192, 321; 325, 328, 330; management 233 – 235,
wildlife 38 237, 240, 328; see also non-lethal
industry 37, 69, 236, 252, 260 – 261, LIFE Nature and Biodiversity fund 81, 320
263 – 265, 273 livestock guarding dogs 6, 81, 84, 88 – 91,
inequality 45, 69, 208, 211, 214; see also 149, 154 – 158, 168, 256, 321, 323, 330;
equality see also damage prevention
infrastructure 148, 259, 263 lynx 99 – 131, 191 – 195, 197, 200 – 201,
injustice 28, 38, 45, 256, 265; see also justice 203, 269 – 272, 274 – 275, 278, 314, 317,
interaction: face-to-face 25; human-bear 325 – 326
191; human-carnivore 3, 132 – 133, 141,
191 – 192, 195, 197, 202 – 204; human- majority 10 – 12, 29, 40, 58, 67, 176, 178,
elephant 69; human-leopard 132, 134, 180, 191 – 192, 194 – 195, 200, 276,
139, 140, 143; human-nature 142, 241; 294 – 295, 297; see also minority
human-nonhuman 242; human-wildlife management: plan 44, 47, 51, 152 – 153,
134, 201, 206; human-wolf 153; inter- 156, 235, 237, 260, 262, 270, 272 – 274,
group 8, 13, 132, 214; interpersonal 214; 276 – 278, 285, 198 – 199, 301, 326;
social 80, 194; stakeholder 4 – 5, 9 – 10, population 4 – 8, 22, 230, 272, 320; waste
12, 28, 79 – 82, 84 – 88, 90 – 92, 214, 316, 82, 320; see also bear; wolf
319 – 320, 328 – 329, 331 manager 21, 23 – 25, 29 – 31, 62, 133, 135,
inter-disciplinary 4, 20, 144, 148, 203, 241 137, 139, 141, 144, 201, 209, 214 – 217,
International Union for Conservation of 227, 241, 272 – 273, 283, 295 – 296
Nature (IUCN) 100, 315 media 133, 138, 142 – 143, 168 – 171, 176,
interpretation 20, 28, 43, 59, 64 – 65, 67, 70, 178 – 179, 181 – 182, 191, 195, 202, 206,
118, 203, 238, 281 – 282 209
intrinsic value 38, 112, 231, 233, 238; see meta-analysis 26, 180, 194, 196
also anthropocentric; ecocentric; value, minority 10 – 12, 195, 216, 227; see also
instrumental majority
mitigation 101, 109, 154, 200, 237, 240,
jurisdiction 292, 301 – 302 273, 275, 277, 283, 285
justice 46, 50, 52, 86, 217; European Court mixed-motive 84 – 87, 91, 316, 320, 328,
of 270; see also injustice 331; see also win-win
Mongolia 257, 260, 264 – 265
knowledge: claim 19; construction of 61; monitoring 24, 37, 101, 169, 202, 204, 261,
empirical 46, 38, 47, 50; exchange 271, 320, 322 – 323, 328; of bear populations
283, 315; expert 277; local 4, 22 – 23, 38, 292 – 294, 296, 300 – 301; system 325, 327,
48, 50 – 52, 119, 148, 280; production of 330; of wolf populations 270, 278
59, 61 – 63, 65, 70, 72, 74; scientific 13, moral consideration 214, 229 – 230, 232,
22 – 23, 119, 178, 202, 207, 253, 273, 280; 240 – 242
shared 51, 286; sharing 261, 264; situated mortality 4, 101, 161 – 162, 291, 296 – 297, 323
59, 61 – 62, 69, 75; traditional ecological
142 – 143 narrative 8 – 9, 42 – 44, 63, 79, 138, 148, 314;
Kyrgyzstan 149 – 152, 155, 159, 257, 260 see also wolf
negotiation 12, 63, 84, 86 – 87, 133, 142,
landowner 50, 109, 190 – 191, 209, 237, 258 – 259, 265, 316, 328
276 – 277, 319 non-lethal 4, 161, 168, 203, 237, 239, 295,
Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe 316 329; see also lethal
legislation 11, 24, 147, 190, 193, 196, 207, Norway 45, 180, 192, 269, 273 – 275, 278,
235, 256, 292, 300 283, 285 – 286, 294, 298 – 299, 301, 321
 Index  343
opposition 25, 37, 100, 192, 195 – 196, 203, psychological: factors 27; ownership 48,
207 – 208, 269, 292 52 – 53; phenomena 20; trauma 147;
organization: non-governmental (NGO) 8, variables 64
VetBooks.ir

61, 63, 190 – 191, 196, 271, 276 – 278, public opinion 20 – 21, 25 – 27, 29 – 31, 101,
280, 283; conservation 192, 232, 106, 154, 178 – 179, 206, 210, 216, 256
260 – 261, 321
qualitative 3, 20 – 21, 43, 59, 65, 73 – 75,
Pakistan 257, 260 211 – 212, 214, 319
participant observation 21, 137 quantitative 3, 20, 28, 85 – 86, 211, 264
participatory scenario development questionnaire 68, 85, 88, 102, 105 – 107, 109,
86 – 88, 91 111 – 112, 114 – 117, 119, 170 – 171, 176,
partnership 209, 242, 257 – 259, 263 – 264 178, 294
persecution 100, 161, 234, 254, 257, 269, quota 24, 236, 271, 273 – 274, 285, 294, 297,
292, 321 299, 321, 326, 328 – 329
place attachment 52, 71, 73
place-based 4, 52, 90, 272, 316 rancher 70, 74, 207, 209
poaching 40, 58, 71, 152 – 153, 158, 161, recovery: of bear population 193,
209, 254, 256, 259, 261, 330; see also 299 – 300; of large carnivores 19, 147,
illegal killing 171, 182, 201, 234, 256, 270, 314, 320,
poisoned baits 82, 91 325; of wolf population 21, 28 – 29,
poisoning 116, 230, 320 31, 235
policy: large carnivore 20, 25 – 26, 201 – 202, recreation 201 – 202, 207, 214, 239 – 240,
228 – 229, 231, 272, 275; wolf 21 – 23, 26, 265, 276; see also tourism
29, 31, 38, 49, 52, 272 recrerational 21, 37, 169, 293
political ecology 60 – 62 Regional Large Carnivore Committees
politics 20, 25, 31, 216, 230, 269, 272, 277, (RLCCs) 90, 271, 276 – 277, 280 – 281,
281, 283 283, 285
poverty 47, 49, 52, 63, 66, 252, 256, 263 regulation 12, 24, 29 – 31, 46, 228, 233 – 234,
power 11, 43 – 44, 47 – 48, 52, 141, 203, 237, 240 – 241, 295 – 296, 301; hunting
211, 254, 271, 274, 282 – 283; decision- 161, 182, 191, 242, 292
making 208, 272, 276, 279; dynamics 66, reindeer 192, 274, 278, 282, 285, 299, 326,
69; relations 60, 279, 285; struggles 209, 328; herder 7, 192, 197, 273, 275 – 276,
216, 252 279, 315, 321 – 322, 330; herding area 7,
problem animal 8, 328 39, 272, 330; loss 7, 323; see also Sámi
pro-carnivore 5, 10, 11, 79, 87, 281; see also reintroduction 8 – 9, 79, 99 – 131, 325
anti-carnivore relocation 8, 138, 140, 143, 254, 256; see also
production 6, 69, 71 – 72, 134, 147, 152, translocation
155 – 156, 257, 263 – 264, 274, 320, 321; representative 12, 21, 28, 85, 118, 136, 210,
see also knowledge 213 – 214, 261, 265, 271, 273, 276 – 277,
protected area 8, 11, 81, 86, 134 – 135, 139, 282, 317, 321
142, 168, 213, 254 – 256, 259, 265, restoration 38, 99, 106, 112, 114, 156,
283, 314 190 – 192, 195
protection 58, 169, 190 – 193, 200, 207, retaliatory 45, 206, 209, 257, 259
235, 240, 260 – 261, 265, 325; bear 73, rewilding 99, 193
298; large carnivore 24, 180, 264, 282; right: animal 211, 214, 229, 230, 232;
of livestock 89, 156 – 157, 161 – 162, hunter/hunting 40, 49 – 50, 154, 190, 296,
200, 256, 271, 321, 323; measures 328 – 329
157 – 159, 161 – 162, 323, 325; strict risk 26, 46, 67, 101 – 102, 107, 114, 116,
38, 155, 158 – 159, 161, 270; wolf 119, 152, 162, 197, 254, 285, 296, 323;
10, 24, 38, 155, 158 – 159, 161, 180, assessment 42, 103, 295; and benefit
228, 235 103, 105 – 106, 109, 111 – 112, 114 – 115,
protectionism 213 117; calculus 5, 7; communication 206;
protectionist 22 – 23, 39; see also of damage caused by large carnivores
anti-protectionist 6, 22, 108, 161, 180, 213; to human
 344 Index
safety 147; of large carnivore attack 138, taskscape 59, 70 – 72
144; perception 5, 42; related to large template 81 – 82, 84 – 85, 88, 91 – 92, 317; see
carnivores 112, 202, 212; theory 5 also mixed-motive; Strengths, Weaknesses,
VetBooks.ir

rural development 259, 320, 330 Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

rural resident 29, 47, 119 Analysis
tension 3, 5, 12, 19, 30, 79 – 80, 84, 90, 118,
Sámi 7, 192 – 193, 203, 273, 276, 321, 329; 196, 203, 270 – 271, 279, 283, 314 – 315,
see also reindeer 317, 329; see also conflict
sceptic 22 – 23 themata 8 – 9
scientist 10, 20, 51, 61 – 62, 210, 214, 229, threatened 22, 27 – 28, 235, 254, 257, 269,
241, 253, 259, 261 – 262, 319 295, 326
sentience 229 – 231, 240 threshold 84, 86 – 87, 134 – 135, 196, 272,
shepherd 147, 150, 152, 154, 156 – 158, 256, 323, 325, 328, 330
321 tolerance: for large carnivores 6, 133, 135,
side-effect 297, 302, 319, 321, 323, 325, 330 180, 181, 202, 206, 256, 265, 321; of large
Slovakia 169, 178 – 179, 182 carnivores for human presence 8; for
Slovenia 179 – 180, 292, 297, 301 – 302, leopards 141; threshold 86 – 87, 328, 330;
320 – 321, 329 – 330 for wolves 49, 174, 176, 181, 240
Snow Leopard Trust 257, 261 top-down 11, 44, 138, 272; see also
social identity 207, 210 – 211, 213 – 214, bottom-up
216 – 217, 314 tourism: ecotourism 10, 86 – 87, 119,
social learning 13, 92, 286, 331; see also 141 – 143; nature tourism 87; see also
empowerment recreation
social norms 46, 50, 210, 330 trade-off 86, 320, 328
social representations 7 – 8, 10, 90 tradition 20 – 23, 30, 46, 48 – 51, 178, 207
social science 3 – 4, 27, 59, 61 – 62, 65 – 66, training 62, 81, 134 – 135, 156, 236, 242,
74, 81, 148, 192, 206 – 207, 264 259, 282, 321, 327
socio-cultural 6, 45, 49, 79, 90, 201 trans-boundary 4, 261, 291 – 295, 297 – 298,
socio-demographic 26 – 27, 169, 172, 174, 301 – 302; see also trans-regional
202; see also demographic transition 61, 73, 148, 150 – 154, 159, 203
socio-political 37, 40, 45 – 46, 295 translocation 100, 120, 235, 295; see also
stakeholder: analysis 3, 79 – 82, 85, 91, relocation
259; consultation 12, 80, 81, 84 – 85, transparency 109, 117, 258
88, 90 – 92, 101; engagement 80, 86, 92; trans-regional 291, 294 – 295, 298 – 302; see
involvement 3, 79 – 82, 86, 88, 91 – 92, also trans-boundary
203, 225, 283, 328; multi-stakeholder triangulation 40, 65, 74
121, 261, 264 – 265; see also interaction trust 80, 87, 90, 92, 109, 202 – 203, 232, 257,
stereotype 178, 200, 209, 213 – 215 275, 279 – 280, 283, 285, 325, 327, 329
stewardship 47 – 48, 209, 213, 238
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities United Kingdom (UK) 99 – 131
and Threats (SWOT) Analysis 81 – 82, United Nations (UN) 260, 262
84 – 85, 91 United States of America (USA) 207,
survey 21, 24, 26, 88, 101, 106, 120, 158, 232, 234
170 – 171, 174, 176, 178 – 179, 192 – 197, urban: area 26, 40, 69, 133, 195, 201, 270,
200, 211, 272, 278 281; attitude 194; interest 50, 275; people
sustainability 50, 86 – 87, 92, 263, 271 – 272, 168, 192; resident 138; value 38
291, 315, 317, 331
Sweden 6 – 7, 19 – 36, 119, 157, 190 – 205, value: agricultural 45, 47, 51;
269, 275, 280, 283, 285 – 286, 294, 296, anthropocentric 39, 269, 286; conflict of
298 – 299, 301, 321, 329 179, 281; conservation 253; ecocentric
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 37, 39, 51, 286; economic 264;
24, 191, 298, 301 framework 30; instrumental 231; intrinsic
Switzerland 100, 323 38, 112, 231, 233, 238; moral 228 – 229,
 Index  345
231 – 233, 241; orientation 20, 26, 28, wolf: management 20, 40, 44 – 45, 47 – 49,
30 – 31, 195, 202; structure 27, 30; system 51 – 53, 64, 149, 159, 207, 214 – 215,
137 – 138, 143; utilitarian 190 – 191, 194 234 – 235, 237 – 238, 240, 270, 272, 275,
VetBooks.ir

veterinarian 81, 89 277 – 278; packs 39, 51, 157, 162, 169,

volunteer 65 – 66, 105, 209, 325, 327 178 – 179, 232, 237, 274; reintroduction
narrative 8 – 9; see also attack
well-being 24, 26, 28, 49, 229 – 232, 273 wolverine 6 – 7, 191 – 195, 197, 200 – 201,
wilderness 38 – 39, 52, 99, 141, 192 203, 269 – 270, 282, 274 – 275, 314, 317,
wildlife 19, 21, 23 – 24, 26, 49 – 50, 64, 90, 321 – 323, 325 – 326, 329 – 330
106, 202 – 203, 208, 213, 216, 227 – 228, workshop 80, 85, 88, 140, 278, 315
237, 242, 260 World Bank 260 – 261
Wildlife Management Delegation worldview 119, 138, 208, 231, 233
90, 276 Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)
win-win 86, 316; see also mixed-motive 262, 315
VetBooks.ir