The good bad wolfwolf evaluation reveals the rootsof the Finnish wolf conflict
Jukka Bisi & Tuija Liukkonen & Sakari Mykr &Mari Pohja-Mykr & Sami Kurki
Received: 6 April 2009 /Revised: 22 January 2010 /Accepted: 1 March 2010 /Published online: 25 March 2010# Springer-Verlag 2010
Abstract This article focuses on the roots of the Finnishwolf conflict by using stakeholder evaluations of the wolfas a tool. The recent growth of the wolf population hashighlighted stakeholders_ contradictory objectives andrevealed a conflict between the two main stakeholders,conservationists and hunters, in wolf management. Thequestion of hunting emerges as the core of the conflict. Thenegative evaluation of the wolf by hunters reflects acompetitive situation, which is typical of the historicaldevelopment of wolf management in Finland. In areas withthe most abundant wolf populations, hunters view the wolfmost negatively. This study clearly demonstrates that theFinnish wolf conflict is rooted in the values of modernsociety and carries a long historical, practical and ecolog-ical background in which humans and wolves compete overresources, mainly the moose. The conflict between huntersand conservationists in wolf management is connected to
the appreciation of moose as game and stems fromcompetition between humans and wolves over their preyand the historical presence or absence of the wolf.
Keywords Conflict . Competition . Conservationists .
Evaluation . Hunters .Wolf management history
Since 1990, the wolf population in Finland has recoveredsignificantly (Kojola et al. 2004a, 2006a, b), increasingfrom four family packs in 1996 to 25 packs in 2007 (Kojola2007). Consequently, the expansion and the growth of thepopulation have raised new challenges to wolf managementobjectives (Bisi et al. 2007; Bisi and Kurki 2008). The wolfpopulation has grown the most in the eastern regions ofFinland. Simultaneously, some areas have no or relativelyfew wolves. This situation has placed people and theirenvironments into unequal relationships vis--vis the wolf.In some areas, the wolf is a part of everyday life, whereas inother areas, it exists only in discussions. The return of thewolf has resulted in a complex multilevel managementconflict, extending ultimately to a conflict between Finlandand the European Union (EU; Bisi et al. 2007).
The painful interaction between people and wolves is notonly a Finnish phenomenon. Similar situations can befound elsewhere in Scandinavia as well as in several othercountries and cultures around the world. The background ofthese conflicts is often the return of the wolf to areas whereit has been absent for years, decades or even longer. Theseconflicts share certain characteristics, usually with thereturn and growth of the wolf population eliciting demandsto reduce the population and its growth. Such a discussionhas been common in Finland and Scandinavia, the United
Communicated by H. Kierdorf
J. Bisi (*)Metsahallitus, Natural Heritage Services,c/o Yrttikiventie 18,Tuomikyla 60720, Finlande-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
T. LiukkonenDepartment of Biology, University of Oulu,PO Box 3000, Oulu 90540, Finland
S. Mykr :M. Pohja-MykrSection of Biodiversity and Environmental Research,Department of Biology, University of Turku,20014 Turku, Finland
S. KurkiRuralia Institute, University of Helsinki,Kampusranta 9C,60320 Seinjoki, Finland
Eur J Wildl Res (2010) 56:771779DOI 10.1007/s10344-010-0374-0
States and several European countries (Fritts et al. 2003;Skogen and Krange 2003; Skogen et al. 2008; Ericsson etal. 2004; Bisi et al. 2007). Demands to slow the growth ofthe wolf population have led to a discussion overacceptable methods to achieve this purpose. For instance,in addition to hunting, both translocation and sterilisationhave been used (Ericsson et al. 2004). In general, at thecore of the discussion lies the traditional way to delimit thepopulation (i.e., hunting). In Finland, it is mainly huntersand local people who demand wolf hunting. At the sametime, conservationists accept only the elimination ofdamage-causing individuals and only by authorities (Bisiand Kurki 2008). In Finland, the wolf has been protectedsince the mid-1990s, and only in the reindeer herding areasin northern Finland has wolf hunting with hunting licencesbeen permitted (Bisi et al. 2007). Outside the reindeerherding areas, a limited number of damage-causing animalshave been culled. Such cullings are strictly regulated bylegislation (MAF 2005; Bisi et al. 2007).
Demands to permit wolf hunting are also commonoutside of Finland. In Scandinavia, in both Norway andSweden, where wolves have returned concomitantly toFinland, hunters have been willing to engage in wolfhunting (Skogen and Krange 2003; Ericsson et al. 2004).This demand is connected to problems associated withhunting with dogs in wolf-occupied areas. Wolves havekilled hunting dogs both in Finland and elsewhere inScandinavia (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003; Kojola et al.2004b). The number of dogs killed in Finland varied from20 to 31 during 20002003 (MAF 2005). However, wolfhunting to protect hunting dogs has been seen somewhatambiguously supported in wolf areas in, for instance,Sweden (Ericsson et al. 2004).
Several factors may explain the background of demandsconnected to the reintroduction of wolf hunting, of whichthe most important are the strong interests of the hunters.However, this entirety includes viewpoints that have notbeen thoroughly examined and discussed. Some historicalevents or facts in the management of the Finnish wolfpopulation still affect the present situation. According to thestatistical yearbook, 5,598 wolves were killed between1866 and 1890, whereas only 105 were killed between1881 and 1898 (Mykr and Pohja-Mykr 2005). Since then,the wolf population has recovered significantly, even intothe 1990s. We may rightly assume that an ecologicallycompetitive situation has existed between humans andwolves in the past and that the reactions of present-dayhunters have raised an analogous scenario. In areas towhich the wolf has returned, discussion has even includedsuch concepts as the quality of life (Bisi and Kurki 2008;Skogen et al. 2008). This point of view is connected to bothlocally developed and tradition-experienced ways of usingnature, and the wolf is considered a threat to them.
This article aims to deepen our knowledge of the Finnishconflict in wolf management. This conflict has beendiscussed earlier from the point of view of its presentsituation and the possibilities to manage it (Bisi et al. 2007).Only fear for the wolf has been discussed from a historicalviewpoint. In a previous study, we showed that Finnishconservationists and hunters were especially active partic-ipants in the societal debate and that hunting was a centralfactor in that conflict. This article focuses on hunting andon the role of hunters as participants in the wolf conflict.Why is the wolf such a difficult issue in hunting and forhunters? For this discussion, we searched for details inthose positive and negative characteristics attributed to thewolf and discuss these results in a historical context. Weargue that the history of the interaction between man andwolf also explains features of the present wolf conflict.
Material and methods
The data of this study were collected during the preparation ofthe Finnish wolf management plan in 2004 (MAF 2005). Asemi-structured questionnaire was addressed to regionalorganisations that were recognised as representing importantstakeholders in wolf management policy. The composition ofstakeholders varied to some extent between game manage-ment districts (e.g., reindeer herders exist only in reindeerherding areas; Fig. 1). Involved stakeholders representedhunting and kennel associations, legal hunting organisations,conservationists, environmental authorities, and nongovern-mental organisations, top organisations for primary producers,law enforcement agencies (police and border guards),municipalities and their federations and other regionalstakeholders such as Metshallitus (the administrator ofstate-owned forests). Altogether, 211 regional organisationsresponded to the questionnaires. Most of the questionnaires(60%) were completed as teamwork (210 individuals), andaltogether, about 1,000 people were involved.
For this study, respondents were divided into four maincategories: hunters, conservationists, primary producers andothers. The hunters group included game managementdistricts and associations and voluntary hunting and kennelassociations. The conservationists group included Districtsof the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, naturetourism business and environmental authorities. The groupof primary producers included regional actors of the CentralUnion of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners,reindeer herders and others, and lastly, the others groupincluded law enforcement agencies (police and borderguards) and municipalities and their federations.
The data were divided into three main regions accordingto wolf population density (Kojola et al. 2006b, Fig. 1):regions of stable wolf population, regions of growing wolf
772 Eur J Wildl Res (2010) 56:771779
population and regions of dispersing wolves. Regions ofstable population in eastern Finland harbour most of theFinnish wolf population. In regions of growing populationin central and western Finland, some family packs havebeen sighted, and the population is growing. In areas ofdispersing wolves, some single-wandering individuals areoccasionally sighted. The sparsely inhabited reindeerherding areas in northern Finland and the densely inhabitedsouthern Finland are included in the same category,although the legislative status of the wolf and the structureof human activities in these areas differ significantly. In thereindeer herding areas, the sparse population of wolves isattributed to the protection of reindeer husbandry, whereasin southern Finland, the population has been unable toexpand, and dense human settlement may hinder theexpansion of the species into this area.
In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to definethe three most important positive and negative characteristics
of the wolf (with no alternatives provided) and to evaluate theimportance of each characteristic: (1) almost insignificant, (2)slightly significant, (3) fairly significant, (4) significant and(5) very significant. Thus, for each respondent, the overallimportance of both positive (Importance +) and negative(Importance) characteristics could vary between 1 (1 + 0 + 0)and 15 (5 + 5 + 5), respectively.
Furthermore, by using the evaluations of importance, wewere able to calculate the relative importance of eachpositive and negative characteristic (sum of Importance ofone characteristic/sum of Importance of all characteristics)for each stakeholder group (Tables 1 and 2). Thus, thepercentage values show the relative importance of eachpositive and negative characteristics found within stake-holder groups.
The mean importance of positive and negative charac-teristics in the eyes of different stakeholder groups andregions appear in Table 3. Comparisons of the sums ofimportance of positive and negative characteristics wereconducted using the multivariate analysis of variance andpost hoc pairwise comparisons between stakeholders,regions and both stakeholders and regions with Fisher_sLSD test (Table 4).
Positive evaluations and their weight values
In the questionnaire, stakeholders were asked to identifythree positive characteristics, but in many cases, theyprovided only one or two. Positive characteristics werereclassified into six main categories according to theircontent. Two positive characteristics dominated among allstakeholders (Table 1). The wolf is an essential componentof biodiversity was defined by terms such as it has anabsolute value, it belongs to Finnish nature and it ispart of Finnish fauna. In addition, the wolf is part of theecological whole was defined by it is a part of the foodweb, it is a top predator and it controls ungulatepopulations.
Some interesting differences between stakeholders alsoemerged. The positive characteristics defined by huntersand representatives of primary production showed lessdiversity than did those defined by conservationists.Positive characteristicsother than the two most importantoneswere clearly less important among hunters andprimary producers. Their definitions, categorised as Otherarguments, were not actually positive but contained manyironic comments, such as wolves make life exciting,they call for greater hunting skills, they offer morehunting opportunities and they compel authorities to act,among others.
Fig. 1 Wolf (Canis lupus) abundance regions in Finland
Eur J Wildl Res (2010) 56:771779 773
Stakeholders representing hunting and primary producersoffered positive arguments less often than did conservationistsor others. Conservationists, on the other hand, defined thewolf more positively than did all the other respondents.Conservationists saw the wolf as a potential objective fornature tourism and wildlife photography. They, together withother respondents, also defined wolf as an importantcomponent of regional image. Such arguments were very rareamong hunters or primary producers.
Negative evaluations and the weight values
Stakeholders offered more negative than positive character-istics of the wolf. We reclassified the negative evaluationsinto nine different categories. Two negative evaluationspredominated: Wolves cause damage to human livelihoods(by killing cattle, reindeer, etc.), and wolves instil fearand pose a threat to safety. Damage to human live-lihoods was brought up mostly by primary producers(45.9%). Another important negative evaluation, wolvesrestrict hunting with dogs, was common among huntersand rare among conservationists. Hunters considered iteven more important (26.4%) than fear (22.9%). Thisnegative evaluation was also interesting in that amongconservationists, the category of other negative aspectsincluded tens of aspects that concerned not the wolf itself,
but the present wolf situation, attitudes towards the speciesor the inadequate legislative situation (Table 2).
The sum of positive and negative weight values
Examination of the percentages in Tables 1 and 2, whichindicate the importance of different characteristics, maycreate the illusion that there were no significant differencesbetween stakeholders. Percentage values show the generalimportance of these positive and negative definitionsamong respondents but failed to identify how stakeholdersdiffer in their use of weight values 15. To clarify thesedifferences, we summarised all the positive and negativeweight values of all characteristics and compared them tothe distributions of different respondents in different wolfregions.
When we compared the sum of negative and positiveweight values, we discovered that respondents generallydefined the wolf more negatively t...