LARGE CARNIVORE MANAGEMENT IN FINLAND–HITS AND...

www.helsinki.fi/ruralia

LARGECARNIVOREMANAGEMENTINFINLAND–HITSANDMISSES

1

Seniorresearcher MariPohja-MykräRuraliaInstituteUniversity ofHelsinki

MykräS&Pohja-MykräM(2015) Back-calculationoflargecarnivorepopulationsinFinlandin1865–1915 Annales Zoologici Fennici 52:285-300.

Mykrä S & Pohja-Mykrä M (2017 ) Hunters’ opinions matter: Stakeholder attitudes and the divergenceof bear and wolf population trajectories in Finland in the late 19th century and today [Manuscript}

See also Dressel, S., Sandström, C., and Ericsson, G. (2015) A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolvesacross Europe 1976-2012. Conservation Biology : The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 29(2), 565–574

HUNTINGVS.PERSECUTION

LARGECARNIVOREPOPULATIONTRAJECTORIESINFINLAND2000-2017


DIVERGENCEOFLARGECARNIVOREPOPULATIONTRAJECTORIESINFINLANDSINCETHE1990S

Ø Inspiteofoccasionalconflictssuchaslivestockdamagesbearandlynxarewelltoleratedandtheyareconsideredasvaluedgamespecies.Controlledpopulationincreaseisnotconsideredasabigproblem.

Ø Policydecisionstargetingatwolfpopulationincreasehavebeenwidelyopposedamongtheruralresidents.Illegalkillingofwolves(30-50illegallykilledwolvesperyearduring2005-2010)haskeptthepopulationinlownumbers.

Ø Wolverinemanagementischallenging;approx.halfofthepopulationoccursinthereindeer-herdingareawhereco-operationwithresearchers(tracks)isalmostnonexistentandinformalmanagement(illegalkillings)keepspopulationinlownumbers.

WOLFPACKS(green)ANDPAIRS(yellow)IN2016

DOGDAMAGESDURING2011-2015(N=231)

Photo:Luonnonvarakeskus Photo:www.google.com/maps/

BEARCUBS(2015) APIARISTSINFINLAND(2015)

Photo:Luonnonvarakeskus

Figure12.Reindeerfoundkilledbyeachlargecarnivorespecies(axis1y)andcombinedtotalofreindeerkilledbyalllargecarnivorespecies(axis2y)duringtheperiod2007–2012.

Pohja-MykräM&KurkiS(2014)EvaluationoftheFinnishnationalpolicyonlargecarnivores,Reports135.RuraliaInstitute,UniversityofHelsinki.

Blue line=hunting quota plusotherknown human-caused mortality

MINIMUMWOLFPOPULATIONESTIMATE1999-2016

NATIONALMANAGEMENTPLANSFORLARGECARNIVORESPECIESANDSOCIO-ECONOMICRESEARCH(RURALIAINSTITUTEUNIVERSITYOFHELSINKI)


Ø Theindicativevalueofgameanimalswasraisedin2010tomakethefinancialgainsofcommittingahuntingoffencelessattractive.Theamountofcompensationtothestatevariesaccordingtowhethertheanimalwasajuvenileoradult.Theindicativevalueforwolverineisupto€16,500,forlynxupto€2,100,forbearupto€15,500andforwolfupto€9,100.

Ø AnamendmenttotheCriminalCodein2011stipulatesthatanyillegalkillingoflargecarnivoreswillbetreatedasanaggravatedhuntingoffence,andsentenceswerethereforetightened.

Ø Traditionalwolfhuntingwasceasedin2007(tomeetthedemandsofHabitatsDirective’sstrictprotection).

WOLFPOLICIESAIMATDECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFLARGECARNIVORES

RESEARCHONILLEGALKILLINGSTARTED


HUNTINGVIOLATORANDTARGETSPECIES

ØHunting violator is 50-years-oldmale (range 21-71).ØAt least 83 % are hunters.ØAt a time, 2.3 men (range 1-6) tookpart in illegal killing.

20 %

27 %30 %

23 %16 %

14 %

49 %

21 % wolverinelynxbrown bearwolf

Frequency of large carnivore speciesduring 2005-2010 inü Police Records (n=141, outer circle)ü District Courts’ Sentences

(n=30, inner circle)Pohja-MykräM(2016)Felonyoractofjustice?- Illegalkillingoflargecarnivoresasdefianceofauthorities,JournalofRuralStudies,Vol44:46-54


Huntingviolators’motivesforillegallykillinglargecarnivores.Dataconsistsof64offendersfromDistrictCourtsentences2005-2010.

Motives n n%

disputesoverLCpolicies 43 67abettingafriend 11 17self-protection 5 8financialbenefit 4 6accident 1 2Total 64 100

Pohja-MykräM(2016)Felonyoractofjustice?- Illegalkillingoflargecarnivoresasdefianceofauthorities,JournalofRuralStudies,Vol44:46-54

ILLEGALKILLINGASASOCIO-POLITICALCRIME


ü Theperceivedlackoflegitimacyinconservationregimesismanifestedinimplicitandexplicitforms.

ü Theillegalkillingoflargecarnivoresiscommittedaspartofasocialgroup.

ü Huntingviolatorsusuallybelongtothemainstreamsociety,andaregenerallycommittedtotherulesandlawsofsociety,buttheyrationalizecertainexceptions.

ü Violatorsareaffectedandboundbymoralandsocialsanctionsinthecommunity

ü Ruralprotestsagainstconservationpoliciesarenotexpressedbyhuntingviolatorsalone;socio-politicalcrimeiscommittedbytheentirelocalcommunity.

BACKGROUNDANDMADEASSUMPTIONS


ü Howhuntingviolatorsnegatetheshamefromthestigmaandsanctionsassociatedwithviolatingthelaw?

ü Sociopoliticalillegalhuntingasdefianceofauthorities?ü Docommunitymembers,i.e.thecoregroupofhunting

violatorssupportillegalkillingoflargecarnivores,andunderwhatconditionsisthissupportgiven?

ü Howthesecommunitymembersnegatetheshamefromthestigmaandsanctionsassociatedwithviolatingthelaw,andthus,howruralcommunitiessustainalternativewaysofregulatingtheirworldunderpressurefromconservationregimes?

RESEARCHQUESTIONS


ü OfficialStatistics(2005-2010):DistrictCourts’Sentences(n=30)andPolicerecords(n=141)

ü Semi-structuredinterviews:huntingviolators(n=2)andgameofficials(n=2)

ü Non-activerole-playingwithempathybasedfictitiousstories• Qualitativeattitudeanalysis,argumentationanalysis(N=148)

Women(n=48)andHunters(n=100)

• Neutralizationofillegalacts(N=231)Women(n=62)andHunters(n=169)

COLLECTEDDATA


ü Sharedemotions,sharedknowledge->sharedattitudesü Strongcommunitysupportforillegalkillings

Ø Thewolfseemstobethemainspeciesinvolvedintheconflict,andfutureresearchshouldemphasizeitsspecies-specificcharacteristicsandtheircontributiontohighlevelsoffear.

Ø Thereisaneedforabetterunderstandingofbiosecurityissueswithinhumansocieties,andofthepsychologicalprocessesinvolvedinenvironmentalconflicts.

Pohja-MykräM&KurkiS(2014)StrongCommunitySupportforIllegalKillingsChallengesWolfManagement.EuropeanJournalforWildlifeResearch,60(5):759-770.

RESULTSANDCONCLUSIONSINSHORT


ü Alienationoftraditionalrurallifefromsocietyatlarge,communitysupportforillegalhuntingandtheneutralizationofthestigmaandshameassociatedwiththesanctions,alladdressruraldefianceagainsttheauthoritiesandillegitimateconservationregimesappliedattheEUlevel.

Ø Theuseofdefiancetheorybroadensourunderstandingofhowconservationlawenforcementstrategiessuchasmorepunitiveregimesmayincreaseillegalkillingandsupportforitinsteadofactingasadeterrent.

Ø Illegalkillingofwolvesisasignofincreasingandpowerfulnon-communicativeresistance,andmustbeconsideredaserioussignalofaneedtobringnewmanagementtoolstosupportsuccessfulconservationpolicies.

Pohja-MykräM(2016)Felonyoractofjustice?- Illegalkillingoflargecarnivoresasdefianceofauthorities,JournalofRuralStudies,Vol44:46-54



ü Neutralizationtechniquesusedtojustifytheillegalkillingoflargecarnivoresprovideaninsightintothediscoursesusedtodefendtheruralidentityandwayoflife,andtoexpressruralproteststowardconservationpolicies.

ü Ruralprotestmanifestedbythecoregroupsofhuntingviolatorscontestsviewsastohowtheconservationoflargecarnivores,morespecificallywolves,shouldbeconducted.

Ø Voluntary compliance through informal social sanctions and theperceived legitimacy of the rules enforcing the law according tomoral standards might be worth exploiting.

Ø Support processes that will make hunting violators irrelevant tocommunity welfare.

Pohja-MykräM(2016)Communitypoweroverconservationregimes:TechniquesofneutralizingillegalkillingoflargecarnivoresinFinland,CrimeLawandSocialChange,67:439–460



HUMAN-WOLFCONFLICTINSHORT

InFinland,thewolfconflicthastodo• withlocalpeople’ssharedemotionsandvaluestowards

conflict-pronespecies,• withconflictingviewswithstakeholders,• withthemarginalizationoflocalknowledge,• withadistrustoftheauthorities,and• withperceivednormativeandempiricalsocio-cultural

legitimacydeficitsinwolfconservation.


EVALUATIONOFTHEFINNISHNATIONALPOLICYONLARGECARNIVORESIN2013

Ø Paradigm shift”Interdependenceofecological,economic andsocialfactors”

Ø Introductionofthetheoreticalconceptof‘psychologicalownership’intolargecarnivorepolicies


PSYCHOLOGICALOWNERSHIP

By giving local peopleØcontrol over wolvesØopen-access to wolf information, andØpossibility to invest one’s self in wolf management,

the human basic needs ofØself-identityØefficacy in relation to their environment and the objectsthat belong to it, andØhaving a place in which to dwell,

are fulfilled.


NATIONALWOLFPOLICIES

26

Ø FIRSTNATIONALPLANFORWOLFMANAGEMENTIN2005

Ø EVALUATIONOFTHEFINNISHNATIONALPOLICYONLARGECARNIVORESIN2013

Ø REVISEDNATIONALPLANFORWOLFMANAGEMENTIN2014

Nomention of’Illegal killing’atall.

’Illegal killing’formed essential part ofthe evaluation.Paradigm shift.

Whole chapter about ’Illegal killing’ofwolves.


ü “Eachpolicedepartmentwillappointawildlifecontactpersontocoordinatetheplanningandimplementationofsupervisioninthepolicedepartment'sarea.”

ü “Thepolice,theBorderGuardandForestryServiceshuntingwardenswillworktogethertoimplementsupervisionprojects.”

ü “Annualdevelopmentseminarswillbeorganised,inwhichthesupervisoryauthoritiesinareaswithwolfterritories,thegameadministrationandthelargecarnivoreresearchsectorwilltakepart.”

ü “Thehuntingassociationsinareaswithwolfterritorieswillinformtheirmembers,landownersandlocalcommunitiesoftheirnon-toleranceofillegalkillingofwolvesandtheirintentiontoreportanysuspectedillegalactstothepolice.”

ü “Thegamemanagementassociationsinanareawithawolfterritorywillprepareannualplansforthesupervisionofhunting.”

DECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFWOLVESREVISEDMANAGEMENTPLANFORWOLVES2014


ü Fromthenationalsurveyinthewolfmanagementplan:

”Thosepeoplewholivewithinthewolfterritoriesshouldhavemoreinfluenceonwolfissuescomparedtothosepeoplethatliveoutsidethewolfterritories”

• 78%ofpeoplelivinginmunicipalitieswithwolfterritoriesagreed

• 73%ofpeoplefromtheothermunicipalitiesagreed

Ø Akeyprincipleofthenewapproachtowolfpopulationmanagementisaterritory-basedmanagementwherepeoplelivingandoperatingwithinthewolfterritoryshouldhavemoreimpactonwolfmanagement.

Ø 59concreteactionsand9developmentprojects,whichareaimedatfindingnewsolutionstothemostcentralissuesinthewolfconflict,andsubsequently,tosustainablewolfmanagement

• 29actionshavebeencarriedoutin2015-2016

• 7developmentprojectshavestarted(includingthetraditionalwolfhunting)

DECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFWOLVESREVISEDMANAGEMENTPLANFORWOLVES2014


Traditionalwolfhunting/huntingwithderogationsbasedonpopulationmanagement

ü leanstowardresponsiveanddeliberativegovernanceoflargecarnivoremanagementandconservation,

ü withtheaimofempoweringlocalcitizensinlargecarnivoremanagementandpolicybybringingtotheforetheirsenseofnatureandhowitistobeused.

ü Italsoaddressestheimportanceofbuildingtrustbetweenauthorities/wildlifescientistsandhunters(localpopulations),

ü acknowledgestheimportanceoflocalknowledgealongwithecological-technologicalexpertise,and

ü fulfillsbothgenericandsociallygeneratedmotivesandbasichumanneeds,suchasinteractionwiththelivingenvironmentandeffectance onobjectsthatbelonginit.

PROS OF LEGAL (TRADITIONAL) HUNTING


ü Positivechange inlocal attitudes towards wolf

ü Hunters are beginning tosee awolf asavaluable natural resource

ü Hunting with dogs have increased from 60%to74%,but wolves are seen asasmaller risk todogs than before

ü Acceptance forillegal killing inoverall has been decreased

ü Moreactive co-operation between stakeholders due tothe local co-operationgroups atthe wolf pack territory level

ü Increased co-operation between locals andgame managementofficials /game researchers

ü Finnish wolf population has been increasingà resultsare positive onthepopulation level andinterms ofachievingthe ecological sustainability

Ø What’s next?

CHANGESDUETOTHEREVISEDMANAGEMENTPLAN

LARGE CARNIVORE MANAGEMENT IN FINLAND–HITS AND...

Documents

Transcript of LARGE CARNIVORE MANAGEMENT IN FINLAND–HITS AND...