www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
LARGECARNIVOREMANAGEMENTINFINLAND–HITSANDMISSES
1
Seniorresearcher MariPohja-MykräRuraliaInstituteUniversity ofHelsinki
MykräS&Pohja-MykräM(2015) Back-calculationoflargecarnivorepopulationsinFinlandin1865–1915 Annales Zoologici Fennici 52:285-300.
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
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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)
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
Ø Theindicativevalueofgameanimalswasraisedin2010tomakethefinancialgainsofcommittingahuntingoffencelessattractive.Theamountofcompensationtothestatevariesaccordingtowhethertheanimalwasajuvenileoradult.Theindicativevalueforwolverineisupto€16,500,forlynxupto€2,100,forbearupto€15,500andforwolfupto€9,100.
Ø AnamendmenttotheCriminalCodein2011stipulatesthatanyillegalkillingoflargecarnivoreswillbetreatedasanaggravatedhuntingoffence,andsentenceswerethereforetightened.
Ø Traditionalwolfhuntingwasceasedin2007(tomeetthedemandsofHabitatsDirective’sstrictprotection).
WOLFPOLICIESAIMATDECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFLARGECARNIVORES
RESEARCHONILLEGALKILLINGSTARTED
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü Theperceivedlackoflegitimacyinconservationregimesismanifestedinimplicitandexplicitforms.
ü Theillegalkillingoflargecarnivoresiscommittedaspartofasocialgroup.
ü Huntingviolatorsusuallybelongtothemainstreamsociety,andaregenerallycommittedtotherulesandlawsofsociety,buttheyrationalizecertainexceptions.
ü Violatorsareaffectedandboundbymoralandsocialsanctionsinthecommunity
ü Ruralprotestsagainstconservationpoliciesarenotexpressedbyhuntingviolatorsalone;socio-politicalcrimeiscommittedbytheentirelocalcommunity.
BACKGROUNDANDMADEASSUMPTIONS
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü Howhuntingviolatorsnegatetheshamefromthestigmaandsanctionsassociatedwithviolatingthelaw?
ü Sociopoliticalillegalhuntingasdefianceofauthorities?ü Docommunitymembers,i.e.thecoregroupofhunting
violatorssupportillegalkillingoflargecarnivores,andunderwhatconditionsisthissupportgiven?
ü Howthesecommunitymembersnegatetheshamefromthestigmaandsanctionsassociatedwithviolatingthelaw,andthus,howruralcommunitiessustainalternativewaysofregulatingtheirworldunderpressurefromconservationregimes?
RESEARCHQUESTIONS
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü Sharedemotions,sharedknowledge->sharedattitudesü Strongcommunitysupportforillegalkillings
Ø Thewolfseemstobethemainspeciesinvolvedintheconflict,andfutureresearchshouldemphasizeitsspecies-specificcharacteristicsandtheircontributiontohighlevelsoffear.
Ø Thereisaneedforabetterunderstandingofbiosecurityissueswithinhumansocieties,andofthepsychologicalprocessesinvolvedinenvironmentalconflicts.
Pohja-MykräM&KurkiS(2014)StrongCommunitySupportforIllegalKillingsChallengesWolfManagement.EuropeanJournalforWildlifeResearch,60(5):759-770.
RESULTSANDCONCLUSIONSINSHORT
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü Alienationoftraditionalrurallifefromsocietyatlarge,communitysupportforillegalhuntingandtheneutralizationofthestigmaandshameassociatedwiththesanctions,alladdressruraldefianceagainsttheauthoritiesandillegitimateconservationregimesappliedattheEUlevel.
Ø Theuseofdefiancetheorybroadensourunderstandingofhowconservationlawenforcementstrategiessuchasmorepunitiveregimesmayincreaseillegalkillingandsupportforitinsteadofactingasadeterrent.
Ø Illegalkillingofwolvesisasignofincreasingandpowerfulnon-communicativeresistance,andmustbeconsideredaserioussignalofaneedtobringnewmanagementtoolstosupportsuccessfulconservationpolicies.
Pohja-MykräM(2016)Felonyoractofjustice?- Illegalkillingoflargecarnivoresasdefianceofauthorities,JournalofRuralStudies,Vol44:46-54
RESULTSANDCONCLUSIONSINSHORT
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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
RESULTSANDCONCLUSIONSINSHORT
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
HUMAN-WOLFCONFLICTINSHORT
InFinland,thewolfconflicthastodo• withlocalpeople’ssharedemotionsandvaluestowards
conflict-pronespecies,• withconflictingviewswithstakeholders,• withthemarginalizationoflocalknowledge,• withadistrustoftheauthorities,and• withperceivednormativeandempiricalsocio-cultural
legitimacydeficitsinwolfconservation.
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
EVALUATIONOFTHEFINNISHNATIONALPOLICYONLARGECARNIVORESIN2013
Ø Paradigm shift”Interdependenceofecological,economic andsocialfactors”
Ø Introductionofthetheoreticalconceptof‘psychologicalownership’intolargecarnivorepolicies
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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.
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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.
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü “Eachpolicedepartmentwillappointawildlifecontactpersontocoordinatetheplanningandimplementationofsupervisioninthepolicedepartment'sarea.”
ü “Thepolice,theBorderGuardandForestryServiceshuntingwardenswillworktogethertoimplementsupervisionprojects.”
ü “Annualdevelopmentseminarswillbeorganised,inwhichthesupervisoryauthoritiesinareaswithwolfterritories,thegameadministrationandthelargecarnivoreresearchsectorwilltakepart.”
ü “Thehuntingassociationsinareaswithwolfterritorieswillinformtheirmembers,landownersandlocalcommunitiesoftheirnon-toleranceofillegalkillingofwolvesandtheirintentiontoreportanysuspectedillegalactstothepolice.”
ü “Thegamemanagementassociationsinanareawithawolfterritorywillprepareannualplansforthesupervisionofhunting.”
DECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFWOLVESREVISEDMANAGEMENTPLANFORWOLVES2014
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
ü Fromthenationalsurveyinthewolfmanagementplan:
”Thosepeoplewholivewithinthewolfterritoriesshouldhavemoreinfluenceonwolfissuescomparedtothosepeoplethatliveoutsidethewolfterritories”
• 78%ofpeoplelivinginmunicipalitieswithwolfterritoriesagreed
• 73%ofpeoplefromtheothermunicipalitiesagreed
Ø Akeyprincipleofthenewapproachtowolfpopulationmanagementisaterritory-basedmanagementwherepeoplelivingandoperatingwithinthewolfterritoryshouldhavemoreimpactonwolfmanagement.
Ø 59concreteactionsand9developmentprojects,whichareaimedatfindingnewsolutionstothemostcentralissuesinthewolfconflict,andsubsequently,tosustainablewolfmanagement
• 29actionshavebeencarriedoutin2015-2016
• 7developmentprojectshavestarted(includingthetraditionalwolfhunting)
DECREASINGTHEILLEGALKILLINGOFWOLVESREVISEDMANAGEMENTPLANFORWOLVES2014
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
Traditionalwolfhunting/huntingwithderogationsbasedonpopulationmanagement
ü leanstowardresponsiveanddeliberativegovernanceoflargecarnivoremanagementandconservation,
ü withtheaimofempoweringlocalcitizensinlargecarnivoremanagementandpolicybybringingtotheforetheirsenseofnatureandhowitistobeused.
ü Italsoaddressestheimportanceofbuildingtrustbetweenauthorities/wildlifescientistsandhunters(localpopulations),
ü acknowledgestheimportanceoflocalknowledgealongwithecological-technologicalexpertise,and
ü fulfillsbothgenericandsociallygeneratedmotivesandbasichumanneeds,suchasinteractionwiththelivingenvironmentandeffectance onobjectsthatbelonginit.
PROS OF LEGAL (TRADITIONAL) HUNTING
www.helsinki.fi/ruralia
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
TAKK!
Top Related