A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Hunters' attitudes matter: diverging bear and wolf population trajectories in Finland in the late nineteenth century and today
Authors: Mykra S, Pohja-Mykra M, Vuorisalo T
Publisher: SPRINGER
Publishing place: NEW YORK
Publication year: 2017
Journal: European Journal of Wildlife Research
Journal name in source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH
Journal acronym: EUR J WILDLIFE RES
Article number: ARTN 76
Volume: 63
Issue: 5
Number of pages: 13
ISSN: 1612-4642
eISSN: 1439-0574
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1
Web address : 10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1
Abstract
During the last 140 years, the trajectories of Finnish bear and wolf populations have twice diverged. The first such divergence occurred during 1875-1915; wolf abundance plummeted within a decade, while bears decreased steadily over 40 years. The second divergence began in the 1990s, coinciding with the introduction of total protection of both species. Within 20 years, the bear population grew fourfold, while the wolf remained low. These patterns can be accounted for in terms of both historical and contemporary stakeholder attitudes. Data from periodicals published during 1881-1923 show a significant difference in that respect: the scenario of the extinction of the bear was seen as entirely unacceptable, while that of the wolf was clearly an objective worth pursuing. Nationwide studies carried out during the second divergence show that attitudes toward the bear are significantly more positive than those toward the wolf. Increased bear numbers re-opened sustainable harvesting of this valued game. The wolf, in contrast, has been treated rather as a pest than as a valuable quarry, and in spite of total protection, the illegal killing has kept its population low. Recent wolf population changes synchronize with policy adjustments suggesting that legal harvest might reduce the urge to undertake unlawful acts, but regulated hunting has probably been allowed in too short and erratic periods to test its real conservation potential. Rural people and hunters are salient wildlife management stakeholders in circumstances where they have to share their territory with conflict-prone species. These groups have the intrinsic power to implement forms of grassroots-level management that can sometimes override official top-down policy decisions.
During the last 140 years, the trajectories of Finnish bear and wolf populations have twice diverged. The first such divergence occurred during 1875-1915; wolf abundance plummeted within a decade, while bears decreased steadily over 40 years. The second divergence began in the 1990s, coinciding with the introduction of total protection of both species. Within 20 years, the bear population grew fourfold, while the wolf remained low. These patterns can be accounted for in terms of both historical and contemporary stakeholder attitudes. Data from periodicals published during 1881-1923 show a significant difference in that respect: the scenario of the extinction of the bear was seen as entirely unacceptable, while that of the wolf was clearly an objective worth pursuing. Nationwide studies carried out during the second divergence show that attitudes toward the bear are significantly more positive than those toward the wolf. Increased bear numbers re-opened sustainable harvesting of this valued game. The wolf, in contrast, has been treated rather as a pest than as a valuable quarry, and in spite of total protection, the illegal killing has kept its population low. Recent wolf population changes synchronize with policy adjustments suggesting that legal harvest might reduce the urge to undertake unlawful acts, but regulated hunting has probably been allowed in too short and erratic periods to test its real conservation potential. Rural people and hunters are salient wildlife management stakeholders in circumstances where they have to share their territory with conflict-prone species. These groups have the intrinsic power to implement forms of grassroots-level management that can sometimes override official top-down policy decisions.
UTU Research Portal