1 / 15

Estes Park, Oct . 7, 2014

Estes Park, Oct . 7, 2014. Reintroducing the Eurasian Lynx to Northern Germany: A comparison of attitudes among hunters and non- hunters Dr . Eick von Ruschkowski Picture: Willi Rolfes. Agenda Eurasian Lynx in Germany Study Scope and Methods Results

naomi-melendez
Download Presentation

Estes Park, Oct . 7, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Estes Park, Oct. 7, 2014 ReintroducingtheEurasianLynxto Northern Germany: A comparisonofattitudesamonghuntersand non-hunters Dr. Eick von Ruschkowski Picture: Willi Rolfes

  2. Agenda • EurasianLynx in Germany • Study ScopeandMethods • Results • Discussion: Implicationsfor all Stakeholders 2

  3. 1. EurasianLynx in Germany Source: NABU 3

  4. 1. EurasianLynx in Germany • Lynxexctinct in Germany since 1850 • Reintroductionto Harz National Park launched in 2000; 24 lynxreleasedbetween 2000 and 2006 (firstsuccessfulreproduction in 2002) • increasingterritory, but noknowledge on: • publicattitudestowardsthelynx • conflict potential withhunters/hunting • publicperceptionofthereintroductionproject Quelle: NLWKN 2011 4

  5. 2. Study Scope and Methods • Objective: to determine attitudes towards the Eurasian lynx among the hunting and non-hunting population in the state of Lower Saxony • as a baseline for • the identification of potential or actual conflicts between nature conservation objectives and land uses, especially hunting; • the future development of wildlife monitoring and management plans to fulfill EU Habitat Directive requirements; and • target group-specific information and outreach efforts. Quelle: dpa 5

  6. 2. Study ScopeandMethods • quantitative online survey (tool: EFS Survey) • filterquestionsto separate huntersfrom non-huntersand – amonghunters – thosewhohunt in lynxterritoryfromthosewhodon‘t • attitudes: five-point Likertscale • questionnairedevelopedjointlywith Harz National Park administrationandtheLowerSaxon Hunters‘ Association 6

  7. 3. Results • total sample size: n = 1,791 with 66% completion rate (n = 1,186) • average time spentforcompletion: 13:03 min. • Sociodemographics (cleaned sample, onlyresidentsofLowerSaxony): • 36% hunters (n = 396), ofwhich 57% hunt in lynxterritory • genderbias (31% female, 69% male) • agedistribution: 7

  8. 3. Results Myemotionsandfeelingstowardsthelynxare… (five-point Likertscalefrom positive to negative; n (non hunting )= 712; n (hunting) = 396) 8

  9. 3. Results • Emotionsandfeelingstowardsthelynx (n = 1,108): • arithmeticmean: 1.69 • statisticallysignificantdifferences (ANOVA): • hunters (2.30) vs. non-hunters (1.34) (F = 217.103; p = 0.000***) • people 61 andolder: 1.99 (F = 3.381, p = 0.005**) • female: 1.33 / male: 1.84 (F = 48.961, p = 0.000***) • not significant: huntinggrounds in lynxterritory (2.35) vs. outside (2.23) (F = 0.410, p = 0.664) 9

  10. 3. Results Attitude towardslynxreturn (five-pointLikertscalefrom „verywelcome“ to „totallyunacceptable“; n (non-hunting) = 712; n (hunting) = 396) 10

  11. 3. Results • Attittudetowardthelynx‘ return (n = 1,108): • arithmeticmean: 1.63 • statisticallysignificantdifferences (ANOVA): • hunters (2.29) vs. non-hunters (1.26) (F = 237.181; p = 0.000***) • age (sixagegroups): 18 andunder (1.27) to 61 andolder (1.96) (F = 3.864, p = 0.002**) • female: 1.22 / male: 1.81 (F = 62.197, p = 0.000***) • not significant: huntinggrounds in lynxterritory (2.27) vs. outside (2.29) (F = 0.353, p = 0.703) 11

  12. 3. Results • Percentage of hunters who rated expected consequences from potential lynx presence in hunting grounds as “severe”: 12

  13. 4. Discussion: Implications for all Stakeholders • Non-hunting population much more positive (enthusiastic?) about lnyx‘ return; but hunters by the majority also positive; • socio-demographic factors (gender, age, rural vs. urban) have a significant influence on attitudes; • significantly better knowledge (self-assessment) among hunters on nature conservation, hunting and wildlife management issues – with one exception: knowledge about the lynx; • Lower Saxon Hunting Association not perceived as a partner of the lynx reintroduction project, partner status rather (erroneously) assigned to environmental NGOs; • hunters partially dissatisfied, but mostly coping with the new situation. 13

  14. 4. Discussion: Implications for all Stakeholders • Increase science-based knowledge on lynx’ impact on game (predation) to identify and resolve true conflicts; • develop strategies to address the information needs of specific target groups, mainly land owners/hunters (“strengthen supporters; neutralize resistant opponents”); • increase consultation with such groups when developing a lynx management plan; • increase the internal and external visibility of the Lower Saxon Hunting Association as lynx reintroduction project partner. 14

  15. Thankyouforyourattention! 15

More Related