1 / 21

Stakeholder attitudes explain diversion in population trajectories of bear and wolf in Finland

Stakeholder attitudes explain diversion in population trajectories of bear and wolf in Finland. Sakari Mykrä 1 , Mari Pohja-Mykrä 2 and Timo Vuorisalo 1 1) University of Turku 2) University of Helsinki Pathways 2014 Integrating Human Dimensions into Fish and Wildlife

ria-knapp
Download Presentation

Stakeholder attitudes explain diversion in population trajectories of bear and wolf in Finland

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. Stakeholder attitudes explain diversion in populationtrajectories of bear and wolf in Finland Sakari Mykrä1, Mari Pohja-Mykrä2 and TimoVuorisalo1 1)University of Turku 2)University of Helsinki Pathways 2014 Integrating Human Dimensions into Fish and Wildlife Estes Park, Colorado, U.S. 10/7/2014

  2. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1880-2014 (indicative)

  3. Killedbears and wolves in Finland in 1880-1923 (bountystatistics)

  4. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1880-2014 (indicative)

  5. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1978-2014 (populationcensuses)

  6. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1880-2014 (indicative)

  7. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1880-2014 (indicative) Spate of fatalwolfattacks (23) Hunterssuggestedprotection for bear Partialprotectionfor bearand wolf Partialprotectionfor bear Total protection for bothsp. (EU)

  8. Bear and wolfattitudes in 1881-1923

  9. Bear and wolfattitudes in 1881-1923 • digital archives of 18 journals published by animal welfarists (AW), hunters (SP) and professional zoologists (PZ) • search term ”(bear OR wolf) AND extinction” • journal articles discussing about the extinction of either of the species in Finland • 49 individual articles (nAW=4; nSP=40; nPZ=5)

  10. Bear and wolfattitudes in 1881-1923 49

  11. Bear and wolfattitudes in 1881-1923 CONCLUSION 1 Concurrent population decrease of bear and wolf at the turn of the twentieth century is NOT a consequence of similar attitudes toward them.

  12. Currentbear and wolfattitudes in Finland

  13. Current bear and wolf attitudes in Finland • national population management plans for both species prepared in 2004-2006 • preceded by socio-economic research on stakeholders’ opinions and expectations • stakeholders were instructed to attach three positive and three negative characteristics (with relative weight) to both species • listed characteristics were pooled (biological role, resource value, immaterial value, safety issues, damages etc.)

  14. Current bear and wolf attitudes in Finland POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS ATTACHED TO BEAR POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS ATTACHED TO WOLF

  15. Current bear and wolf attitudes in Finland NEGATIVE CHARACTERISTICS ATTACHED TO BEAR NEGATIVE CHARACTERISTICS ATTACHED TO WOLF

  16. Current bear and wolf attitudes in Finland CONCLUSION 2 The attitudes toward bear and wolf seem to have changed very little during the last hundred years.

  17. Bear and wolfpopulations in Finland in 1880-2014 (indicative)

  18. Diversion in population trajectories of bear and wolf in Finland in the 1990s CONCLUSION 3 In spite of occasional conflicts bear is well tolerated and it is still a valued game species. Controlled population increase is not considered as a problem. Policy decisions targeting at wolf population increase are widely opposed among the rural residents.Presently wolf brings no actual benefit to local people. Illegal killing of wolves is silently approved and this keeps the population in low numbers. CONCLUSION 3 In spite of occasional conflicts bear is well tolerated and it is still a valued game species. Controlled population increase is not considered as a problem. Policy decisions targeting at wolf population increase are widely opposed among the rural residents. Presently wolf brings no actual benefit to local people. Illegal killing of wolves is silently approved and this keeps the population in low numbers.  MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS?

  19. Thank You

More Related