Using science to inform large carnivore policy


Until the 1960s, Norway, like many other European countries, spent a lot of effort trying to exterminate its native large


carnivores. The environmental


movement that followed caused a sharp U-turn in this policy, and the recovery of populations of wolves, bears, lynx and wolverines since then has been one of the great success stories of European conservation legislation. However, the reality for people sharing a


landscape with large carnivores has been high levels of conflict. The original motivations for killing these animals still exist in many areas, the most obvious being that they pose a threat to domestic livestock. As a consequence, since the early 1990s Norway has been investing in research projects that investigate the ecology of large carnivores and the conflicts they cause with people. Fieldwork has been a constant since the


“The reality for


people sharing a landscape with


large carnivores has been high


levels of conflict”


beginning of the funding push, with data being fed directly into wildlife management institutions to answer immediate questions and also being used as a platform to generate scientific knowledge. As John Linnell of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research explains, the focus has been perpetually evolving: “In the early years, we were essentially describing the basic natural history of these animals and assessing general attitudes such as


“do


people like these animals?” As time has gone by the work has become more focused, with our most recent work analysing whether the scientific knowledge produced is actually influencing policy decisions.” The switch of focus towards studying


policy has been partly provoked by the relative stasis in levels of conflict between humans and large carnivores over the past few decades. Understanding the ecology of the animals has improved immensely, as has understanding the economic and social dimensions of the conflicts that occur. This knowledge has been presented to policymakers in the


form of clear


recommendations, yet the underlying issues remain unchanged. “The debates that we hear being played out by the Norwegian media and parliament regarding issues such as livestock predation are almost identical


www.projectsmagazine.eu.com


to those from twenty years ago,” says Linnell. “There is certainly a sense of déjà vu in this respect, so we are now increasing our focus on assessing what works in terms of policy and how we can encourage this to be implemented.”


“The focus has been


perpetually evolving: “In the early years, we were essentially describing the basic natural history of


these animals and assessing general attitudes such as “do people like these animals?”


The challenges faced by policymakers are


no better illustrated than by the state of sheep farming in modern Norway. In the 1940s when levels of carnivores were decreasing towards the extinction point, the prevalent husbandry system allowed sheep free reign over the mountains and forests throughout the summer, unsupervised and unfenced. This was effective until predator populations rose again. Sheep are now being killed frequently by large carnivores and the farmers are responding by lobbying for the widespread use of lethal control and to reduce population recovery goals. A change in sheep husbandry methods is the only viable solution to this deadlock, but although the recommendation has been given repeatedly, it has not led to a large-scale institutional change in the system. In contrast with the policies on carnivores


are the hunting systems that have been established regarding Norway’s ungulates, which represent an excellent example of sustainable use of a natural resource brought about by a strong relationship between research and wildlife management. The difference is, Linnell believes, how people perceive the two groups of animals.


33


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64