Stakeholder views on large carnivore management interventions

Successful conservation of large carnivores can only be achieved if the side effects of carnivore presence and protection are mitigated, allowing development of sustainable agricultural practices in the local society. A core... [ view full abstract ]

Successful conservation of large carnivores can only be achieved if the side effects of carnivore presence and protection are mitigated, allowing development of sustainable agricultural practices in the local society. A core element of large carnivore management is the mitigation of carnivore attacks on livestock or dogs. However, whilst attacks may be rare, the domestic animals and their owners will live with the interventions every day, whether carnivores attack or not. This study aims to understand how current management interventions are perceived and how they work in different stakeholders’ daily life. The empirical work is divided into a qualitative study based on 8 focus groups discussions and a quantitative questionnaire survey among stakeholders, including hunters with dogs, sheep owners, transhumance farmers, and pet dog owners in Sweden’s large carnivore areas. Discussions included 45 stakeholders in total and addressed their experience of interventions, in general and with focus on ~20 specific interventions. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a bottom-up approach to form a theoretical framework for the quantitative evaluation, which will further elaborate on stakeholders’ opposition and acceptance of interventions and compare stakeholders’ views as the potential for conflict (PCI, Manfredo et al. 2003). All stakeholder groups expressed levels of care anxiety with regard to their animals’ well-being. This anxiety appeared as the main motivator for participants to use any kind of intervention. Interventions were actively used by the participants to protect their animals from carnivore attacks, and to reduce their own levels of anxiety, although doubt about intervention effectiveness was expressed. Economical concerns as well as concerns related to potential impact of interventions on the well-being of domestic and wild animals, and on humans, evoke ambivalence and stress among stakeholders. Participants in most stakeholder groups experienced a situation in which they were forced to manage contradicting commitments, legislation, traditions, and expectations with the management of their animals and large carnivores. The complexity of the task evoked frustration, and mistrust in the managing authorities. Thus, it is important that managers and intervention designers acknowledge and learn from these end users’ experiences of interventions to improve, rather than aggravate, the situation.