Potential for conflict in carnivore management and conservation

Large carnivore conservation in the Swedish multi-use landscapes can only be successful if carnivores can share the landscape with human activities. Interventions to reduce the risk of brown bear, lynx, wolf, and wolverine... [ view full abstract ]

Large carnivore conservation in the Swedish multi-use landscapes can only be successful if carnivores can share the landscape with human activities. Interventions to reduce the risk of brown bear, lynx, wolf, and wolverine attacks on domestic animals have become a core element in carnivore management. Whereas the intention is that interventions mitigate human-carnivore interactions, the interventions also have the potential to create conflict within or between groups of people with different views on their use. This study aims to investigate the intention to oppose-accept the use of various interventions, both among owners of domestic animals and the general public. We graphically illustrate the tendency of oppose-accept intention for the most commonly discussed interventions, and compare stakeholders’ views, as the potential for conflict (PCI, Manfredo et al. 2003).

A web-based quantitative questionnaire, to investigate stakeholder intention to oppose-accept various interventions, was distributed during the fall and winter of 2017-2018. Recipients were a total of 1578 sheep owners registered with the Board of Agriculture or members in the Sheep Breeders Society, 894 dog owners registered with the Swedish Kennel Club, and 1155 hunting dog owners registered with the Swedish Kennel Club within the core Swedish wolf range. The survey was also distributed to all 220 Swedish free range farmers registered with the Board of Agriculture. The general public was sampled through a Norstat panel survey, with 1000 responses collected nationally and 500 responses collected within the counties that have permanent wolf populations. Response rates to our survey varied from 25 % among general dog owners, 30 % among sheep owners, 40 % among free range farmers, to 87 % among hunting dog owners. The response rates may indicate the relevance of the issue to the stakeholder groups, which is also indicated by the qualitative research that constituted the first empirical work of this study. Our study can illustrate what interventions have a higher average acceptance among stakeholders and the general public, thus are less likely to spur conflict over carnivore management were they implemented. We also illustrate which interventions generate ambiguity among respondents such that implementation could generate conflict between groups of people over carnivore management in the country.