The management of wild animal populations causes disputes in Finland and globally

Across the world, people share their habitats with various wild animals – not nearly always without friction. We are on a crash course with nature when hiking in land populated by bears, hunting in wolf territories, and rearing livestock in the habitats of large carnivores.

What causes problems in coexistence with wild animals, and how could these challenges be resolved? In the middle of November, a group of international specialists and researchers met in Nuuksio in Espoo to discuss these questions. The seminar was organised by the LIFE BOREALWOLF project, whose goal is to improve coexistence between people and wolves in Finland.

What the “From conflicts to coexistence” seminar showed is that there are no simple solutions. Adaptation to coexistence with wild animals calls for persistence, understanding of the behaviour of people and animals alike, and effective communication.

– Challenges related to the management of wild animal populations tend to be more societal and political than biological, said Monica Engel, a researcher at the Canadian Human Dimensions of Wildlife consulting company Bath & Associates.

Bath & Associates Human Dimensions Consulting focuses on social science research and the settlement of disputes arising from natural resources and wild animals, and it has participated in various projects associated with different animal species across the world. Engel pointed out that, whether the question is of cattle-killing jaguars in Brazil, bison reintroduction in the United States or bears living close to people in Canada, it is important to work with the local residents and take everyone’s opinions into account.

– We need to hear everyone, not only those who speak the loudest, Engel said.

Engel has found that preconceptions of an individual’s reference group are not often an accurate indicator of their actual attitudes and opinions.

– We may imagine that people can be divided into nature protectors, hunters, and farmers, and that these groups represent certain views. Representatives of different groups often have more in common than what is assumed, and their opinions are not always in conflict. Oftentimes, they share similar values and beliefs.

The message of the introduction by Marc De Beaufort, a Colombian director, was that reasons for clashes related to coexistence between people and wild animals often lie deeper than what appears at first glance. Beaufort works at Idafield, a company specialised in societal communication campaigns.

According to Beaufort, the root causes of conflicts are often associated with values, attitudes and beliefs – factors that are difficult and slow to change. While wolves evoke strong emotions in people in Finland, conflicts may not ultimately be about animals themselves.

– The wolf can be a symbol people use to drive their own agendas.

Beaufort’s views are also supported in Finland. The WOLF BOREALWOLF project has shown that obvious problems, such as livestock and financial losses caused by wolves, often involve other underlying factors.

– Wolves may also be used to promote different interests in politics. For example, they are linked to conflicts of interest between rural and urban areas, says Mari Lyly, senior planning officer at the Finnish Wildlife Agency.

LIFE WOLFALPS EU, a wolf project in the Alpine region, has also seen public debate come to a head. According to Francesca Marucco, scientific coordinator of the project, communication and the engagement of people in solution planning are a vital, but also the most difficult, part of activities.

– While we can solve technical problems by providing cattle farms with ways to protect their livestock, it is very difficult to change people’s attitudes, Marucco said.

How to activate the silent majority and reduce the power of the loud extreme minority in questions related to wild animals raised many conversations.

The seminar also gave voice to experiences of encounters between people and bears in the United States. According to Wesley Larson, a biologist and bear researcher, research data about animals’ biology and behaviour are needed to direct population management and protection measures correctly. Even fairly minor changes in people’s actions can reduce the adverse impact caused by animals.

At Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, hazards presented by black bears to people increased at the beginning of the 2010s. Larson’s research group investigated the movement and behaviour of bears in the area and recommended relocating certain campsites farther away from drinking areas used by bears and adopting bearproof food storage solutions.

– After the national park adopted all our recommendations, problems with bears decreased, Larson said.

Currently, Larson is working at Yellowstone National Park which has seen several bear-related problems over the years. Bears became accustomed to obtaining nutrition from uncovered landfill sites and even from tourists who fed animals from their cars, for example. There were many injuries when incautious tourists fed bears accustomed to people. This is no longer permitted, and any bears trying to be too friendly are being scared in various ways to make them learn to be cautious of people and roads.

According to Larson, challenges are nowadays presented by eager photographers and tourists who congest the national park’s roads when packing together to admire all the animals. As a result, bears may become too accustomed to people. The aim is to prevent any hazards by guiding people to observe proper procedures.

– By controlling people’s behaviour instead of bears, accidents have dropped to roughly one incident per year. This is a significant achievement at a popular park with a large bear population.

Sometimes it is however necessary to intervene in animals’ actions. Wesley Larson talked about a bear family at Yellowstone National Park that became highly popular a couple of years ago. The bear celebrity and its cubs wandered to residential areas outside the park, causing trouble by rummaging through rubbish. Publicity tied the authorities’ hands, as the general public would not have tolerated the killing of the bears, for example. As a result, they had to be herded away from the residential areas.

– This single bear family took up a lot of resources, working hours and money. Then again, people cared much more about these bears than we could have imagined.

Larson sees a bright side in this bear incident: animals such as the bear celebrities can make people interested in nature protection and care about other species as well.

Text: © Raisa Autio / Metsähallitus
Photos: © Mari Tikkunen / Finnish Wildlife Agency