See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319645428

Hunters’ attitudes matter: diverging bear and wolf population trajectories in

Finland in the late nineteenth century and today

Article in European Journal of Wildlife Research · September 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1

CITATIONS READS

13 483

3 authors, including:

Sakari Mykrä-Pohja Mari Pohja-Mykrä

Metsähallitus 33 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS
31 PUBLICATIONS 515 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pan Baltic Scope View project

The wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus) of Finland: Conservation and recovery of historic range (EU LIFE-project) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sakari Mykrä-Pohja on 03 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
DOI 10.1007/s10344-017-1134-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Hunters’ attitudes matter: diverging bear and wolf population
trajectories in Finland in the late nineteenth century and today
Sakari Mykrä 1,2 & Mari Pohja-Mykrä 3 & Timo Vuorisalo 1
Received: 30 June 2017 / Revised: 17 August 2017 / Accepted: 30 August 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract During the last 140 years, the trajectories of Finnish
bear and wolf populations have twice diverged. The first such
divergence occurred during 1875–1915; wolf abundance
plummeted within a decade, while bears decreased steadily
over 40 years. The second divergence began in the 1990s,
coinciding with the introduction of total protection of both
species. Within 20 years, the bear population grew fourfold,
while the wolf remained low. These patterns can be accounted
for in terms of both historical and contemporary stakeholder
attitudes. Data from periodicals published during 1881–1923
show a significant difference in that respect: the scenario of
the extinction of the bear was seen as entirely unacceptable,
while that of the wolf was clearly an objective worth pursuing.
Nationwide studies carried out during the second divergence
show that attitudes toward the bear are significantly more
positive than those toward the wolf. Increased bear numbers
re-opened sustainable harvesting of this valued game. The
wolf, in contrast, has been treated rather as a pest than as a
valuable quarry, and in spite of total protection, the illegal
killing has kept its population low. Recent wolf population
changes synchronize with policy adjustments suggesting that
legal harvest might reduce the urge to undertake unlawful acts,
but regulated hunting has probably been allowed in too short
and erratic periods to test its real conservation potential. Rural
people and hunters are salient wildlife management
* Sakari Mykrä
sakari@hwmato.fi
1
Department of Biology, University of Turku,
FI-20014 Turku, Finland
2
Laviantie 19, FI-29600 Noormarkku, Finland
3
Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki, Kampusranta 9 C,
FI-60320 Seinäjoki, Finland
stakeholders in circumstances where they have to share their
territory with conflict-prone species. These groups have the
intrinsic power to implement forms of grassroots-level man-
agement that can sometimes override official top-down policy
decisions.
Keywords Large carnivore attitudes . Stakeholder salience .
Illegal killing . Overharvesting . Persecution . Population
trajectory
Introduction
The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) and the gray wolf (Canis
lupus L.) have been strictly protected in Finland for 15 years.
During that time, as for some years before, the bear population
has been increasing steadily while the wolf population has
remained low—despite the fact that due to demographic fac-
tors, the wolf should react to total protection even more
promptly than the bear (Saether et al. 1998; Mech 2001;
Fuller et al. 2003; Kojola 2005; Kojola and Heikkinen 2006;
Kojola 2007; Creel and Rotella 2010; Wiles et al. 2011). The
current bear population of 1600–1700 individuals already ex-
ceeds that of the mid-nineteenth century (Mykrä and Pohja-
Mykrä 2015) and is regulated by sustainable annual hunting.
Since the wolf population has remained at a low level (cur-
rently 150–180) despite its high breeding potential, it is obvi-
ous that Finnish wolf conservation has stumbled significantly
at the beginning of the new millennium. (The modern day
population size estimates of bear and wolf presented in this
paper are made by the Natural Resources Institute Finland
(NRIF). If a single number is given instead of a range, it is
always a minimum population estimate).
Occasionally, wolves kill hunting dogs in Finland (Kojola
and Kuittinen 2002; Kojola et al. 2004) and also sometimes
76 Page 2 of 13
cause noteworthy damage to livestock (Kaartinen et al. 2009;
Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2014a). Local people in wolf areas
have felt that this situation is uncontrolled and unfair. Together
with the fact that wolves are considered to pose a potential
threat to human health and safety, the damage experienced
has led to a legitimacy deficit with regard to formal wolf man-
agement and to emergent rural-urban conflict. This has pro-
voked the illegal killing of wolves as a form of rural defiance
of the authorities; in the absence of formal and socio-
economically fair wolf management, informal management car-
ried out by local people necessarily follows (Pohja-Mykrä
2016; Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2014b). Occasional illegal kill-
ings of bears have also been exposed, but local people are
apparently much more inclined to report bear crimes to the
authorities compared with unlawful acts against the wolf
(Pohja-Mykrä 2016).
The authorities have appeared to be powerless against these
illegal acts, and the wolf remains endangered in spite of its
total protection. The most recent trial use of regulated hunting
as a wolf conservation tool was carried out in 2015–2016. The
basic idea is to involve people living in wolf territories in
making formal management decisions, and to convert the wolf
from a valueless pest to a valued quarry that is worth harvest-
ing sustainably, exactly as in the case of the bear. Wolf popu-
lations can withstand 29–34% sustained hunting mortality
(Fuller 1989; Smietana and Wajda 1997; Mech 2001).
The written history of both the bear and the wolf in Finland
extends back to the Middle Ages. The species are first men-
tioned in Finnish hunting legislation in 1347, during the
Swedish reign (Holmbäck and Wessen 1962; Donner 2000).
The period down to the second half of the twentieth century
saw nine major reforms of Finnish hunting legislation, but these
reforms did not alter the status of the bear and the wolf; both
species remained totally unprotected (Mykrä et al. 2005, 2006).
Partial protection took effect for the bear in 1964 (Decree on
Bear Hunting 1964) and for the wolf in 1973 (Decree on Wolf
Protection 1973). Total protection for both species began in the
1990s, when Finnish hunting legislation was gradually harmo-
nized with the Habitats Directive of the European Union (e.g.,
Hunting Decree 1993; Hunting Decree Amendment 1998). In
the reindeer herding area, wolf protection is less strict but is
nevertheless in accordance with the EU legislation.
Estimates and calculations of the Finnish bear and wolf
populations after the 1860s are available in various sources
(compiled in Mykrä et al. 2006; Bisi and Kurki 2008; Pohja-
Mykrä and Kurki 2014a; Mykrä and Pohja-Mykrä 2015). On
a coarse timescale, the historical abundance trajectories of
these species have reflected each other. Both species were
relatively abundant in the mid-nineteenth century, but their
populations decreased during the second half of the century
and remained low for the next 100 years. A finer timescale,
however, shows that the trajectories of the two species actually
started to diverge in 1875. At that time, the populations of both
Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(
species were approximately 900–1000 individuals; over the
40 years from 1875 to 1915, the bear population dwindled
gradually to about 100, while the wolf population plummeted
by 95% to 40–50 individuals in only 15 years, 1875–1890
(Mykrä and Pohja-Mykrä 2015). Notwithstanding the species’
identical unprotected status in the eyes of the law, their popu-
lation trajectories thus diverged due to a clear difference in
their decline rate.
Two major divergences in population trajectories for the
bear and wolf have thus taken place within the last 140 years;
one during 1875–1915, the other since the 1990s. It is worth
noting that in both of these, the bear has done very well com-
pared with the wolf. Population demographics do not provide
any explanation for these divergences—in fact, rather the con-
trary. Because of its breeding potential, the wolf is considered
to be able to withstand a far greater mortality rate from perse-
cution than the bear (Saether et al. 1998; Mech 2001; Fuller
et al. 2003; Kojola and Heikkinen 2006; Kojola 2007; Creel
and Rotella 2010; Wiles et al. 2011; Mykrä and Pohja-Mykrä
2015). This means that in the case of an equally high harvest-
ing rate, wolf numbers should decrease more slowly than
those of the bear; correspondingly, under conditions of total
protection, the wolf population should recover at a consider-
ably faster pace than that of the bear. Wolf harvest rates appear
to have been very high in the 1860s and 1870s, thus overriding
the species’ high breeding potential (Mykrä and Pohja-Mykrä
2015). Similarly, as noted above, despite the current total pro-
tection, the illegal harvest rate has been high enough to sup-
press potential population growth for the wolf in recent times.
Gula (2008) observed comparable sluggishness in the Polish
wolf population trajectory in 9 years after the hunting ban was
enacted in 1998; the wolf range did not expand, and no in-
crease in wolf numbers was observed. The potential explana-
tions included a reduction in the prey base, illegal killing, and
increasing habitat fragmentation and isolation.
The observed population trajectory divergences between
the bear and wolf populations obviously relate to differences
between the species in human-caused annual mortality. Here,
we look at how these divergences relate to concurrent stake-
holder attitudes, particularly those of hunters and conserva-
tionists. With Battitude,^ we refer to positive and negative
outlook toward an object, commonly used approach in exam-
ining human dimensions of wildlife management (see, e.g.,
Decker et al. 2012). We also recognize that attitudes reveal a
disposition or tendency to respond to large carnivores and that
attitudes predict and explain human behavior (Ajzen and
Fishbein 2000). On the other hand, it is known that in wildlife
management context, and also more specifically in large car-
nivore context, attitudes are often necessary but not a suffi-
cient cause for individual behavior (Heberlein 2012).
However, if specific wildlife attitudes become normative in
a human population, their influence on behavior and eventu-
ally on wildlife can become stronger over time. The evidence
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
in this study supports that. Research on attitudes toward wild-
life is needed to facilitate the understanding and resolution of
those conservation conflicts where various stakeholder groups
are opposed to one another over the conservation and sustain-
able management of problematic wildlife species. Present-day
research in this area involves a broad approach to attitudes
toward large carnivore species (e.g., Bjerke and Kaltenborn
1999; Teel and Manfredo 2010; Jacobs et al. 2012); quantita-
tive attitude surveys have been particularly frequent.
One common finding in wolf attitude surveys is that posi-
tive attitudes toward wolf conservation are associated with
distance to the nearest wolf territory. In other words, people
living in wolf territories, practicing hunting, owning livestock
or owning a hunting dog had a more negative attitude toward
wolf conservation (Bjerke et al. 1998; Williams et al. 2002;
Ericsson and Heberlein 2003; Karlsson and Sjöström 2007;
Marino et al. 2016). Few studies have acknowledged wolf
attitude change over time (Houston et al. 2010). Quite recent-
ly, however, a meta-analysis of large carnivore attitudes in
Europe showed that attitudes toward bears became more pos-
itive over time, while attitudes toward wolves seemed to be-
come less favorable the longer people coexisted with them
(Dressel et al. 2015).
In this article, we deal specifically with one question: can
the divergence in the abundance of these two large carnivore
species, both in the late nineteenth century and in recent de-
cades, be explained by the significant difference in attitudes
toward them? The question is further considered in the
BDiscussion,^ where we assess the potential role of various
stakeholder groups and their impact on bear and wolf popula-
tion development and management in relation to stakeholder
salience approach. The concluding remarks include a set of
management implications closely related to the topic of the
article.
Stakeholder salience theory in wildlife management
and conservation
In our study, we assess, in the light of our findings, both the
historical and current roles of various stakeholders, as well as
their impact on wildlife population development and manage-
ment. In this assessment we apply a Bstakeholder salience^
approach. While the concept of the stakeholder, and the relat-
ed theories that have been formulated, refined and applied by
management scholars and practitioners, usually deal with
business organizations (Freeman 1984, see also, Laplume
et al. 2008 for review), they can also be adapted relatively
easily to stakeholder conditions in wildlife management
(Decker et al. 1996; Redpath et al. 2004).
Mitchell et al. (1997) formulated a normative Theory of
Stakeholder Identification and Salience, where stakeholder
identification is based on three attributes. An actor can be
Page 3 of 13 76
identified as a stakeholder if it (1) has the power to influence
the managed entity, (2) has a legitimate relationship with the
managed entity, and/or (3) involves urgency in terms of the
rate and quality of management policy decisions. Urgency in
turn is related a) to time sensitivity (the degree to which a
delay in management decisions is unacceptable to the stake-
holder) and b) to criticality (the importance of the quality of
management decisions to the stakeholder). The more the
stakeholder is perceived to possess these attributes power,
legitimacy, and urgency, the higher the stakeholder salience.
The theory defines a total of seven stakeholder classes, de-
pending on the number and combination of the attributes they
possess. An actor who has a combination of all three is a
definitive stakeholder.
This theory, with its three attributes, was supplemented by
Driscoll and Starik (2004) with the further attribute of spatial
proximity. Their objective was to give prominence to the
often-ignored point that the spatially proximate natural envi-
ronment (i.e., the environment that is affected by the short- or
long-term impact of the activity in question) can itself be de-
fined as a primordial and primary stakeholder. In their study,
the stakeholder status of the proximate natural environment is
analogous for example to the stakeholder status of local peo-
ple; Driscoll and Starik also further specify that the ‘natural
environment stakeholder’ actually includes both human and
non-human environments.
Both in the utilization of wildlife resources and in contexts
of wildlife management and conservation, the local people
possess—or should possess—all four attributes power, legiti-
macy, urgency, and proximity. This makes them not only
definitive but also primordial and hence highly salient
stakeholders. We deal with the stakeholder salience of local
people in more detail in the BDiscussion.^
Materials and methods
In our study, we used mixed methods to explain and interpret
the wolf and bear attitudes and their effect on the trajectory
divergence of these species. We utilized historical and con-
temporary data, as well as qualitative and quantitative
methods. We chose to use quantitative methods but also qual-
itative content analysis to address the research question. The
data and methods used are described in more detail under the
next subtitles.
Bear and wolf population abundance data
We extracted the 1865–1915 population abundance data for
the bear and the wolf from our recent publication (Mykrä and
Pohja-Mykrä 2015), where population trajectories were calcu-
lated by combining official bounty statistics with verified in-
formation on the species’ annual intrinsic growth and
76 Page 4 of 13
mortality rates. The annual abundances for both species were
calculated using a backwards iteration method, starting from a
systematically adjusted population size for 1915. For a de-
tailed description on the methodology, see, Mykrä and
Pohja-Mykrä (2015).
The 1978–2015 population abundance data for Finland are
based on citizens’ field observations of large carnivore
sightings and tracks that were verified, mapped, and filed
using a nationwide network of volunteer experts. The method
is described for example in a specific large carnivore informa-
tion portal (www.largecarnivores.fi). The 1978–2015
population statistics for the bear and wolf as a whole—as we
present them here—are not given in any individual source, but
can be compiled, for example, by combining data from
Wikman (2010) and the recent annual census reports by the
Natural Resources Institute Finland (www.riistahavainnot.fi).
The 60-year period between 1915 and 1978 that followed
the substantial decrease of large carnivores at the turn of the
century is not of specific interest in this article. It is, however,
known that no substantial or extensive changes in Finnish bear
and wolf populations took place during that time (see, e.g.,
Nyholm 1990; Pulliainen 1974, 1984).
The annual abundances of bear and wolf for 1865–1915
and 1978–2015, and the divergences in their population tra-
jectories, are shown in Fig. 1, which also shows the unrealized
potential trajectory of wolf population growth after protection
was introduced. This potential growth is calculated according
to the wolf’s known breeding potential (Mech 2001; Fuller
et al. 2003; Creel and Rotella 2010) and the assumed rate of
its natural mortality (Kojola et al. 2011) together with the rate
of known anthropogenic mortality based on actual recorded
kills through 1994–2012.
Legislation
The legal status of the bear and wolf during the study period
and beyond is presented in Fig. 2. This information is based on
original laws on bear and wolf hunting and conservation over
the last six and a half centuries, as cited in MAF (2005),
Mykrä et al. (2005, 2006), and Pohja-Mykrä et al. (2005). In
the long run, the legal status of the bear and wolf have been
practically identical, and during the actual study period of this
research, they were likewise comparatively similar; the bear
was partially protected in the 1960s and the wolf in the 1970s,
and both became strictly protected in 1999.
Attitudes toward the bear and wolf in Finland, 1881–1923
We used content analysis of historical text data to examine the
attitudes toward bear and wolf in 1881–1923. More specifi-
cally, the aim of this qualitative analysis process was to sort
and categorize the data collected from digital historical ar-
chive of periodical literature in the National Library of
Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(
Finland according to the presumed positive and negative atti-
tudes (see, Hsieh and Shannon 2005). In the latter phase, the
structure of the data allowed us to test the statistical difference
in the occurrence of positive and negative attitudes.
The validity and reliability of the collected data is depen-
dent on the availability of archived data and the matching
search terms. The archive consists nowadays of over six mil-
lion digitized pages of periodicals from all walks of life. The
database allows powerful text searches in the archived mate-
rial. We aimed at assuring the validity of the research by using
comprehensive selection of general search terms with
wildcards. Because of the open access to the digital historical
archives, anyone has a possibility to repeat the analyses.
We explored various stakeholders’ attitudes toward the
bear and wolf at the turn of the twentieth century by seeking
to uncover their opinions concerning the possible scenario of a
nationwide extinction of the two species, both of which were
declining significantly at the time, and this state of affairs was
also known among the relevant stakeholder groups (Mykrä
and Pohja-Mykrä 2015). In focusing strictly on nationwide
extinctions rather than regional or local disappearances, our
purpose was to create an unambiguous measure for a clear
comparison between the species.
Our first step was to select the journals published by animal
welfare groups, hunters, or professional zoologists (Table 1).
At the time, the modern conservation movement was yet to
emerge and animal welfare groups and professional zoologists
were the stakeholder groups that were ideologically closest to
the conservationists of today (Mykrä et al. 2015).
In the next step, using a range of Finnish and Swedish
words, phrases and operators that translate into English as a
Boolean search clause (bear OR wolf) and extinction, we
started searching journal articles that might reveal opinions
concerning a nationwide extinction of either of the species.
In the third phase of data collection, we saved and method-
ically read every article with one or more search hits. The
purpose of reading was to exclude unrelated articles: the arti-
cle was rejected either if the word extinction did not refer to
either of the target species, or if extinction did actually refer to
one or both of the target species, but only to their local or
regional disappearance. The final dataset thus consisted of a
limited set of 49 articles that actually dealt with the nationwide
extinction of either bear or wolf or both, as intended (Table 1).
We then re-read this final dataset from 1881 to 1923 and
classified the stakeholders’ attitudes concerning the scenario
of a nationwide extinction of the bear and/or wolf into three
categories: positive (Bfor extinction^), neutral, and negative
(Bagainst extinction^) (Table 1). In most cases, the binary
classification between Bfor^ and Bagainst^ was a straightfor-
ward and easy task; however, if, after thorough consideration,
such a classification could not be made, we defined the atti-
tude displayed in the article as neutral.^ Obviously, any atti-
tude revealed in the articles is ultimately the author’s own, but
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
Fig. 1 Abundances of Finnish
bear and wolf populations for
1865–1915 and 1978–2015. Gray
circles denote the points of
divergence between the
Population (individuals)
population trajectories of the two
species. The dotted line describes
the theoretical trajectory for the
wolf population growth after the
legal protection in 1993 (see text
for references). Illegal killing and
other unknown mortality explain
the difference between the solid
and dotted gray lines
we assume that the publication of a text would also reflect the
wider climate of opinion within the stakeholder group. The
attitudes were independently classified by two of the present
authors to avoid any bias in interpretation. We tested the sta-
tistical difference between the species in for and against atti-
tudes using the two-way Fisher’s exact test.
Attitudes toward the bear and wolf in Finland in the 2000s
The first official national population management plans for
the bear and wolf in Finland were drawn up in 2004–2006.
Their preparation was preceded by extensive socio-economic
studies on various stakeholders’ opinions and expectations
concerning the species and their conservation and manage-
ment (Mykrä et al. 2006; Bisi and Kurki 2008). In this study,
we made use of a particular segment of the data collected in
2003 for these socio-economic studies. More specific details
about the data gathering can be found in the publications cited
above as well as in the work by Bisi et al. (2010), where the
same segment of the original data has been used.
Out of this original 2003 dataset of weighted positive and
negative characteristics attached to the bear and the wolf, we
selected the replies given specifically by officials of the game
management administration (N of replies for bear = 76, N of
Bear
Wolf
1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Fig. 2 Legal status of the bear and the wolf in Finland since the
fourteenth century. The first hunting law was passed in 1347, and both
species were totally unprotected. A bounty scheme was started in the
hunting law reform of 1647. During the study period, the legal status of
Page 5 of 13 76
1800
1600 bear
wolf
1400 Potential trajectory for wolf since 1993
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
replies for wolf = 44), by the nature conservation authorities
(Nbear = 4, Nwolf = 5), by members of voluntary-based hunters’
organizations (Nbear = 11, Nwolf = 23), and by nature conser-
vation NGOs (Nbear = 13, Nwolf = 19) for this research. These
four groups corresponded most closely to the stakeholders we
included in the 1881–1923 attitude survey described above.
The number of respondents in the first group exceeded con-
siderably that of the others. The game management adminis-
tration in Finland is effectively organized at the national, re-
gional, and local levels, and as the body responsible for large
carnivore management, they succeeded in mobilizing particu-
larly their local actors to participate in the survey.
Even though the respondents were allowed to define posi-
tive and negative characteristics of the species completely
freely, the features listed by the stakeholders turned out to be
consistently concentrated within only a handful of themes.
The various positive characteristics of the bear and/or the wolf
typically fell into four categories: (a) intrinsic value as part of
biodiversity, (b) functional value as part of the ecosystem, (c)
utility value for hunting, and (d) utility value for tourism. The
various negative characteristics of the bear and/or the wolf in
turn typically fell into six categories: (a) threat to human
health, (b) threat to livestock, (c) threat to hunting dogs, (d)
threat to game management, (e) cause of stakeholder disputes,
Study period
unprotected
unprotected + bounty
partial protection
strict protection
YEAR
the bear varied more than that of the wolf. Finland became a member of
the EU in 1995, and strict protection for bear and wolf took effect after
that in 1999
76 Page 6 of 13 Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(

Table 1 Search hits of journal articles discussing about countrywide extinction of bear and/or wolf in Finland in 1881–1923

Journal Published Attitudes toward countrywide extinction Total

Of bear Of wolf

By In years In For Neutral Against For Neutral Against

Djurskyddskalender Animal welfarists 1900–1917 Swedish – – – – – – 9

Eläinsuojelus Animal welfarists 1897–1920 Finnish – – 1 – – –
Eläinten ystävä Animal welfarists 1906–1923 Finnish – – 2 – – 1
Lilla Djurvännen Animal welfarists 1894–1923 Swedish – – – – – –
Pieni Eläinten ystävä Animal welfarists 1894–1921 Finnish – – – – – –
Pieni Eläinystävä Animal welfarists 1897–1923 Finnish – – – – – –
Sylvia Animal welfarists 1895–1901 Fin + Swe – – – – – –

Luonnon ystävä Zoologists 1897–1923 Finnish – 1 4 – – –

Finsk Jakttidning Hunters 1906–1914 Swedish 1 – 3 3 – – 40
Finska Kennelklubbens Tidskrift Hunters 1896–1923 Swedish – – – 1 – –
Metsästys ja Kalastus Hunters 1911–1923 Finnish – 3 6 – 3 –
Suomen metsästyslehti Hunters 1906–1911 Finnish – – 1 1 2 –
Suomen urheilulehti Hunters 1898–1923 Finnish – – 2 – – –
Sporten Hunters 1881–1895 Swedish – – 2 5 – –
Tidskrift för Jägare och Fiskare Hunters 1893–1915 Swedish – – 3 2 1 –
Uljas Hunters 1886–1887 Finnish – – – 1 – –

The articles are classified according to the attitude presented toward the extinction of either of the species. The data is derived from a digital archive of 16
separate journals published by animal welfarists (7), professional zoologists (1), and hunters (8)

and (f) risk in traffic. In addition to those mentioned, there
were also small proportions of miscellaneous positive and
negative characteristics. We used the themes listed in pooling
the replies for further analyses.
To describe differences between the species in weighted
positive and negative characteristics, we constructed an index
by multiplying the proportion of replies/species/theme by their
own mean weight value. This index we then divided by the
total N of replies/species. The index values for all characteris-
tics per species adds up to 1. The index values are proportion-
ate between positive and negative features as well as between
species.
To further expose a possible difference between species in
positive and negative characteristics, we compared the sums
of the weighted values assigned to the characteristics by the
stakeholders. Here, an individual observation was always the
sum of the weighted values assigned to positive or negative
characteristics/species/responding stakeholder.
This last assessment can be seen as based on various
stakeholder ideologies rather than on groups per se; as
in the analysis, we combined the two hunting-related
groups into a single one (Bhunting^) and the two
nature-conservation-related groups likewise into a single
one (Bconservation^), ending up with just two groups.
We used Bartlett’s test to reveal the possible
heteroschedasticity of the data and selected accordingly
either one-way ANOVA or the Welch t test for each
combination of stakeholder group and the type of char-
acteristics attached to the species.
Results
Attitudes to the bear and wolf in periodical articles
1881–1923
At the turn of the twentieth century, the discussion over wild-
life conservation and management in Finland was dominated
by the hunting fraternity (Mykrä et al. 2015). This is clear
from the present data too: four fifths of the 49 articles in the
final data from periodicals for 1881–1923 were published by
hunter organizations and less than 20% by animal welfare
groups and professional zoologists combined.
Hunters were concerned about the decimation of the bear
and spoke against its nationwide extinction in 17 out of 21
articles in the corpus. Only one article favored the idea of the
bear becoming extinct. The remaining three texts showed a
neutral attitude. In the case of the wolf, 13 out of 19 articles in
hunting publications supported the scenario of its extinction
and none were against; six articles treated the topic of wolf
extinction neutrally, as an event that eventually would simply
take place in Finland (Table 1).
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
The views expressed by professional zoologists, in partic-
ular on the bear, seem to have been quite close to those of the
hunters. Although this subsection of data is very small, we
found that four of the five articles on the bear by zoologists
expressed the view that nationwide bear extinction should be
avoided. The scenario of the nationwide extinction of the wolf
was not mentioned in the zoological publications at all
(Table 1).
In the seven originally selected periodicals by animal wel-
fare organizations, the nationwide extinction of either of the
species was mentioned four times. These texts consistently
argued against nationwide extinctions of both the bear (three
texts) and the wolf (one text) (Table 1).
When the stakeholder groups are combined, our 1881–
1923 results describe the overall treatment of this topic in
the originally selected 16 journals, although a clear majority
of the texts analyzed, as noted above, were produced by
hunters. In 39 of the articles in the final data, the author‘s
attitude could be clearly defined as either for or against the
nationwide extinction of the bear and/or the wolf, while the
remaining 10 articles merely referred to the possible scenario
of such extinctions, with a neutral attitude (Table 1). Of the 39,
only 1 article was in favor of bear extinction, while 24 were
opposed. In the case of the wolf, the situation was the reverse;
only 1 text indicated that the nationwide extinction of the wolf
would be unwelcome, while 13 declared that total extinction
would be a desirable outcome of the wolf population control
actions then being carried out in Finland. This difference be-
tween species is highly significant (Fisher’s exact test in a
2 × 2 contingency table, two-tailed test, p value < 0.0001;
see Table 2 for the frequency distribution and test results).
Survey of bear and wolf attitudes in the early 2000s
The combined and classified data of all the responses on
weighted positive and negative characteristics attached to the
bear and wolf from the stakeholder groups studied were trans-
formed into an index value, taking into account the relative
Table 2 Difference in attitudes (stakeholder groups combined) toward
the extinction of bear and wolf in Finland in 1881–1923
Attitudes toward countrywide extinction
For Against
Extinction of bear 1 24
Extinction of wolf 13 1 14a
Total 14 25
The data consists of search hits of journal articles discussing specifically
the countrywide extinction of either or both of the species. The data
source is described in Table 1
a
Two-way Fisher’s exact test, p value < .0001
Page 7 of 13 76
frequency as well the weight of the characteristics brought up
by the respondents. A comparison of the index values and its
results are presented in Fig. 3.
For both species, the most important positive characteristic
was clearly their intrinsic value as part of the native Finnish
fauna. Other positive features, less important but common to
both species, were their functional value as top predators in a
boreal ecosystem and their potential utility value in ecotour-
ism. The difference between the species was that the second
most important positive characteristic attached to the bear was
its utility value as a hunting quarry. No such positive feature
was attached to the wolf at all.
The negative characteristics also showed considerable sim-
ilarities between the species, as well as one noteworthy differ-
ence. The two most important negative features attached to
both the bear and the wolf were their assumed threat to human
wellbeing as well as the threat they pose to livestock. Another
negative feature common to both species but of minor impor-
tance was the threat they cause to game and its management.
The main difference between the species in terms of negative
characteristics was that wolves were seen as a major threat to
dogs (hunting dogs in particular), while bears were not.
A comparison of the sums of the weighted values assigned
to the species’ characteristics shows that the combined hunt-
ing group assigned significantly higher weighted values to the
positive characteristics of bears than to those of wolves (one-
way ANOVA, F(1, 152) = 17.360, p < 0.001). Correspondingly,
the weighted values of the negative features assigned by the
hunting group were significantly higher for the wolf (Welch t
test, F(107.675) = 36.372, p < 0.001). In the sums of the weight-
ed values assigned by the combined conservation group, no
such differences between the species were found (positive
characteristics: Welch t test, F(38.713) = 0.721, p = 0.4010; neg-
ative characteristics: one-way ANOVA, F(1, 39) = 2.890,
p = 0.0972) (Table 3).
Discussion
Irrespective of the identical legal status of the bear and the
wolf, first as unprotected pests in the earlier part of the study
period and then later as protected/strictly protected species of
high conservation value, stakeholders’ attitudes toward the
Total
two species were found to differ significantly. Attitudes to-
ward the bear have been—and still are—clearly more positive
than those toward the wolf. This is consistent with the preva-
25a lent state of affairs in Europe in recent decades. In their meta-
analysis, Dressel et al. (2015) examined 105 European sur-
39 veys of attitudes toward the bear and wolf in 1976–2012; their
results clearly showed that respondents across Europe were
more positive toward bears than wolves. This difference ap-
pears to be in accordance with the observed divergence of the
population abundances of the two species.
76 Page 8 of 13 Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(

0.300 0.300
positive characteristics positive characteristics
BEAR negative characteristics WOLF negative characteristics

0.200
Index 0.200

Index
0.100 0.100

0.000 0.000

Fig. 3 Positive and negative characteristics attached to the bear and the
wolf by the stakeholders. The category Bintrinsic value^ refers to
characterizations, where the species was seen as an integral part of
biodiversity, whereas Bfunctional value^ refers to characterizations,
where the ecological role of these top predators was emphasized. The
relative importance of various characteristics attached to species are
described with an index that takes into account both the proportion of
each characteristic and the mean weight given to it. The most prominent
differences between the two species were that the bear was considered to
be a valuable game species and the wolf was not. In contrast, the wolf was
seen as a severe threat to hunting dogs whereas bear was not considered to
pose such risk (see boxed axis titles)

It is fairly certain that the reasons for the decline in the
Finnish bear and wolf populations, and thus also for their
trajectory divergences, are anthropogenic; excessive hunting
as such can explain the decline in the populations of both the
bear and wolf in the late nineteenth century (Mykrä and Pohja-
Mykrä 2015), while in modern times, the most plausible ex-
planation for the continuously low numbers of wolves is ille-
gal killing (Kojola et al. 2011; Suutarinen and Kojola
2017). Similar findings have been reported also in the
Scandinavian population (Liberg et al. 2012), where il-
legal killing of wolves was estimated to account for
approximately half of total mortality in 1998–2009.
While it was excessive killing that caused the late nine-
teenth century decline in both the bear and the wolf, it is worth
noting that the factors motivating sportsmen’s devotion to
hunting varied between the species. The wolf’s decline was
rapid and steep, while bear numbers dwindled gradually to-
ward the turn of the century. The core reason for hunting
wolves in those days—as indicated by our data as well—
was explicitly to pursue the whole species to extinction; in
the case of the bear, the population decrease was more a result
of inadvertent overharvesting of a valued game species
(see, e.g., Finska Jagtförening 1900; Palmén 1905;
Mykrä et al. 2015).

Table 3 The between-species differences in the sums of weighted values of positive and negative characteristics attached to the bear and wolf by
representatives of hunting-related stakeholders and conservationists

Stakeholder Characteristics Total Bartlett’s P for Statistical Mean sum of Mean sum of Degrees Mean F p
group type n data test weights in weights in of square value value
homoschedasticity bear wolf freedom

Hunting Positive 154 0.665 1-way 6.03 3.66 Among 1 213,999 17.36 < .0001
ANOVA groups
Within 152 12,329
groups
Hunting Negative 154 0.017 Welch t test 7.08 11.28 Among 1 668,679 36.38 < .0001
groups
Within 152 16,553
groups
Conservation Positive 41 0.084 Welch t test 8.53 9.54 Among 1 10,197 0.72 .4010
groups
Within 39 16,364
groups
Conservation Negative 41 0.421 1-way 4.71 6.42 Among 1 29,125 2.89 .0972
ANOVA groups
Within 39 10,086
groups

We utilized Bartlett’s test to reveal the possible heteroschedasticity of the data, and accordingly, we selected a suitable statistical test for each combination
of stakeholder group and the characteristic type attached to the species
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
A similar difference in attitudes toward the two species has
also prevailed during the second trajectory divergence, which
has taken place concurrently with profound changes in large
carnivore conservation legislation since the 1990s. It is partic-
ularly the bear that has benefited from total protection; for the
wolf population, the enactment of strict protection has obvi-
ously been a dead letter.
Stakeholder role and salience in bear and wolf
management and conservation
Two issues are only seldom recognized in the debate over the
significance of various stakeholders in wildlife-related activities
(wildlife use, management, and conservation). First, in a wildlife
context, only the Bnatural environment stakeholder^ including
local people (see, Driscoll and Starik 2004) is original. Secondly,
local people, inclusive of hunters and landowners, are basically
the only stakeholder group that can challenge top-down manage-
ment and conservation policies by implementing their own, in-
formal competing management actions. These two issues are
dealt with in more detail in the following.
With increasing social complexity, new wildlife-related ac-
tivities—such as organized and regulated management and con-
servation—have also witnessed the gradual emergence of new
wildlife-related stakeholder groups (Decker et al. 1996;
Messmer 2009). Before the rise of agriculture in the Neolithic
era, all members of a hunter-gatherer society obviously formed
a single, primordial stakeholder; even today, those rural resi-
dents, who literally share their everyday space with wildlife,
thus inherently fulfilling the spatial proximity criterion (see,
Driscoll and Starik 2004 for stakeholder spatial proximity),
can be viewed as primordial wildlife stakeholders. All other
wildlife stakeholder groups are emergent. In other words, in this
context, spatial proximity is a matter of actual coexistence with
wildlife and the potential for encounters on an everyday basis.
Modern wildlife stakeholder groups have arisen in parallel with
the process of urbanization. These groups do not usually share
their everyday territory with wildlife, and spatial proximity is
therefore absent. There are of course wildlife species dwelling
in urban environments too, but in the case of such species as the
bear and wolf their occurrence is intentionally excluded from
urban and residential areas.
While there are currently a generous number of various
wildlife stakeholder groups participating in making manage-
ment policy, the local hunter group is the only one that can, at
will, make grassroots-level management decisions potentially
more significant than any legal or contractual decision made at
the national or even supra-national level and involving a wide
array of stakeholders. In some cases, failure to achieve social
sustainability in national or EU wildlife management and con-
servation policy has ultimately led local people to decide not
to tolerate coexistence with conflict-prone carnivore species
or other wildlife and to take the law into their own hands by
Page 9 of 13 76
commencing illegal killing (Pohja-Mykrä 2016; von Essen
et al. 2014; Mischi 2013).
With increasing social complexity and the subsequent di-
versification of wildlife stakeholders, certain emergent stake-
holders have explicitly begun to question the authority of local
residents and hunters (Organ and Fritzell 2000). The impact of
international conservation agreements, in promoting a top-
down approach to wildlife management and conservation ad-
ministration, has been similar. In such a situation, the
decision-making power of local actors is eventually crippled.
Since local stakeholders still strongly feel the urgency of man-
agement actions, they will then inexorably reclaim the power
they once had and self-assign the legitimacy they feel belongs
to them (see, Mitchell et al. 1997 for the attributes Bpower,^
Blegitimacy,^ and Burgency^). This subjective assignment of
legitimacy is above all discursive, using a neutralization dis-
course to justify illegal acts against wildlife (Pohja-Mykrä
2016). This is what happened with wolf management in
Finland during the second trajectory divergence described in
this study. Since the 1990s, an indefinite number of deter-
mined individual hunters—aided by tacit local support by
the rural community—have continually undermined all at-
tempts at top-down wolf management and conservation. In
other words, these hunters and local people have implemented
their own wolf management policy as an alternative to the
formal one, which they have experienced as socially unjust
(Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2014a; Pohja-Mykrä 2016).
Regardless of the strict protection of the bear, a fairly con-
stant and carefully administered quota of approx. 10% of the
Finnish population has been hunted annually during the last
two decades. Due to regulated and sustainable harvesting, the
bear population estimate has more than doubled during 1995–
2017, from 700 to 1600 individuals. The human-bear conflict
has been well managed and local people are in general satis-
fied with the situation, thus differing totally from that of the
wolf (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2014a).
The story of the wolf, however, might turn out different
with different policy. That legal hunting could keep some
proportion of illegal killing from occurring is a plausible hy-
pothesis (Andrén et al. 2006; Woodroffe and Redpath 2015).
This view was firmly opposed by Chapron and Treves (2016),
whose conclusions in turn were recently questioned by Pepin
et al. (2017). The significance of legal wolf hunting as a con-
servation tool, or as a means in conflict mitigation may vary
between regions, countries and even continents with different
history, culture and settlement distribution. Therefore, it is
definitely worthwhile to examine these issues independently
for example in North America and in Europe, or in USA and
Canada, or in the Nordic countries and the Continental
Europe. Furthermore, even in such a compact and culturally
uniform area as Scandinavian Peninsula (Sweden and
Norway), there appear to be certain national idiosyncrasies
in large carnivore attitudes (Gangaas et al. 2013).
76 Page 10 of 13
Sparse but relatively even rural settlement distribution in the
Nordic countries (Hansen et al. 2011; Helminen et al. 2014) and
the distinctive Nordic hunting culture (hunting opportunities are
not particularly associated to social rank, and Bloose dog
hunting^ is very typical; see, e.g., Watts et al. 2017) create a
specific operational environment, where not only livestock
herders but also many other rural residents are stakeholders in
wolf conflict. We claim that in those circumstances, in the fore-
seeable future, the illegal killing of wolves will never be zero so
long as there is human-wolf coexistence. However, satisfactory
levels of social sustainability and population viability could
perhaps be reached via bottom-up policy implementation.
Although the size of the strictly protected Finnish wolf popula-
tion has long remained low, there are signs of short-term syn-
chrony between legal harvest and population increase. In this
century, the wolf management policy changes in Finland have
been frequent and often radical, and the outcome resembles the
Bpendulum swings^ in Wisconsin wolf management described
by Olson et al. (2014). Furthermore, Suutarinen and Kojola
(2017) recently examined the positioning and mortality data
of 130 radio- and GPS-tagged wolves in Finland from the pe-
riod of 1998–2014, and along with the result that illegal killing
has regulated Finnish wolf population which is simultaneously
legally harvested, they also stated that legal hunting seems to
decrease illegal killing in the short run.
During 2001–2007, the mean annual legal wolf harvest in
Finland was approx.18 individuals, and the population almost
doubled from 130 to 250. Also, the first national wolf man-
agement plan was prepared and put into effect in 2003–2005.
In 2007, however, following the European Court of Justice
case on Finnish wolf management, the legal harvest was to-
tally ceased, and in the next 6 years, the wolf population
descended again to 120 individuals, most probably due to
illegal killing (Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2014b; Suutarinen
and Kojola 2017). In 2013, the Finnish large carnivore man-
agement policy was independently evaluated (Pohja-Mykrä
and Kurki 2014a). The evaluation strongly called for the
updating of the national wolf management plan. That updating
was initiated in 2014, and it immediately led to a 2-year trial of
legal wolf hunt in the hunting seasons of 2015 and 2016
(mainly February). The annual bags were 17 and 43 wolves,
respectively. In addition, 15 and 12 wolves were killed on
damage-based derogations. During these 4 years (2013–2016)
of policy update and the hunting trial, the pre-hunting (January)
wolf population again doubled from 120 to approximately
240.1 In late 2016, however, the national game administration
anticipated another potential intervention by the EU
Commission in the Finnish wolf management, and once again,
a more stringent policy was hastily adopted in December 2016.
1 violator is now transformed from their point of view from a
In 2016, only post-hunting population estimate was made, and there the
minimum was 200; the mentioned pre-hunting ~ 240 wolves for 2016 is the
sum of the post-hunting estimate and the annual bag of 43 wolves.
Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(
Since then, only the damage-based derogations have been avail-
able for wolf. There are clear signs (social media and other
sources of public debate) that this recent management policy
alteration away from the legal annual hunting is heavily criti-
cized. Wolf population estimate exactly at the time of this recent
policy adjustment is unfortunately not available, but the most
recent estimate (March 2017) is 150–180, as already stated in
the BIntroduction.^ Various alternative explanations for the wolf
minimum population decrease from 200 to 150 in 12 months
(including the 2016 breeding season) are being studied. A total
of 41 wolves have been killed on damage-based derogations
between August 2016 and May 2017, which partly but not
wholly explains the reduction. One potential explanation is ob-
viously illegal killing; the frustration toward what is understood
as erratic or aimless top-down wolf management can have in-
duced yet another bout of unlawful activity.
The potentially pivotal role of legal annual hunting in wolf
conservation and management should be tested by adopting a
determined long-term or at least medium-term wolf manage-
ment policy. So far, the course alterations in policy implemen-
tation have been too rapid for this. In addition to bringing up
the need for longer-term consistent policy, we also claim that
harvesting and therefore also conservation should take into
account the social structure of wolf population better than
nowadays. This means that for avoiding potential pack disin-
tegration here and there (see, Borg et al. 2015), and for achiev-
ing both ecologically and socio-economically more sustain-
able management, it would be reasonable and justified to base
the hunting mostly on annual decisions to remove certain
packs altogether while leaving others untouched instead of
targeting the hunting almost categorically to a limited number
of one to two individuals in all viable packs. It has also been
shown that lethal control of wolves can sometimes increase
livestock depredations (Wielgus and Peebles 2014). This
problem would certainly be avoided by removing of
problem-causing packs while leaving others be.
The purpose of the regulated wolf hunt is fourfold: it is
expected to reduce illegal killing, to reduce the bold behavior
of wolves in contact with human settlements, to reduce wolf
attacks on dogs and livestock, and to lessen the stigma on the
wolf as a Buseless pest^ by increasing the quarry value of the
species in the eyes of the local hunters responsible for carrying
out the licensed wolf hunts (see, e.g., Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki
2014a; Browne-Nuñez et al. 2015; MAF 2015; Kaltenborn
and Brainerd 2016). In regulated licensed hunting, for exam-
ple, the shooter is the legal owner of the trophy, while in
assignments designed to control problem animals, based on
damage-based derogations, the carcass belongs to the govern-
ment. Increasing the quarry value of the wolf in the eyes of
local hunters may help to restrain illegal killing, as a hunting
benefactor into a thief. This already works for the bear; it will
be particularly interesting to monitor whether sustained
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
opportunities for annual wolf trophy hunts will provide a util-
ity value increment large enough to outweigh the perceived
negative aspects of the continuous presence of the wolf. In this
regard, however, the regulated licensed hunting of the bear
and wolf may be dissimilar. This is supported by the fact that
even though in the early twentieth century Finnish lawmakers
treated the bear and wolf equally, it was the fate of the declin-
ing bear population that hunters became concerned about,
never that of the wolf. Furthermore, the lack of connection
in the past between wolf hunting intensity and the bounty
sum (see, Pohja-Mykrä et al. 2015) also contradicts the hope
that illegal wolf persecution will be easily moderated by in-
creasing the wolf’s utility value.
Considering the course of events during the long history of
human-wolf coexistence, the most plausible scenario for the
future is that the levels of wolf abundance and distribution
cannot eventually be decided in a top-down manner. Instead,
the abundance and distribution are becoming adjusted—legal-
ly or otherwise—according to local-level acceptance. Keeping
that adjusting process legitimate and under control is basically
the core of wolf management. Broad stakeholder involvement
is considered crucial for effective management of predator
populations (Woodroffe and Redpath 2015). In situations
where any primordial stakeholder has a strong motivation to
take action independently, the importance of bottom-up ap-
proaches must be acknowledged in the management decision
making.
In numerous historical sources, of all the large carnivores,
wolves in particular were described as habitually loitering
around farmsteads and houses, watching through windows
and sometimes even entering the porch (e.g., Harjunen 1893;
Anonymous 1903; Böök 1905). This obviously meant an acute
security threat to livestock, dogs, and children in and around
people’s actual homes. In such circumstances, hunters in the
community played a significant role in providing everyday se-
curity. Even today, it is relatively common for some individual
wolves to boldly enter farmsteads in rural residential areas.
Since local people’s emotions toward such behavior have pre-
sumably not changed, the hunter’s role in ensuring security
remains likewise unchanged. This gives rise to an interesting
question for further research: whether wolves nowadays hold
specific instrumental value in maintaining the significance of
hunters and hunting in modern rural society.
Conclusions
The present findings provide the grounds for some con-
cluding remarks: (1) the concurrent population decrease of
the bear and wolf at the turn of the twentieth century was
not a consequence of similar attitudes toward them. The
difference in population decrease rates between the two
species is consistent with differences in attitudes toward
Page 11 of 13 76
them. (2) The inertia of attitudes toward the bear and wolf
is evident: in fact, these attitudes seem to have changed
very little over the last hundred years or more. Attitudes
toward the bear appear to have always been more positive
than those toward the wolf. (3) Despite occasional con-
flicts, the bear is well tolerated and is regarded a valued
game species. Controlled bear population increases are not
considered a problem. (4) The history and role of local
residents and hunters are different from those of other
wildlife management and conservation stakeholders.
Locals and hunters are therefore inevitably core actors in
managing and conserving wildlife in circumstances where
rural residents actually share territory with wildlife, in
particular with conflict-prone wildlife species. For the sa-
ke of wildlife conservation and population viability in
such circumstances, it would be beneficial to design and
adopt policies that create some form of utility value for as
many conflict-prone species as possible. (5) When wildlife
management and conservation are carried out in localities
where the use of space is shared between local people and
wildlife, achieving ecological sustainability is subordinate
to the fulfillment of social sustainability. In such circum-
stances, the key to success in wildlife conservation, and
particularly in carnivore conservation, is not only ensuring
the viability of the target species but also maximizing the
number of satisfied local residents. It is critical to com-
prehend that successful carnivore management and conser-
vation calls for a narrower and more pragmatic identifica-
tion of stakeholders than has hitherto been the case. Local
people are something that cannot be removed from the
equation, and for better or worse, hunters’ attitudes matter.
Acknowledgments We want to express our special thanks to Dr. Jukka
Bisi for collecting the original attitude data for the later part of our study
period. This research was funded by the Satakunta Regional Fund of the
Finnish Cultural Foundation and the BOlga ja Vilho Linnamon Säätiö^ for
Sakari Mykrä and by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation for Mari
Pohja-Mykrä. Constructive comments by two anonymous referees im-
proved our work significantly.
Funding During the preparation of this and related manuscripts, the
corresponding author Sakari Mykrä was funded by the Satakunta
Regional Fund of the Finnish Cultural Foundation and by the Olga ja
Vilho Linnamon Säätiö. Sakari Mykrä presented some highly preliminary
results of this work at a wildlife management conference held in Estes
Park, Colorado, USA in October 2014. The related travel costs and con-
ference fee were partly funded by the University of Turku Foundation.
During the preparation of this manuscript, the work of the second author
Mari Pohja-Mykrä was funded by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation.
All the above-mentioned funding bodies are neutral and non-commercial
actors, funding scientific research in general or research on environmental
and life sciences in particular. The third author Timo Vuorisalo works as a
full-time lecturer and adjunct professor of Environmental Science at the
University of Turku.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
76 Page 12 of 13
References
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2000) Attitudes and the attitude–behavior relation:
reasoned and automatic processes. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds)
EurRev SocPsychol, vol 11. Wiley, West Sussex
Andrén H, Linnell JDC, Liberg O, Andersen R, Danell A, Karlsson J,
Odden J, Moa PF, Ahlqvist P, Kvam T, Franzén R, Segerström P
(2006) Survival rates and causes of mortality in Eurasian lynx (Lynx
lynx) in multi-use landscapes. Biol Conserv 131:23–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.025
Anonymous (1903) Taistelu susien ja koiran välillä. Suomen Urheilulehti
6:412–415
Bisi J, Kurki S (2008) Wolf debate in Finland. Helsingin yliopisto,
Maaseudun tutkimus ja koulutuskeskus, Publications 12
Bisi J, Liukkonen T, Mykrä S, Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2010) The good
bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf
conflict. Eur J Wildl Res 56:771–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10344-010-0374-0
Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (1999) The relationship of ecocentric and an-
thropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. J Environ
Psychol 19:415–421
Bjerke T, Reitan O, Kellert SR (1998) Attitudes toward wolves in south-
eastern Norway. Soc Nat Resour 11:169–178
Böök AT (1905) Muuan metsästysretki Lehtisten saariin. Suomen
Urheilulehti 8:69–75
Borg B, Brainerd S, Meier T, Prugh LR (2015) Impacts of breeder loss on
social structure, reproduction and population growth in a social ca-
nid. J Anim Ecol 84:177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.
12256
Browne-Nuñez C, Treves A, MacFarland D, Voyles Z, Turng C (2015)
Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: a mixed-methods examination of
policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biol Conserv
189:59–71
Chapron G, Treves A (2016) Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing
culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proc R Soc B 283:
20152939. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2939
Creel S, Rotella JJ (2010) Meta-analysis of relationships between human
offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves
(Canis lupus). PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0012918
Decker DJ, Krueger CC, Baer RA Jr, Knuth BA, Richmond ME (1996)
From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wild-
life management. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:70–82
Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer W (2012) Human dimensions of wildlife
management. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Decree on Bear Hunting (1964) Asetus karhun metsästämisestä 194/
1964. Helsinki. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö
Decree on Wolf Protection (1973) Asetus suden rauhoittamisesta749/
1973. Helsinki. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö
Donner R (ed) (2000) King Magnus Eriksson’s law of the realm 1347—a
Medieval Swedish code. Ekenäs Tryckeri, Ekenäs
Dressel S, Sandström C, Ericsson G (2015) A meta-analysis of studies on
attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012.
Conserv Biol 29:565–574
Driscoll C, Starik M (2004) The primordial stakeholder: advancing the
conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural envi-
ronment. J Bus Ethics 49:55–73
Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the
general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol
Conserv 111:149–159
Finska Jagtförening (1900) Jägarmötet år 1900, den 15. och 16. Juni i
Helsingfors. Frenckellska Tryckeri-Aktiebolaget, Helsinki
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach.
Pitman, Boston
Eur J Wildl Res67:3 )7102(
Fuller TK (1989) Population dynamics of wolves in North-Central
Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 105:3–41
Fuller TK, Mech LD, Cochrane JF (2003) Wolf population dynamics. In:
Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behaviour, ecology, and conser-
vation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 161–191
Gangaas KE, Kaltenborn BP, Andreassen HP (2013) Geo-spatial aspects
of acceptance of illegal hunting of large carnivores in Scandinavia.
PLoS ONE 8(7):e68849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0068849
Gula R (2008) Legal protection of wolves in Poland: implications for the
status of the wolf population. Eur J Wildl Res 54(2):163–170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0129-8
Hansen KG, Rasmussen RO, Roto J (2011) Demography in the Nordic
countries—a synthesis report. Nordregio Working Paper 2011:9
Harjunen A (1893) Suden-ajo. Uuden Suomettaren Juttu-tupa 4:115–116
Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Cons Biol 26:
583–585
Helminen V, Nurmio K, Rehunen A, Ristimäki M, Oinonen K, Tiitu M,
Kotavaara O, Antikainen H, Rusanen J (2014) Kaupunki-maaseutu-
alueluokitus [‘Urban—rural classification’; abstract in English].
Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 25/2014
Holmbäck A, Wessen E (1962) Magnus Ericssons landslag i nusvensk
tolkning. Nordiska Bokhandelns, Stockholm
Houston MJ, Bruskotter JT, Fan D (2010) Attitudes toward wolves in the
United States and Canada: a content analysis of the print news me-
dia, 1999–2008. Hum Dimens Wildl 15(5):389–403
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288
Hunting Decree (1993) Metsästysasetus 666/1993. Maa-ja
metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki
Hunting Decree Amendment (1998) Asetus metsästysasetuksen
muuttamisesta 869/1998. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriö, Helsinki
Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Roemer JM (2012) Toward a mental systems ap-
proach to human relationships with wildlife: the role of emotional
dispositions. Hum Dimens Wildl 17:4–15
Kaartinen S, Luoto M, Kojola I (2009) Carnivore-livestock conflicts:
determinants of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on sheep farms in
Finland. Biodivers Conserv 18:3503–3517
Kaltenborn BP, Brainerd S (2016) Can poaching inadvertently contribute
to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia? Eur J
Wildl Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-0991-3
Karlsson J, Sjöström M (2007) Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter
of distance. Biol Conserv 137:610–616
Kojola I (2005) The biology of the wolf and the viability of the wolf
population. In: Management plan for the wolf population in
Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11b/2005, Helsinki,
p 8–14
Kojola I (2007) Biology of the bear and the current status of the bear
population. In: Management plan for the bear population in Finland.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2a/2007, Helsinki, p 10–16
Kojola I, Kuittinen J (2002) Wolf attacks on dogs in Finland. Wildl Soc
Bull 30:498–501
Kojola I, Heikkinen S (2006) The structure of the expanded brown bear
population at the edge of the Finnish range. Ann Zool Fenn 43:258–
262
Kojola I, Ronkainen S, Hakala A, Heikkinen S, Kokko S (2004)
Interactions between wolves Canis lupus and dogs C. familiaris in
Finland. Wildl Biol 10:101–105
Kojola I, Heikkinen S, Helle P (2011) Susikannan viimeaikaiset
muutokset Suomessa eri aineistojen valossa. Suomen Riista 57:
55–62
Laplume AO, Sonpar K, Litz RA (2008) Stakeholder theory: reviewing a
theory that moves us. J Manag 34:1152–1189. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0149206308324322
Liberg O, Chapron G, Wabakken P, Pedersen HC, Hobbs T, Sand H
(2012) Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration
Eur J Wildl Res (2017)63:
of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc R Soc B 279:910–915. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1275
MAF (Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) (2005) Management
plan for the wolf population in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry 11b/2005
MAF (Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) (2015) Management
plan for the wolf population in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry 2015
Marino A, Braschi C, Ricci S, Salvatori V, Ciucci P (2016) Ex post and
insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves
in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy. Eur J Wildl Res 62:
227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1001-5
Mech LD (2001) Managing Minnesota’s recovered wolves. Wildl Soc
Bull 29:70–77
Messmer TA (2009) Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and
opportunities. Hum–Wildl Confl 3:10–17
Mischi J (2013) Contested rural activities: class, politics, and shooting in
the French countryside. Ethnography 14:64–84. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1466138112440980
Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what
really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886
Mykrä S, Pohja-Mykrä M (2015) Back-calculation of large carnivore
populations in Finland in 1865–1915. Ann Zool Fenn 52:285–300
Mykrä S, Vuorisalo T, Pohja-Mykrä M (2005) A history of organized
persecution and conservation of wildlife: species categorizations in
Finnish legislation from medieval times to 1923. Oryx 39:275–283.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605305000797
Mykrä S, Liukkonen T, Bisi J, Kurki S (2006) Kansalaisten karhukannat.
Helsingin yliopisto, Ruralia-instituutti, Julkaisuja 6
Mykrä S, Vuorisalo T, Pohja-Mykrä M (2015) Emergence of species
conservation in Finland: development of wildlife attitudes in
1894–1928. Conserv Soc 13:323–331. https://doi.org/10.4103/
0972-4923.179883
Nyholm ES (1990) Ruskeakarhu Ursus arctos arctos L. WSOY, Porvoo
Olson ER, Stenglein JL, Shelley V, Rissman AR, Browne-Nuñez C,
Voyles F, Wydeven AP, Deelen TV (2014) Pendulum swings in wolf
management led to conflict, illegal kills, and a legislated wolf hunt.
Conserv Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12141
Organ JF, Fritzell EK (2000) Trends in consumptive recreation and the
wildlife profession. Wildl Soc Bull 28:780–787
Palmén JA (1905) Luonnon muistomerkkien suojelemisesta. Luonnon
Ystävä 9:145–153
Pepin KM, Kay SL, Davis AJ (2017) Comment on: ‘blood does not buy
goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore’.
Proc R Soc B 284:20161459. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.
1459
Pohja-Mykrä M (2016) Felony or act of justice?—Illegal killing of large
carnivores as defiance of authorities. J Rural Stud 44:46–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.003
Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2014a) Evaluation of the Finnish national
policy on large carnivores. University of Helsinki, Ruralia
Institute, Reports 135
View publication stats
Page 13 of 13 76
Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2014b) Strong community support for illegal
killing challenges wolf management. Eur J Wildl Res 60:759–770
Pohja-Mykrä M, Vuorisalo T, Mykrä S (2005) Hunting bounties as a key
measure for historical wildlife management and game conservation:
Finnish bounty schemes in 1647–1975. Oryx 39:284–291
Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S, Mykrä S (2015) Susipolitiikan
suunnanmuutos-ohjailusta omistajuuteen. In: Hiedanpää J,
Ratamäki O (eds) Suden kanssa. Lapland University Press,
Rovaniemi, pp 219–243
Pulliainen E (1974) Suomen suurpedot. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi,
Helsinki
Pulliainen E (1984) Petoja ja ihmisiä. Tammi, Helsinki
Redpath SA, Arroyo BE, Leckie EM, Bacon P, Bayfield N, Gutierrez RJ,
Thirgood SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to
reduce human-wildlife conflict: a raptor-grouse case study. Conserv
Biol 18:350–359
Saether BE, Engen S, Swenson JE, Bakke O, Sandegren F (1998)
Assessing the viability of Scandinavian brown bear, Ursus arctos,
populations: the effects of uncertain parameter estimates. Oikos 83:
403–416
Smietana W, Wajda J (1997) Wolf number changes in Bieszczady
National Park, Poland. Acta Theriol 42:245–251
Suutarinen J, Kojola I (2017) Poaching rate and risk in legally harvested
Finnish wolf population. Presentation in International Symposium
on Society and Resource Management (ISSRM), June 19–22, 2017
in Umeå, Sweden
Teel TL, Manfredo MJ (2010) Understanding the diversity of public
interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24:128–139
von Essen E, Hansen HP, Nordström Källström H, Peterson NM,
Peterson T (2014) The radicalisation of rural resistance: how hunting
counterpublics in the Nordic countries contribute to illegal hunting. J
Rural Stud 39:199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.
001
Watts D, Matilainen A, Kurki S, Keskinarkaus S, Hunter C (2017)
Hunting cultures and the ‘northern periphery’: exploring their rela-
tionship in Scotland and Finland. J Rural Stud 54:255–265
Wielgus RB, Peebles KA (2014) Effects of wolf mortality on livestock
depredations. PLoS One 9(12):e113505. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0113505
Wikman M (2010) Riistakannat 2010 - Riistaseurantojen tulokset-
Selvityksiä 21/2010. Riista- ja kalatalouden tutkumuslaitos,
Helsinki
Wiles GJ, Allen HL, Hayes GE (2011) Wolf conservation and manage-
ment plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia
Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2002) A quantitative summary
of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction 1972–2000.
Wildl Soc Bull 30:575–584
Woodroffe R, Redpath SM (2015) When the hunter becomes the hunted.
Science 348:1312–1314. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8465