Keeping the wolf from the door

KEEPING THE WOLF FROM THE DOOR Analysis of derogation-based wolf hunting permits in Finland

CRAIG JONES

2

LASSI RAUTIAINEN PROJECT COORDINATOR: M.Sc. Mervi Laaksonen, conservation biologist TEXT: Mervi Laaksonen and Francisco Sánchez Molina WORKING GROUP: Marjut Anttilainen, Julia Blomqvist, Nora Halminen, George Kopteff, Sinikka Levi, Mari Nyyssolä-Kiisla and Sami Säynevirta PROOFREADING: Pauliina Klemola PUBLISHED BY: Luonto-Liiton susiryhmä / The Wolf Action Group, 2018 GRAPHIC DESIGN: Marjut Anttilainen

Table of contents 3

Table of contents Abstract Tiivistelmä (Abstract in Finnish)

4 5

1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives for the analysis of derogation-based wolf hunting permits

6 6 6

2. Legislative background 2.1 The European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 2.1.1 Annex IV of the Habitats Directive 2.1.2 Annex V of the Habitats Directive 2.2 Favourable Conservation Status (FCS)

7 7 7 7 8

3. Materials and Methods 3.1 Application procedure for derogation-based hunting permits 3.2 Data collection

9 9 9

4. Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 4.1 Information provided by the applicant 4.1.1 Seasonal and spatial variation in derogation-based wolf hunting permits 4.1.2 Socio-economic reasons for applying for wolf hunting permits in Southern Finland 4.1.3 Sightings of wolves near residential area 4.1.4 Damages to domestic animals 4.2 Classification of permits 4.3 Non-lethal alternatives 4.4 Contents of the decisions 4.4.1 Reasons for derogation 4.4.2 Amount of wolves requested to be hunted 4.5 Derogation-based permits in the reindeer-herding area

10 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17

5. Lessons from Finland 5.1 A ministerial decree on wolf hunting 5.2 Fear of wolves legitimates culling 5.3 Keeping the wolf from the door 5.4 Perspectives on wolf – reality and public image in conflict 5.5 Alternatives are sought but only to avoid livestock damage 5.6 Wolves and reindeer husbandry

18 18 18 19 20 21 22

6. Looking towards the future 6.1 The Finnish wolf population has not reached favourable conservation status 6.2 How to curb illegal hunting?

6.3 From contrasts to solutions

23 23 24 25

7. Main conclusions

27

4 Abstract

Abstract The Finnish grey wolf (Canis lupus) population gained strict protection under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/ EEC) when Finland joined the European Union in 1995. Member states may derogate from the provisions of the Habitats Directive under the prerequisites listed in Article 16. The overarching preconditions include the need to analyse whether there is a satisfactory alternative to lethal control. In addition, the actions must not have a detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of the wolf population at national level.

The purpose of this report is to analyse the derogation-based wolf hunting permits granted during the years 2016–2017 by the Finnish Wildlife Agency and to establish if all plausible non-lethal alternatives are being effectively considered and implemented by the Finnish authorities and private litigants before hunting permits are granted. The permits were divided into two categories: those that concerned the reindeer-herding area (Habitats Directive Annex V) and those that concerned the rest of Finland, Southern Finland hereafter (Annex IV).

Altogether 69 permits were analysed of which 41 concerned Southern Finland and 28 the reindeer-herding area during the time period from 20 January 2016 till 6 March 2017. The analysed permits accounted for 88 wolves, of which 38 were allowed to be hunted in Southern Finland.

In December 2016 the estimate for the number of wolf packs was 32–38, of which 10 dwelled in the border zone between Finland and Russia. A rough estimate of the wolf population before hunting was 200–248 individuals in Southern Finland. The rulings in force at the time of the research allowed the culling of 53 individuals, which was 21–26% of the wolf population, during a hunting year in Southern Finland. The official population estimate during March 2017 was 21 packs and 150–180 individuals. It is noticeable that the estimate was 25% lower than the year before.

The Finnish wolf policy is laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and enforced by the Finnish Wildlife Agency.

During the study period the culling of wolves was justified by the assumed positive impact on social acceptance by rural residents and, consequently, reduction in illegal hunting of wolves. Outside the reindeer-herding area derogation took place under “the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature”. Other reasons for exemption were rarely used.

Few damages were mentioned during the reference period in Southern Finland, whereas the harms to semi-domestic reindeer were numerous. Outside the reindeer-herding area the basis of derogation in Finland lies in social rather than economic reasons. The

satisfactory alternatives were considered in relation to damages but not in relation to social harm. Because the hunting of the wolf was allowed for the sake of public safety, the analysis of satisfactory alternatives was not thoroughly accomplished. The appraisal of satisfactory alternatives in case of social harms is evidently challenging and susceptible to subjectivity.

The return of the wolf and its consequent expansion in Finland has raised new challenges which have resulted in a complex multilevel conflict, especially in rural areas. However, social acceptance is not being gained by allowing culling. Rather it seems that culling maintains the social acceptance of aversion towards wolves.

Tiivistelmä 5

Tiivistelmä Susi kuuluu Suomessa Euroopan unionin luontodirektiivin nojalla tiukasti suojeltuihin lajeihin. Suomi liittyi Euroopan unioniin vuonna 1995, jolloin suden tiukkaa suojelua koskeva lainsäädäntö astui voimaan. Tämän mukaisesti suojelusta poikkeaminen edellyttää tarkastelua metsästyslain (jolla luontodirektiivi on riistalajien osalta täytäntöön pantu) luettelemien poikkeamisperusteiden täyttymisestä. Jokaista lupaharkintaa edeltää suotuisan suojelun tason säilyttämisen ja tyydyttävien vaihtoehtojen olemassaolon arviointi.

Tutkimme aikavälillä 20.1.2016–6.3.2017 Suomessa myönnettyjen susien kaatamiseen annettujen poikkeuslupien sisältöä suhteessa luontodirektiivissä ja Suomen metsästyslaissa annettuihin ennakkoehtoihin. Luvat on jaettu kahteen osaan: poronhoitoalueen (luontodirektiivin liite V) ja muun Suomen (liite IV) lupiin.

CRAIG JONES

Tutkimuksessa mukana on yhteensä 69 Suomen riistakeskuksen tekemää poikkeuslupapäätöstä, joista 28 kosketti poronhoitoaluetta ja loput 41 muuta Suomea. Myönnettyjen lupien yhteenlaskettu kaadettavien susien määrä oli 88, josta 38 yksilöä sai poistaa poronhoitoalueen ulkopuolella.

Joulukuussa 2016 kanta-arvion mukaan Suomessa oli 32–38 susilaumaa, joista 10 oleskeli itärajalla. Karkean arvion mukaan poronhoitoalueen eteläpuolisella alueella liikkui 200–248 yksilöä. Voimassa olleen susiasetuksen mukaan suurin sallittu kiintiö poronhoitoalueen eteläpuolisella alueella oli 53 yksilöä metsästyskaudella. Määrä vastasi 21–26 % arvioidusta susikannasta. Maaliskuussa 2017 tehdyn virallisen kanta-arvion perusteella Suomessa eli 21 laumaa, joissa oli 150–180 yksilöä. Huomattavaa on, että arvio on 25 % pienempi kuin vastaavana ajankohtana tehty arvio vuotta aiemmin.

Suomessa susipolitiikasta vastaava viranomainen on maa- ja metsätalousministeriö (MMM). Kannanhoidon toimenpiteistä vastaa Suomen riistakeskus. MMM:n antaman asetuksen nojalla susia voitiin tarkasteluajankohtana kaataa etenkin tilanteissa, joissa merkittävä yleinen etu, kuten yleinen turvallisuus tätä vaatii.

Perusteluna poikkeamisperusteelle MMM tuo ilmi susien tappamisen edullisen vaikutuksen suden hyväksyttävyyteen ja siten sen laitonta pyyntiä vähentävän vaikutuksen.

Poikkeusluvissa tuotiin esiin suhteellisen vähän vahinkoja muualla Suomessa kuin poronhoitoalueella. Poronhoitoalueella lupia myönnettiin yksinomaan vahinkojen välttämiseksi. Muualla Suomessa merkittävin peruste lupien myöntämiselle oli sosiaalinen pelko tai huoli. Tappamiselle vaihtoehtoisia ratkaisuja arvioidaan lupamyönnöissä suhteessa vahinkoihin, mutta sosiaalisten haittojen luonnetta ja niiden vaihtoehtoisia lievennyskeinoja ei ole käytännössä arvioitu.

Suden liikkuminen yhä uusilla alueilla on aiheuttanut huolta etenkin maaseudun asukkaissa. Poikkeusluvissa heijastuva huoli susien liikkeistä asutuksen liepeillä kielii suden biologian kanssa yhteensopimattomasta susikuvasta.

Poikkeuslupakäytäntö (ja suden kannanhoidollinen metsästys) ei hallinnon ja susikannan hoitosuunnitelman tavoitteista huolimatta edesauta suden hyväksyttävyyden kasvamista. Näyttää pikemminkin siltä, että kaatoluvat ylläpitävät toivetta sudettomasta maaseudusta, ja siihen liittyen näkemystä sudesta ei-toivottuna ja kielteisenä ilmiönä.

6 Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1. Background The Finnish grey wolf (Canis lupus) population gained strict protection when Finland joined the European Union in 1995. The species was hunted almost to extinction at the turn of the 20th century. The return of the wolf and its consequent expansion raised new challenges which resulted in a complex multilevel conflict especially in rural areas.

The European Commission noticed a lack of enforcement from the Finnish authorities of the strict protection for the grey wolf and in 2002 initiated a formal infringement proceeding against Finland. According to the Commission the conservation status of this species was not favourable and feasible alternatives were not being explored.

The infringement proceeding was taken to the European Court of Justice (ECJ, 2007). In 2007 the court ruled that Finland had failed to fulfil its obligations to protect the grey wolf by establishing a systemic administrative practice that authorized hunting on a pre-emptive basis without establishing that hunting prevented serious damage. This led to restrictions in the wolf cull in Finland during the years 2007 to 2015.

In 2015 Finnish authorities announced a new wolf management plan claiming that the strict protection had resulted in widespread illegal hunting throughout the country and decreased social acceptance of wolves (Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2015). The plan included a trial program for licensed wolf cull.

In its memorandum of 21 December 2016 the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stated that the main grounds for the trial were of a social nature, to increase local residents’ approval of large predators, and curb illegal hunting (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2016). Thus, an annual quota was set for hunting wolves outside the reindeer-herding area.

The European Commission followed closely the implementation of Finland´s new Wolf Management Plan and in 2017 stated that it was aware of “some shortcomings” (Letter from EC Nicola Notaro to LLSR, Nov. 2016). Subsequently, in 2017 the Commission opened a dialogue with the Finnish authorities to ensure compliance with the derogation provisions set in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which allows wolf hunting under strict conditions.

On their part, Finnish authorities have claimed to be using many different means – as far as possible – to prevent and reduce the damage caused by wolves. The Finnish Wildlife Agency (in Finnish Suomen riistakeskus) is responsible to consider satisfac-

tory non-lethal alternatives before issuing a wolf hunting permit.

The purpose of this report is to analyse wolf hunting permits granted during the years 2016 and 2017 by the Finnish Wildlife Agency and establish whether all plausible non-lethal alternatives are being effectively considered and implemented by the Finnish authorities and private litigants before hunting permits are granted.

1.2. Objectives for the analysis of derogation-based wolf hunting permits In 2007 the European Court of Justice stated that the European Commission had not provided the Court with the evidence necessary to ascertain whether their case against Finland´s wolf policy was well founded: “The Commission has not adduced sufficient evidence as to the existence of an administrative practice by the Finnish authorities of issuing wolf hunting permits without relying on an assessment of the conservation status of the species or without providing a clear and sufficient statement of reasons as to the absence of a satisfactory alternative” (CJEU 14 June 2007–Case C-342/05).

For this report we analysed the derogations from strict protection of wolves issued by the Finnish Wildlife Agency for the years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to Finnish Hunting Act § 41a, which corresponds to Article 16 of the Habitats Directive -Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992-.

The main objectives in the analysis were to study: • the implementation of satisfactory non-lethal alternatives prior to derogation • the criteria for derogation in absence of serious damages • the admission of culling in relation to the sustainable conservation status

Legislative background 7

2. Legislative background 2.1 The European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC In order to ensure the survival of Europe’s most endangered and vulnerable species, Finland adopted the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (Habitats Directive). This legal document lists the grey wolf under Annex II (species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas), and Annex IV(a) (species in need of strict protection).

Wolves in Spain north of the river Duero, in Greece north of the 39th parallel, in the Baltic countries and in the Finnish reindeer-herding area are listed in Annex V (species whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures). The directive is binding on all members of the European Union.

2.1.1 Annex IV of the Habitats Directive The Annex IV of the Habitats Directive lists the animal and plant species, subspecies and groups of species of Community interest and in need of strict protection, therefore “Deliberate killing, capture, collection and disturbance (particularly during nesting) and commercial use of these animals are prohibited. Causing damage to or destroying the reproduction and resting sites of these species are also prohibited.”

Article 12.1 ”Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV.” Article 16.1 “Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status, Members may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b): (a) in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats; (b) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and other types of property. (c) in the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature (e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers

specified by the competent national authorities.”

There are two overarching preconditions included in the Article 16.1: First there is the need to analyse the possible existence of a “a satisfactory alternative” and second, how a favourable conservation status (referred to as FCS hereafter) is maintained. The first precondition presumes there is a specific problem or situation which needs to be tackled.

The analysis on whether a satisfactory alternative exists requires the identification of the problem. What is the problem or specific situation that needs to be addressed? (European Comission, 2007: 58) According to the guidance document on Article 12, satisfactory alternatives may involve alternative locations (or routes), different development scales or designs, or alternative activities, processes or methods (European Commission, 2007). It also states that “in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity it is up to the individual nations’ legal systems to rule on what is considered satisfactory but the discretionary power is subject to several constraints”.

The derogation is to be “the last resort”. Furthermore, the analysis on the existence of satisfactory alternative(s) “must be founded on objectively verifiable factors, such as scientific and technical considerations”. Lastly, the solution must be limited to the extent necessary to resolve the specific problem. This applies also to situations where the derogation is permitted.

2.1.2 Annex V of the Habitats Directive Article 14.1: “If, in the light of the surveillance provided for in Article 11, Member States deem it necessary, they shall take measures to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora listed in Annex V as well as their exploitation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status.”

8 Legislative background

2.2 Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) The killing or capturing of strictly protected species may only be authorized in exceptional circumstances. An important precondition is that the exemption from strict protection (‘derogation’) concerned is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (Article 16.1).

The conservation status of a species is defined in the Habitats Directive as the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its population within the European territory of the EU member states (Article 1(i)).

According to this provision, the status is considered ‘favourable’ when: I: ‘Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, II: The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and III: There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.’

Measures taken by member states pursuant to the Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild.

One of the fundamental characteristics of large carnivores is that they naturally occur at low population densities and move over vast geographical areas. The individuals of large carnivores typically have home ranges varying from 100 to 1000 km2, and

populations which tend to stretch across many sub- and inter-national jurisdictional boundaries (Linnell et al., 2001; Chapron et al., 2014) The transboundary consideration led the European Commission to fund the development of specific guidance for the application of the Habitats Directive to large carnivores. This guidance was prepared by members of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), a Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (Linnel et al., 2008).

The resulting Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores include eight criteria which must be present for a particular large carnivore population to be considered as having reached a FCS (see Linnel et al., 2008). However, the absolute minimum requirements that member states must meet are: (1) Countries sharing one population, or segments of a population, contribute to ensuring between them that the population reaches and maintains FCS, and (2) They allow for connectivity between neighbouring populations and segments within the same population, and (3) Management activities do not create a sink that can influence the FCS of a population or any of its segments, and (4) Populations should in general not be allowed to go below the level they had when the Directive came into force on their territory.

Although population level was considered as the management entity, the jurisprudence has shown that assessment should be done at national level (Epstein et al., 2017), and more specifically in each biogeographical region present in the nation (Evans and Arvela, 2011). The formal proof is the court case European Commission vs. Finland (CJEU 14 June 2007, Case C-342/05).

CHRISTA GRANROTH

Material and Methods 9

3. Materials and Methods 3.1 Application procedure for derogation-based hunting permits In Finland around 300,000 people pay the annual hunting license.

The number has remained substantially unchanged for 25 years.

Around 200,000 of them go hunting and almost an equal number of people participate in game management activities. The number has declined in recent years.

A registered hunter may apply for a derogation-based wolf hunting permit in their local regional Finnish Wildlife Agency office. The applicant needs to pay a processing fee of 70 euros and list the reasons, such as damages, to justify the request to hunt one or more of the wolves in the area. Additionally, the applicant is requested to attach a statement on the game animal’s stock within the hunting area and on the behaviour of the particular individuals. Also the satisfactory alternative measures that have been or could be employed are to be described in the application form.

The information provided is then analysed. The final decision is made according to the Finnish Hunting Act, which is based on the European Habitats Directive. If the decision is negative the applicant may appeal to the competent administrative court in the area.

Derogation-based wolf hunting may be permitted at any time of the year. Removals in the reindeer area are not restricted by quota. The successful applicant usually has 21 days for using the derogation-based hunting permit.

3.2 Data collection The study was carried out by collecting all the wolf hunting permits granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency for the years 2016 and 2017. Hunting is administered under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which determines the hunting quotas annually based on population size estimates provided by the Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE).

The hunting permits were selected according to the open season for wolf hunting for the years 2016 and 2017 and included permits issued during the time period of 1 August 2016–6 March 2017.

Additionally, seven derogation-based hunting permits from the preceding hunting season were analysed (granted 20. January–18 April 2016). The permits concerning the licenced wolf hunting, i.e. “hunting for population management”, during hunting season 2015–2016 in Southern Finland were not included.

The permits were organised by the provinces in Finland.

The data collection was structured as follows: 1. Information given by the applicant as reasons for requesting a wolf hunting permit. We grouped this information in three different categories: 1.1. Psycho-social (wolf/track sightings, social unrest, insecurity, fear, etc.)

1.2. Economic (damages to property, other economic losses) 1.3. Other 2. Technical non-lethal alternatives tried before applying for the hunting permit (electrified fences, fladry, guardian dogs, lights, sounds, etc.) and other alternatives (livestock relocation, active banishment, school transport, etc.)

3. Duration of the non-lethal alternatives tried before requesting the hunting permit.

4. Reasons given by The Finnish Wildlife Agency justifying their decision, i.e. the grounds for the derogation.

The permits concerning reindeer-herding area were analysed separately using the above-mentioned template with additional section: 5. The exceptions from the provisions of Hunting Act (§ 31, § 33, § 35) granted in the permit: 5.1 Use of artificial light 5.2 Use of gun-sighting device suitable for night shooting 5.3 Use of land-based motor vehicles and use of airborne vehicles 5.4 Possibility of carrying the weapon loaded and unprotected in a moving vehicle at the immediate situation of killing

10 Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017

4. Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 4.1. Information provided by the applicant 4.1.1 Seasonal and spatial variation in derogation-based wolf hunting permits We analysed 69 permits granted during the years 2016 and 2017.

Of those, 28 permits concerned the reindeer-herding area and 41 the rest of Finland. Most of the permits (62) were granted for the hunting season 2016–2017. Among the analysed permits there were 7 derogation-based hunting permits which were applied for the preceding hunting season. These permits were granted during a time period from January to April in 2016.

The wolf has a different status in Northern Finland, in the reindeer-herding area, and Southern Finland. Consequently the permits were analysed separately for these two areas. The border of reindeer-herding area goes through Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia (Fig 1). The name “Southern Finland” is hereafter applied to mean the part of Finland outside the reindeer-herding area.

The distribution of the permits by provinces is shown in Fig 2.

In the reindeer-herding area only one application (4%) was rejected and 27 were granted. In all of Finland, 14 (20%) of the applications were rejected. There is great variation between provinces: in Lapland 0% was rejected, in Northern Karelia 29% was rejected.

In Northern Karelia, Kainuu and Lapland the majority of the applications was concentrated around one municipality in each: Lieksa, Suomussalmi and Ranua, respectively.

FIG 2. REJECTED APPLICATIONS FOR DEROGATION-BASED

FIG 2. REJECTED APPLICATIONS FOR DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN FINLAND 2016-2017 WOLF HUNTING IN FINLAND 2016–2017 7% 7%

22 %

KAINUU NORTHERN KARELIA NORTHERN OSTROBOTHNIA

14 %

OSTROBOTHNIA TAVASTIA PROPER 14 %

29 % 7%

PIRKANMAA SATAKUNTA

In Northern Ostrobothnia the wolf hunting permits requested were spatially scattered to Kuusamo, which is inside reindeer-herding area, and municipalities to the south of city of Oulu, outside reindeer-herding area. The hunting of wolves is restricted to late autumn and winter months since it relies on finding the tracks of wolves.

Most of the applications in this dataset were filed in January (25), February (13) and November (11).

FIG 1. APPLICATIONS FOR DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN FINLAND 2016–2017

Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 11

In the following chapters the results for the provinces in Southern Finland are presented followed by a separate analysis for the reindeer-herding area.

4.1.2 Socio-economic reasons for applying for wolf hunting permits in Southern Finland In Southern Finland, outside the reindeer-herding area, the main reasons for claiming permits to hunt wolves are social. Economical justifications are usually entangled with social ones.

In all 41 permits studied the wolf visits near settlements were mentioned as a motive for hunting (Fig 3). These visits were either verified by sightings or observations of wolf tracks. A separation was not made in any of the cases between the types of the observations (sightings of wolves or sightings of wolf tracks). Only in four cases it was mentioned specifically that the observations or part of them were made during daylight.

Fear was mentioned in 25 out of 41 permits studied (Fig 3).

Either the word ”fear” was used or it was described as worry over safety, or as a threat to safety. Additionally, in 15 cases, worry over safety was expressed even though the word ”fear” or the above mentioned wordings were not given. In these cases the applicant expressed a fear or a worry by mentioning that the behaviour of the wolves was fearless or habituated to humans and/or settlements, that the wolves had lost their fear towards humans and/or that it was a question of public security.

After yard visits and fear the third most common justification

was nuisance to hunting with dogs or raising hunting dogs (Fig 3). Nuisance to hunting with dogs and risks to hunting dogs were mentioned in 23 cases. Nuisance to dog training and tests for hunting dogs were given as a motive in 10 applications. Nuisance to dog breeding and kennels were mentioned three times.

The need to organise school transport was either given as an economically based motive to cut down the economic losses due to taxi transportation organized by the municipalities or described as a matter of safety, e.g. the parents were worried about the safety of their children on their way to school. In some cases there was only a mention of school transport without reference to it as a motive. This was still interpreted as a motive because generally the grantor did pay attention to whether transport was organised or not (the grantor requested the information from the municipal authorities).

In addition to harms and nuisance to hunting with dogs hunters feel frustration over wolves exploiting elk (Alces alces) and other important game animals. The decreased elk or white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population was given as a reason in five applications.

A few applicants mentioned that wolves caused nuisance to the executive assistance volunteer hunters give to police officers in cases of traffic accidents where elk or other big game animals are involved.

The tracker dogs are important in finding injured animals.

In addition to the above mentioned, the applicants gave various other reasons. The common denominator for many of these motives was that they generally were connected to measures aimed at preventing damages to livestock and dogs, e.g erecting electric

FIG 3. REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPLICANTS FOR REQUESTING DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN SOUTHERN FINLAND 2016–2017

12 Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017

fences to prevent damages were described as economic loss due to wolves.

The other reasons include that the farmers have had to shorten the grazing period for livestock, and/or take the animals to a stable.

Also, the hindrance to horse-riding and keeping riding lessons, the harm to dog keeping and recreation were mentioned. Wolves were said to have torn fodder stacks and made the elk more panicky causing risks to traffic. Some applicants mentioned that wolves have approached workers on peat extraction site.

4.1.3 Sightings of wolves near residential areas Wolves visiting yards and the vicinity of residences were the most common reasons given in applications outside the reindeer-herding area.

In majority of the applications the behaviour of wolves was described as “bold”, “fearless” or “habituated to humans”. The habit of moving around or near residences is described as “abnormal” and “unnatural”. Only in five cases the behaviour of wolves was not described in any way.

Among the positive decisions the lowest number of yard visitations (100 metres or less from an inhabited building) was seven during seven months and the highest 300 visits during the previous approximately nine months.

The former permit was granted on the basis of both public security and the threat wolves pose to natural populations of wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus). In negative decisions the number of incursions was clearly lower, the smallest number of visits being one during approximately eight months. Yard visits

were most numerous in North Karelia, Southeastern and Southwestern Finland in this dataset but in many cases there were only one or few permits per province.

In the permits which allowed for wolf culling solely on the basis of public security the lowest number of incursions was 16. In this case from North Savonia wolves or their tracks were encountered according to game database 84 times of which only 16 in the vicinity of residences. In this case police authorities had previously given a permission to expel wolves from the vicinity of yards. The wolves were expelled twice during one day but they were sighted again in a nearby village after two days.

Electric fences are effective in preventing damages only when properly erected. The combination of normal sheep fence and two electrified wires will not block the wolf.

FIG 4. DAMAGES TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN FINLAND 2016–2017

Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 13

NINA HARJU

4.1.4 Damages to domestic animals In 16 applications no injury or damage to domestic animals was presented (Fig 4). In 14 cases there was direct harm to livestock, either sheep or calves, or in one case to both. In two applications there was no direct harm to livestock but the applicant named wolves guilty for causing a horse to bolt and consequently to injure himself.

In most of the cases one to five sheep and one to four calves had died or got injured. The biggest damage presented was 10 sheep either killed or injured.

Dogs were claimed to be killed, injured or approached threateningly by wolves in about half of the applications (Fig 4). Some of the applications concern the same or partly the same hunting area. Thus the same damages to dogs may be presented in more than one permit.

In 18 cases dogs were certainly killed by wolves. In the rest of the cases wolves were claimed to have been guilty as a dog had vanished or the wolves had attacked dogs but there were no damages reported to the authorities. In each case, one to four dogs

were killed or injured. Some of the applicants claimed there to be more damages but usually part of the damages happened outside the area the permit was applied for. Both dogs and other domestic animals were damaged in 9 cases. In 11 cases only dogs were said to have been harmed or killed. If there were damages to domestic animals such as sheep, quite often wolves had attacked dogs too.

This is because generally in rural areas where cattle and sheep are raised dogs are present and used for hunting. On the other hand, sheep and cattle farms are clustered, i.e. farming is concentrated on certain areas. Thus, in areas where dogs were damaged there were not necessarily any farms with grazing animals.

Damages to dogs seem more prevalent in Eastern Finland (North Karelia and Southern Kainuu) than in the western provinces. This is due to both stronger wolf population and the fact that traditional hunting with dogs is more common in the east than in the west.

14 Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017

4.2 Classification of permits We classified each permit according to the main reasons for application. This was done to get a clearer picture of the applications and to be able to use the classification for comparisons between provinces.

The classification was carried out by re-reading each document and separating the issues that were given as justifications by the applicant. These were then grouped into three main classes: conflict with hunting activities, public health and safety, and damages to domestic animals. Usually the classification was straightforward and the majority of the given motives fell into the same main class.

If there were motives of equal or near equal weight then both of the main classes were selected.

As Fig 5 shows, the majority of cases were classified as safety-based permits. In 78% (32 cases) of the permits fear and wolf sightings near settlements was given as the main motive or as one of the main motives. In the “safety-based” permits the main reasons given were fear, need for school transport, wolves habituated to humans and visiting yards. It was commonly mentioned that wolves had lost their fear of humans or that the behaviour of wolves had changed and was unnatural.

Contrary to our assumption, hunting had less relevance as a motive for application. Even though harm to hunting and risks for hunting dogs were mentioned in several permits, hunting turned out the main motive only in three cases. It was mentioned as the main reason or one of the main reasons for applying for a hunting permit in 10 cases. Most of these were in North Karelia (6 out of

16 permits) and Kainuu (2 out of 4 permits).

The main justification least used was damages. Even though the main motive in six permits, it was interpreted to be the main or one of the main motives only in nine cases altogether.

4.3 Non-lethal alternatives Satisfactory alternatives were explicitly considered in most of the permits. However, six out of 41 applications failed to name any non-lethal alternative considered (Fig 6). Two of these were granted a permit.

School transport was the most common non-lethal alternative implemented to mitigate nuisance caused by wolves (Fig 6). In addition to a “wolf taxi”, among the most frequent measures taken were fencing of pastures and expulsion of wolves from the vicinity of residences.

Technical methods, such as random sound devices and lights, were rarely utilized. Information was disseminated by people involved in a fencing project in Southwestern Finland or by the local contact persons in matters concerning large carnivores. The contact persons spread information on the movements of wolves, not so much on the ecology or behavioural aspects of wolves.

The expulsion of wolves was the second most common non-lethal alternative exercised during the reference period (Fig 6). In two cases police authorities had previously given a permission to shoot a wolf within the area in question and there was no mention of attempts of expulsion preceding the application for derogation–

FIG 5. MAIN CATEGORIES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC REASONS GIVEN BY APPLICANTS IN SOUTHERN FINLAND

Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 15

FIG 6. NON-LETHAL ALTERNATIVES MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATIONS FOR DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN SOUTHERN FINLAND 2016–2017

based hunting.

In three cases it was stated or implied that the permit was denied because expulsion seemed to have worked. In 16 cases the permit was granted despite the fact that expulsion was allowed previously by police officials. The cases where expulsion brought results were, naturally, underrepresented in the dataset.

In 20 cases the expulsion of wolves was not attempted. In half of these cases the application was rejected. There were eight cases in which expulsion or other police operations were not carried out prior to applying for a permit and in which the permission was granted on the basis of public security. Four of these concerned North Karelia.

The duration of employing non-lethal alternatives before the application could not be deduced from the permits. Expulsion was generally attempted from three to six times. But there was variation in the elaboration of documents; consequently it was not possible to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of expulsion based on the duration, repetition and methods used.

15 applications mentioned fencing (outside the reindeer-herding area). However, these cases did not account for all the situations where livestock were damaged. In six cases despite harms the application failed to mention fencing of pastures as a measure to prevent damages. One of these applications was rejected.

Even though the building of fences was mentioned in an application, it does not guarantee that the farm in question (and neighbouring farms) had applied the method. Furthermore, even if there are fences against predators it does not guarantee that they are properly built.

Naturally not all farms within the area the permits were applied for had special electric fences. In some cases the farms had not yet got the material for the fences or it was not technically feasible to build fences around the pasture in question or there were multiple

pastures in need of fencing, and it was not economically feasible to build fences around all of them.

In the justifications for a permit the fencing is mentioned as an effective way to prevent problems caused by large carnivores. But it is also noted that fencing of all farms within wolf district is not cost-efficient.

16 Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017

4.4 Contents of the decisions 4.4.1 Reasons for derogation The Finnish Wildlife Agency granted 55 permits to hunt a wolf or wolves during the reference period. Of these 27 were in the reindeer-herding area in Lapland, Kainuu and Northern Ostrobothnia provinces. The rest of the permits (28) were granted to Southern Finland. The permits for the reindeer-herding area are discussed separately in a following chapter.

According to Article 16.1 of the Habitats Directive and Finnish Hunting Act 41§, the authorities may derogate from strict protection of large carnivores in certain specific conditions (see chapter 2.1.1).

The grantor, The Finnish Wildlife Agency, names a reason for derogation in each permit (Fig 7). The most common reason is “the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature” (Article 16.1, paragraph (c), Finnish Hunting Act 41.1§ paragraph 3).

In one case, besides the interest of public security, the protection of wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats (Article 16.1, paragraph a, Finnish Hunting Act 41.1§ paragraph 1)

was given as the justification for derogation. The reason was that large carnivores, such as wolves, affect the population of a threatened species, the wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus).

Four permits were justified by a need to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and other types of property (Article 16.1, paragraph b, Finnish Hunting Act 41.1§ paragraph 2). Only in one of those four cases there were damages done, namely four calves killed by wolves. In three other cases no direct damages to domestic animals (including dogs) were named and all these three permits were granted in succession to the same or nearly the same hunting area (Ruhovaara case).

4.4.2 Amount of wolves requested to be hunted Most of the applicants both in Southern Finland and in the reindeer-herding area applied for a permit to kill one or two individuals (42 cases out of all 69). The difference between applications and decisions were 7 individuals at the most, i.e. hunting was applied for 8 or 9 individuals and the killing of 1 or 2 individuals was permitted, respectively. In 27 cases the permit approved of hunting as many individuals as was applied for.

Attempts to request extra wolves to be killed did not pay. Generally, when the killing of more than three individuals was applied

FIG 7. REASONS ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 16 OF THE EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE FOR GRANTING DEROGATION-BASED WOLF HUNTING PERMITS IN SOUTHERN FINLAND 2016-2017

Hunting of wolves in Finland 2016–2017 17

for, only the killing of 0–2 was granted. In only 5 cases the applicant was granted a permit to hunt 3–5 individuals. Four of these concerned the reindeer-herding area.

Within the reindeer-herding area positive decisions were the rule: among 28 cases only one decision was negative. Also, more often than in Southern Finland, the applicant was permitted the number of individuals he applied for. In 21 cases out of 28 the applicant got the permit according to his application, whereas in Southern Finland this was the case only in six decisions out of 41.

The attempts to raise the number of wolves to be hunted were more common in Southern Finland than in the reindeer-herding area. In 19 of the 41 cases in Southern Finland the applicant requested the hunt of at least three individuals, meanwhile the same number for the reindeer-herding area was 8 out of 28 cases.

4.5 Derogation-based permits in the reindeer-herding area The 28 decisions on derogation-based wolf hunting concerning the reindeer-herding area were made during the reference period, hunting year 2016–2017. In contrast to Southern Finland, no valid decree regulating the hunting of the wolf in the reindeer-herding area was in force during the reference period. Thus it is stated in the decisions that Finnish Wildlife Agency may grant permission to cull wolves to prevent particularly significant losses or when other derogation justifications apply under Hunting Act. With one exception all the decisions within the reindeer-herding area were positive to hunting. The one negative decision was given to Kainuu province on the basis that there were no recent damages (no damages during previous two months) to the semi-domestic reindeer. In each case damages to 8–35 reindeer were mentioned.

Even higher numbers were presented for longer periods of time such as 162 reindeer during six months. In two cases the wolves had killed dogs too. No other damages were mentioned.

In every permit the damages to the semi-domestic reindeer were mentioned as the motive for culling. In three cases the extra labour of guarding the animals was mentioned. In one case it was specifically quoted that the presence of reindeer herders in pastures had been intensified. In the rest of the cases either no alternative methods to prevent problems were mentioned, or it was stated that due to free grazing of the reindeer no alternative methods exist. In accordance to this the Finnish Wildlife Agency justified all positive permits by the need to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and other types of property.

All the applicants applied for derogation on hunting methods allowed by the Finnish Hunting Act, specifically the right to use lights, land and/or airborne vehicles. In all cases the use of light and land vehicles was permitted, as well as the right to have a gun loaded and unprotected in the immediate situation of elimination.

In 13 cases the use of airborne vehicles was permitted. Only in one case the derogation from the obligation to keep a dog on a leash was applied for and granted. The use of sighting device for night hunting was not allowed.

CHRISTA GRANROTH

18 Lessons from Finland

5. Lessons from Finland 5.1. A ministerial decree on wolf hunting The derogation provisions of the Habitats Directive’s Article 16 are in the competence of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland. Under the Hunting Act, further provisions on the maximum allowable quarry numbers of large carnivores, the sex and age of individual quarry animals, and the area to which the restriction applies may be issued by a decree of the Ministry.

During the reference period there was a decree in force concerning only the area outside the reindeer husbandry area (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2016). According to its rulings, maximum hunting quota was 53 individuals per hunting season during two consecutive seasons 2016–2018. The decree would nevertheless be audited annually.

In contrast to the former decree given on 2015 on wolf-hunting, the individuals killed by virtue of Police Act were to be included in the quota. During 2015–2016 a two-year experiment on management-based hunting was executed. In the course of two consecutive hunting seasons, 120 wolves were killed, of which 60 were culled in legal management-based hunting. The rest were killed in traffic accidents or in police operations, hunted illegally or killed in some other way.

The decree for hunting seasons 2016–2018 appoints paragraphs 2 and 3 of Hunting Act 41a.1§ (Article 16(b) and (c)) as derogation justifications. The permits may even be justified by Hunting Act 41a.3 § which rules that certain individuals may be taken from the population under strict monitoring.

The decree refers to Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores in Europe, noting that large carnivores represent a special challenge because of their potential to cause conflicts with human interests. According to Linnel et al.

(2008) the return of large carnivores can provoke dramatic social protests in rural communities, which can potentially have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation in general. In order to take human interests into account, they point out the possibility for certain compromises concerning the measures adopted to achieve conservation of large carnivores, although the main goal of the Directive is clearly to conserve biodiversity.

The decree takes advantage of the statement in the Guidelines that “justification (c) and (e) could cover cases where a de facto hunter harvest is needed to obtain local acceptance for large carnivores among the rural population. This situation is clearly present

in many Nordic and Eastern European countries, and has been well documented in social science research.” The former statement is further justified by the Chancellor of Justice’s decision that the threat to humans caused by large carnivores, or a threat that is implied by carnivores’ movement within or close to residential areas and the range of movement of people are factors impairing public security (Chancellor of Justice, 1999). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of public administration to eliminate these threats. It is further stated in the decree that in the permits granted on the basis of public security the purpose of derogation would be to answer the needs of residents of wolf territories and to create a legal scheme to intervene when nuisance individuals cause problems .

It is intimated that the legitimation of culling lies in the decrease in poaching as a result of legal hunt (but see Chapron and Treves, 2016 for the opposite view).

5.2 Fear of wolves legitimates culling The main reasons for applying for a wolf hunting permit seem to be social in nature. Fear or worry over safety was expressed in 39 permits out of 41. In addition to this, wolf backyard sightings were seen as alarming. The high frequency of safety-related motives may arise from the requirements of the Hunting Act and the decrees given by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Damages were relatively minor, though with variation in time and between regions. In Northern Ostrobothnia and Northern Kainuu economic losses and damages to the reindeer were of major importance, whereas towards the south, damages were rather rare due to preventive methods and relatively low prevalence of grazing livestock within many provinces. However, harms to dogs were rather common in Southern Finland.

It is known to rural residents that the damages are often not large enough to justify culling even though consequences of damages to individual(s) concerned may include economic loss, worry and nuisance. This promotes using socially acceptable and subjective experiences and sentiments as motives.

Fear is an unquestioned motive as it is fundamentally a subjective experience. In addition, safety has constitutional legitimation.

Subjectivity makes fear difficult to tackle. The discourse tends to be polarized: either you disparage fear or stir up fear and wolf hatred. Manifestations of fear are politicized, which in turn hinders seeking for solutions. Fear of wolves seems to call for ‘no wolves area’ as the only solution.

Lessons from Finland 19

CRAIG JONES

It is rather unproductive to question, how dangerous the wolf actually is. We may claim that no person has been killed by wolves for over a century in Finland, but it is also valid to say that we cannot guarantee that wolves do not pose a threat on humans in certain specific situations. Fear and the feeling of insecurity should be considered in their context.

5.3 Keeping the wolf from the door The often-stated opinion is that the wolf belongs in Finnish nature, just not in yards and gardens. Wolves had intruded yards or locations close to residences in all the cases outside the reindeer-herding area. The sightings of wolves and their tracks are most common in rural regions with rather dense population, e.g.

Southwestern Finland where the longest distance from a forest to closest residence is three kilometres. Thus wolves are always quite close to populated areas. In sparsely populated areas, such as Kainuu, the sightings of wolves and their tracks are rather rare.

The movements of wolves near human residences have been one of the most important criteria for a permit to hunt a wolf (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, decision 277/13/2012; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2016). In the decision from

2012 the officials named the wolves sighted close to residential areas as yard wolves (“pihasusi� in Finnish). Formerly they were called nuisance wolves or problem wolves.

The decree stated that hunting quota may be used especially for the culling of yard wolves. This and the following decrees strengthened the idea of abnormally behaving individuals. It also established the link between the importance of keeping eye on tracks close to residences and the potentiality of being granted a permit.

It seems that there are differences in attitudes towards wolves between the provinces. The wolf population is rather strong in both North Karelia and Southwestern Finland but more hunting permits were applied for in North Karelia (Fig 1). This implies that the Karelians are more sensitive to wolves.

Ideally the solution to wolves intruding backyards would be chasing them off. Due to the rather poor documentation of the efforts made it is not plausible to evaluate its utility here.

The methods include chasing off and making loud noises (shooting with a blank cartridge or shooting into the air and other noisy tools). Rubber bullets, used with police permission, are not used for wolves, because the risk of injury is too high. According to police the contacts with wolves are rare during the operation.

Furthermore, usually the expulsion cannot be carried out imme-

20 Lessons from Finland

diately after wolves come to the vicinity of settlements, because it takes time to gather up a group of voluntary hunters and the equipment needed. We can thus draw the conclusion that active expulsion is a rather common non-lethal alternative but its effectiveness needs to be evaluated in further studies. It should also be pointed out that the impact of expulsion may be low since wolves already avoid entering into yards, especially in day-light (Kojola et al., 2016; see below).

5.4 Perspectives on wolf – reality and public image in conflict Wolves’ visits to yards or movements close to residential areas are not exceptional on the European scale. In Northern Europe human densities are relatively low and wolves generally thrive in human-modified forest areas.

It has been shown that visits are more frequent with higher human density in the Canadian Rockies (Hebblewhite and Merrill, 2008). In Finland the expansion of wolves to human-dominated areas has led to an increase in nightly visits within residential areas (Kojola et al., 2016). In summer, sub-adult wolves visited house yards about three times more often than adults but this difference disappeared in winter. This phenomenon may be explained by wolves learning to avoid residences when the territory becomes more familiar to them during the first year after settling into the territory.

In Belarus a research group inspected wolf visits in yards and villages (Sidorovich, 2017). They noticed that all visits to human settlements happened in the night. Only remote single houses were sometimes visited by wolves in the daytime. The incursions were rather frequent in their study since their data showed that homesteads of few inhabitants were visited by wolves every 1–9 days, whereas villages with many inhabitants were visited by wolves less often every 4–21 days. In Belarus there is high number of free-ranging dogs which attract wolves into areas close to settlements.

In Finland yards are generally kept neat which means that there seldom is any food, such as food waste or carcasses to attract predators. The major prey species in southern wolf territories, where human densities are highest, is the non-native white-tailed deer.

Forested areas close to towns and cities often have higher deer densities than more remote forested areas. This is due to a combination of: excellent habitat created by mixed cover and agricultural crops that provide food, deer feeding in winter, and fewer predators such as resident wolves and bears. This might bring wolves to prey close to human settlements but as mentioned above, the predation takes place mostly during night-time.

Kojola et al. (2016) also suggest that visits are possibly an an-

cillary consequence of displacement along forest roads. Wolves commonly use small gravel roads when they move through their territories (Gurarie et al., 2011).

In 36 permits the applicant implied that the behavior of the wolf was abnormal or that wolves had become habituated to humans. The wolves are said to have become bolder when they’ve intruded into yards, i.e. when there are sightings of wolves or their tracks. This rather common perception of the changed behaviour of wolves does not match research findings. The probabilities of a wolf entering a yard (within 150 meters from an inhabited building) in densely populated area are minimal during daytime and at maximum 8% during night (Kojola et al. 2016).

The problem lies in the difference between the reality of the wolf and the human expectations on the behaviour of the wolf.

The wolves’ territories are large and spatially contiguous. The ecology of the species is thus challenging in relation to a fragmented

Lessons from Finland 21

MERVI LAAKSONEN

5.5 Alternatives are sought but only to avoid livestock damage

and crowded landscape. The wolf thrives even in populated agricultural areas and is able to utilize rather wide variety of food as long as there are some ungulates available. The moderate flexibility in behavior, as evidenced for example in nocturnal habits of wolves in populated areas, and the opportunistic use of resources, makes it adaptive to rather a large scale of habitats in different climatic conditions.

This is in contrast to the common view in Finland where the animal is seen as the symbol of the wilderness.

For example in the Chancellor of Justice´s statement large carnivores were viewed as animals of wilderness which did not belong too close to residences or human ranges of movement and that the species could be maintained viable in uninhabited places (Chancellor of Justice, 1999).

This contrast is problematic for the wolf as it is not able to behave the way it is expected to. The myth of the wolf needs revision.

The non-lethal alternatives to culling are of key importance as regards damages to livestock and other property. Though preventive measures are rather commonly implemented there were cases in the dataset where no measures were taken or they went unmentioned in the proceeding.

Rather few methods are utilized to prevent or mitigate harm caused by wolves. On average two different alternative methods were mentioned per permit, whereas on average four different types of nuisance or harm were named. It seems the application procedure should be renewed to pay more attention to proper analysis of the problem(s) and to satisfactory alternative solutions.

Non-lethal alternatives seem rather evident as regards protecting livestock from wolf attacks. Electric fences are accepted as the best practice to mitigate and prevent damages to livestock. In Southwestern Finland, for example, it was deduced in the justification of permits that the current level of livestock damages caused by wolves is moderate due to wide-spread use of electric fences.

When specific fences are not feasible, such as in waterside pastures, then other alternatives should be implemented. These could include use of sheep guardian dogs, smaller enclosures for the night or technical devices, which could offer sufficient and cost-efficient protection against predators. Thus, when the best practice methods are not feasible, a wider variety of methods should be utilized.

Alternative methods are called for in cases where the main nuisance is yard visits, worry over safety and harm to hunting with dogs. Damages to dogs are prevalent in areas where the possibilities for these two species to meet are high. We cannot change the behavior of the wolf. Thus, improvement on hunting practices, dog breeding and technical innovations are called for. Anyhow the culture of keeping hunting dogs is in transition where wolf presence is frequent. However, habits are slow to alter.

The generally acknowledged fact seems to be that there are no satisfactory alternative solutions to psycho-social harms caused by wolves. When permits are granted on the basis of public security rather than livestock damages, the requirement for satisfactory alternatives is abolished. This means that rural residents are not expected to adapt themselves to ‘living with wolves’. Wolves, on the other hand, are expected to be invisible and without consequences to humans while foraging, breeding and migrating.

22 Lessons from Finland

5.6 Wolves and reindeer husbandry The wolf belongs to Annex V in the reindeer-herding area consisting of Lapland and northern parts of the provinces of Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu, covering altogether 37% of land area in Finland (Fig 1). By the provisions of Habitats Directive species listed in the Annex V the exploitation of the species should be done in a sustainable manner that is compatible with a favourable conservation status.

The reindeer-herding area has a long border zone between the neighbouring countries of Finland: Sweden, Norway and Russia.

The northern Finland would be important gateway for wolf migration between the Finnish-Russian (Karelian) wolf population and the genetically impoverished population in Scandinavia. The summer-time protection of the wolf does not necessarily provide enough possibilities for wolf migration to guarantee gene flow, because the potential young migrating individuals are being killed either legally or illegally during the late-winter and spring.

The content in the permits concerning reindeer-herding is uniform. As the derogation basis of significant losses is met in all cases except one there is no need to find other reasons for culling.

Non-lethal alternatives are not considered feasible in the context of free-grazing animals, although such methods exist for example for free-grazing sheep (guardian dogs and fencing for the night). Naturally their feasibility in the northern environment is debatable.

The state of affairs could be described as stable as the culling is

accepted on the basis of serious damages and the non-lethal methods, although searched for in some projects, are considered suspicious among stakeholders.

The status of the wolf in the reindeer-herding area cannot be solved unless alternative methods to protect semi-domestic reindeer from predators are invented. The question of damages is connected to other large predators present in Lapland: the lynx, the bear and the wolverine. All of which, in addition to the wolf and the eagle, cause serious losses to reindeer husbandry. Most problems occur in Northern Ostrobothnia and Kainuu provinces whereas damages caused by wolves are rare in Lapland, especially in Northern Lapland.

Naturally the favourable conservation status of the wolf is not met in the alpine biogeographical region in Finland, and there is no attempt to even improve it. The wolf population estimate for reindeer-herding area consists mostly of individual wolves, packs being very rare.

CHRISTA GRANROTH

Looking towards the future 23

6. Looking towards the future 6.1 The Finnish wolf population has not reached favourable conservation status According to the latest population assessment there are 150–180 wolves in Finland (beginning of March 2017; LUKE 2017). The strongest local populations lie in North Karelia and Southwestern Finland. At the time of the assessment, the population comprised of 21 packs, of which 7 had territories in the border zone between Finland and Russia. In addition to these there were 18 territories inhabited by two wolves. The population was declining since the estimated number of wolves was 25% lower than the year before.

The Finnish Wolf Management Plan states that the Minimum Viable Population (MVP) size in Finland is 25 wolf pairs, and it includes only pairs with offspring (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2015). According to guidance given on the interpretation of the Habitats Directive, the minimum viable population is necessarily lower than the number of individuals needed for the favourable conservation status (FCS) (European Commission, 2007; Linnel et al., 2008; Evans and Arvela, 2011).

In 2007 the European Commission stated that in Finland the grey wolf ’s conservation status “could not be regarded as favourable” as the species was listed in the Annex IV(a) of the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43 EEC for species in need of strict protection (ECJ, 2007). At the time of the infringement proceeding, the Finnish wolf population consisted of 190–210 individuals. From this it can be deduced that the trend of the wolf population is negative rather than positive during the past decade and that the FCS is currently not met.

The wolf is classified as endangered in Finland in compliance with the IUCN criteria (Rassi et al., 2010). The population is estimated to be very small and the number of mature individuals fewer than 250. In fact the number of breeding individuals lies around or just above 50 individuals which is the criterion for critically endangered species.

The EU countries are required to report on the progress of the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Monitoring of the conservation status is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive for all species of Community interest (as listed in Annex II, IV and V). In the first assessment the status of the wolf was considered favourable in Finland (EIONET, 2017). The second assessment in 2013 defined the wolf having an unfavourable-inadequate status as to population size and as a whole (EIONET, 2017). The trend was evaluated as stable in the alpine zone,

and deteriorating in the boreal.

FCS is defined in the Directive and effectively describes the situation where the species can be expected to prosper without any change to existing management or policies (Evans and Arvela, 2011). ‘Unfavourable-Inadequate’ is reserved for situations where a change in management or policy is required to return the species to a favourable status but there is no danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (Evans and Arvela, 2011).

Article 17 Reporting Guidelines comment: “…the granting of derogations for species in an unfavourable conservation status …is not explicitly provided for in the Directive. However, by interpreting and implementing the provision in 16(1) in a way that puts the focus on reaching the overall objective of favourable conservation status, we believe that both concepts may be incorporated in the interpretation under the condition that reaching this objective is not compromised in any way ” (European Comission, 2007). And further “It is therefore important not only to consider the present conservation status, but also to examine how it is developing.”

Evaluated as a whole, the development of the Finnish wolf population has been negative since 2007. According to Article 1(i) the conservation status will be taken as ‘favourable’ when “population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats”. This is taken to mean that the population should remain viable indefinitely and that the viability includes genetic, demographic and ecological aspects (Espstein et al., 2016). Further, the conservation status is measured from the carrying capacity, i.e. when the species utilizes a potential habitat. If the favourable status is not reached the continued improvement in status is always required (Esptein et al., 2016).

The European Commission has stated that the less favourable the status is, the less likely it is that the granting of derogations would be justified apart from the most exceptional circumstances (European Commission 2007). Further, it is questionable whether the status of the wolf in Finland is improved by derogation-based hunting. Rather the opposite may well be true, as there is evidence that granting management flexibility for endangered species to address illegal behaviour may promote such behaviour and lead instead to increased poaching (Chapron and Treves, 2016).

24 Looking towards the future

The Commission’s guidelines promote the concept of favourable reference population (FRP) to define the prerequisite population size at which FCS is met. This concept and FRP-model implemented in Finnish conditions might improve the understanding of the wolf population status in Finland.

6.2 How to curb illegal hunting?

To improve the conservation status of the wolf is to tackle poaching. Illegal hunting has been recognized as one of the major factors affecting wolf populations. Suutarinen and Kojola (2017) inferred from the dataset of 130 radio/GPS-collared animals that poaching is a regulatory factor in the Finnish wolf population.

Among the collared wolves, human-caused mortality represented 97% of all deaths. Illegal killing was the main cause of mortality and the fate of 40% of all collared wolves. Every fifth wolf was legally hunted. Thus the survival rate was very low. Poaching focused on breeding adults and seemed to escalate as a response to increased population size (Suutarinen and Kojola, 2017).

One proposal to address poaching of carnivores has been to legalize or liberalize killing (‘tolerance hunting’). Suutarinen and Kojola (2017) claim that legal permits may release the pressure of illegal killing in the short term but do not necessarily improve the tolerance for wolves.

Poaching rate was lower during the years 2013–14 but increased again in 2015. The former may be due to lower wolf population during that time and media fuss over an illegal hunting of a wolf pack in North Savonia in 2013. The case was prominent in Finnish media and the public awareness over illegal hunting grew.

In addition the case disclosed the risk of getting caught.

The poaching rate is affected e.g. by the publicity, the presumed risk of being caught, local nuisances caused by wolves, the presumed benefits of killing, opportunities to pursue poaching, and the sense of acting for the benefit of the community. Even though hunters may wait for the legal permits for a while, in some cases hunters eventually make use of the situation by culling extra wolves in connection to legal hunting operations (Suomen Luonto, 2015). This is because locally the expectation may not be the removal of one wolf but of the whole pack or all individuals. The wish may be that there are no wolves in the vicinity of residences or hunting areas.

Chapron and Treves (2016) found in their research on wolf management in Wisconsin and Michigan that with culling policy signal, the annual growth rate of the wolf population had a high probability to be lower than without the signal. They take this to mean increased poaching when liberalized wolf hunting was signaled by authorities.

They hypothesize that the legal opening of an additional source of mortality sent a signal that the net benefits of wolves had de-

clined. The perceived value of each individual of that species may have declined or it may have been perceived that poaching prohibitions would not be enforced due to liberalized wolf culling.

To tackle poaching would mean increasing the perceived value of the species. A recent experimental study of messaging found that the public acceptance of American black bears (Ursus americanus) increased when informational messages included benefits of the presence of bears (Slagle et al., 2013)

Looking towards the future 25

MERVI LAAKSONEN Guided wolf track safaris are a good way to get familar with wolves’ behaviour.

threat to traditional way of life or habits.

The conflict may not be solved unless the wolf policy is altered.

In Finnish tradition the need for strict protection is justified by the EU legislation rather than by the national need of protection of natural habitats and species. This further strengthens the idea that wolves, the EU and environmentalism are an organic external threat towards the rural residents.

It was found out in Spain that media coverage of wolf damages was unrelated to the actual costs of wolf damages, but the amount of news correlated positively to wolf culling (Fernandez-Gil et al., 2016). Media coverage is thus a potential driver of public risk perception of large carnivores and media seems to drive the implementation of culling programs (Fernandez-Gil et al., 2016). The wolf management has been reactive to perceived conflicts in Finland too.

Enhancing the value of the environment needs to be improved both in the deeds and in discourse. The national policymakers are responsible for ensuring the survival of national treasures, such as habitats and species. The fact that there is no ownership for wolves should be recognized. The existence and biology of the species is independent of the human race. Thus the use of wolves as a political tool is ill-advised.

A win-win situation cannot be reached without the wide acceptance of the fact that the wellbeing of wolves is not an achievement of a certain group of people but rather an achievement of the whole society.

6.3 From contrasts to solutions The widely accepted view on wolves habituated to humans originates from the weight it has in the wolf policy. Tracks found in yards are also in conflict with the traditional perspective on the wolf as an animal of the wilderness. The current image of the wolf needs to be revised and the concept of ‘problem individual’ should be re-defined. When random nocturnal visits near residential areas are accepted as normal behavior then we may ask when the animal is causing a problem that needs active intervention.

At policy level the wolf conflict seems to lack proper analysis of the problems. The problem is said to be the low acceptance of the wolf which manifests itself as poaching. Rather it seems that there is low acceptance of the wolf as a symbol or myth that represents a

In Finland wolf territory co-operation groups deal with wolf-related issues and conflicts locally. These groups lack proper guidance. An external facilitator would improve the functioning of a co-operation group. At the moment it seems that some members have lost their interest in the matter because their expectations lay in the improved opportunities to influence the permit procedure.

As long as killing wolves is considered the only solution to mitigate harm, the wolf conflict will not be resolved. Discourse on satisfactory alternatives should be enhanced. The key is to move from problem-concentrated policy to solution-concentrated policy. These solutions may be local and diverse. In multi-level and deeply rooted situations a local sovereign wolf moderator could be appointed. The moderator could mediate between the conflict parties and help finding satisfactory solutions in particular problems.

26 Main conclusions

7. Main conclusions 1. The Finnish wolf population has not reached favourable conservation status. The exemptions from the protection should take place only under strict conditions.

2. Wolf culling in Finland is allowed on the basis of social unrest.

Culling is questionable as a conservation method. Social acceptance is not gained as long as culling is considered the only feasible method to solve problems caused by wolves. Culling seems to maintain the social acceptance of aversion towards wolves.

3. Satisfactory alternatives are being implemented with some exemptions. While wolf culling continues, the effort to seek alternative methods is weak. Especially weak is the willingness to approve alternatives to mitigate social harm such as fear.

4. The notion of the wolf as an animal of the wilderness is in contrast to the biology of the wolf. This causes the rather common but false perception of habituated wolves that are attracted to residential areas.

CRAIG JONES

Literature Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., ... and Balčiauskas, L. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes.

Science, 346 (6216): 1517-1519.

Chapron G., and Treves A. (2016) Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore.

Proc. R. Soc. B 283: 20152939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2015.2939 ECJ (2007) Commission vs. Finland, Case C-342/05. Judgment of the Court 14 June 2007.

European Commission (2007) Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

Epstein, Y., López‐Bao, J. V., & Chapron, G. (2016) A legal‐ecological understanding of favourable conservation status for species in Europe. Conservation Letters, 9: 81-88.

Evans,D. and Arvela, M. (2011) Assessment and reporting under article 17 of the Habitats Directive – explanatory notes & guidelines for the period 2007-2012. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, Paris, France.

Fernández-Gil A., Naves J., Ordiz A., Quevedo, M., Revilla E., and Delibes M. (2016) Conflict Misleads Large Carnivore Management and Conservation: Brown Bears and Wolves in Spain. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0151541. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0151541

Main conclusions 27

Gurarie, E., Suutarinen, J., Kojola, I., & Ovaskainen, O. (2011).

Summer movements, predation and habitat use of wolves in human modified boreal forests. Oecologia 165: 891-903.

Rassi, P., Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A. & Mannerkoski, I. (eds.)

(2010) The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. 685 p.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2015) Suomen susikannan hoitosuunnitelma. [Finnish Wolf Management Plan] Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, pp. 39.

Slagle K, Zajac R, Bruskotter J, Wilson R, Prange S. (2013) Building tolerance for bears: a communications experiment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 863-869. doi:10.1002/ jwmg.515

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2016) Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön asetus poikkeusluvalla sallittavasta suden metsästyksestä poronhoitoalueen ulkopuolella metsästysvuonna 2016-2018. Muistio, 21.12.2016, 1723/01.03/2016.

Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E. (2008) Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 834-844. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01466.x Kojola I., Hallikainen, V., Mikkola, K., Gurarie E., Heikkinen, S., Kaartinen, S., Nikula, A., Nivala, V. (2016) Wolf visitations close to human residences in Finland: The role of age, residence density, and time of day. Biological Conservation 198: 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.025 Linnell, J. D., Swenson, J. E., & Anderson, R. (2001) Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation forum 4: 345-349.

Linnell J., Salvatori, V. and Boitani, L. (2008) Guidelines for population level management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission, Brussels LUKE (2017) Arvio Suomen susikannan koosta maaliskuussa 2017. [Population estimate of Finnish wolf population in March 2017]. Available online: https://www.luke.fi/en/natural-resources/ game-and-hunting/the-wolf/

Suutarinen, J. and Kojola, I. (2017) Poaching regulates the legally hunted wolf population in Finland. Biological Conservation 215: 11-18.

Internet sources Chancellor of Justice (1999). Oikeuskansleri Paavo Nikulan päätös 13.7.1999, Decision 11/21/98. https://www.okv.fi/fi/tiedotteet/34/oikeuskansleri-ihmisia-on-suojeltava-petoelaimilta/ EIONET (2017). Biogeographical assessments at Member State level. http://art17.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reports2012/ Sidorovich, V. (2017). Visits of wolves in human settlements in Belarus with implication for wolf attacks of dogs. https://sidorovich.blog/2017/12/20/visits-of-wolves-in-human-settlementsin-belarus-with-implication-for-wolf-attacks-of-dogs/ Suomen Luonto (2015). Outo tilanne: ensimmäinen susi salaa, toinen luvallisesti. [Strange situation: First wolf killed illegally, second legally] 13.2.2015. http://www.suomenluonto.fi/sisalto/ artikkelit/outo-tilanne-ensimmainen-susi-salaa-toinen-luvallisesti/

CRAIG JONES