The Fate of the Scandinavian Wolves

 

Runa Vintervold

2006-05-11

My assignment is on research done by Göran Ericsson and Thomas A. Heberlein.

Attitudes of hunters, locals and general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back (Accepted 01.08.2002)

 

 The Wolf

Canis lupus L. 1758

 

Scandinavia is a geographical area consisting of three countries with a relatively low human population and thus large areas of unspoiled nature, especially in Norway and Sweden. Despite these large areas, Scandinavia has fewer predators than many other geographically limited areas. The wolf, Canis lupus, is one of these predators.

The Swedish and Norwegian wolf population should be seen as somewhat the same since they live mostly around the borders of the two countries.

For years the wolves have evoked repulsion and hatred in man. The hardest century for the species, wolf, was probably the 19th century when there were campaigns for the extinction of the wolf in many places around Europe. (Zimen & Boitani 1979, Peters 1993).

In 1845 bounties were introduced by the Government of Norway for those who managed to kill wolves. (Olstad 1945, Myrberget 1969).

Finally, in the 20th century the wolf was functionally extinct in Scandinavia. There were only about 10 wolves left in Norway and Sweden.  

One might use Thomas Hobbes famous phrase, Homo homini lupus, and make ones own - Homo lupini lupus. 

 

 

Attitudes of hunters, locals and general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back

Göran Ericsson and Thomas A. Heberlein. 01.08.2002.

 

The fate of the Scandinavian wolf now depends on the attitudes of the people of Scandinavia.

To find out how threatened the wolf is by the people of Sweden, Ericsson and Heberlein conducted a survey on the attitudes of Swedes now that the wolves are back.

 

In their research they used four groups:

1)      Swedish non-hunters

2)      Non-hunters in wolf area

3)      Swedish hunters

4)      Hunters of wolf areas

 

A correlation between any given group and knowledge of the wolf, and a correlation between any given group and experience with wolves was also included.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methods

 

Data was collected by mail questionnaires to exclude, as much as possible, the conformational biases that can occur when subjects are interviewed by phone.

The samples were selected from two sources.

The non-hunters, group 1 and 2, were selected randomly from the Swedish national register including permanent registered Swedes.

The hunters, group 3 and 4, were picked out from a register of people paying the mandatory annual hunting fee.

To find the different attitudes on the wolf nine items of  previous surveys done in the USA and in Canada where used. These items included questions mostly on personal preferences concerning wolves.

To find the correlations between a given group and knowledge and experience, five items of both knowledge and experience were given.

The items on knowledge included questions on facts about the wolf in general and specific about Swedish and Norwegian wolves. 

The items on experience included questions on experiences such as: have you ever seen a wolf? Have you ever seen an animal that has been killed by a wolf?

 

 

Results

 

Group 1 and group 4 are considered in detail, since these were the groups with highest contrast to each other.

 

Group 1) Swedish non-hunters

 

Fear of the wolf: 28 % were afraid to meet a wolf.

Importance of wolves:  44 % felt it had personal importance.

Affection towards the wolf: 61 % said they liked the wolf.

Population-size of wolves:  The majority, 71 %, wanted more wolves.

Care if the wolf exists: 90 % of the Swedish non-hunters agreed on that the wolf should exist in Sweden.

Care of the wolf in general: 54 % said they cared about the wolf.

The wolf as a symbol of beauty and nature: 62 % agreed.

Wolf howl: 78 % thought it would be great to hear a wolf howl.

Live in wolf area: 55 % of the Swedish non-hunters would like to live in wolf areas.

 

Group 4) Hunters of wolf areas

 

Fear of the wolf: 16 % of the hunters were afraid to meet a wolf outdoors.

Importance of wolves: 25 % agreed in that the wolf has a personal importance.

Affection towards the wolf: 24 % said they like the wolf.

Population-size of wolves: 21 % would like to have more wolves, 58 % thought it should stay as it is.

Care if the wolf exists: The majority, 65%, meant that it should exist in Sweden.

Care of the wolf in general: 35 % of the hunters in wolf areas cared of wolves in general.

The wolf as a symbol of beauty and nature: 35 % agreed.

Wolf howl: 58 % thought it would be great to hear a wolf howl.

Live in wolf area: 35 % said it would be nice to live in a wolf area.

 

The general rank was the following from positive to negative attitudes towards the wolf:

Swedish non-hunters

Swedish hunters

Non-hunters living in wolf areas

Hunters in wolf areas

 

Thus this leaves the Swedish non-hunters most positive and the Swedish hunters of wolf areas most negative.

Some scores are more or less similar on different items, but the 4^th group - the hunters in wolf areas, had a more increasing negative attitude on many of the items.

The mean score on the sum of attitudes towards wolves indicate that the hunters of wolf areas differ most from their group of nearest sum of attitude (Group 2).

There is however a general tendency towards neutral attitudes in all groups in all items.

 

Concerning knowledge about the wolf the study shows that within any given group people with highest levels of knowledge have the most positive attitude towards wolf.

However between all groups an aggregate analysis shows that the ones with most knowledge are most negative towards wolves.

This apparent contradiction is due to the fact that hunters of wolf areas scored highest on knowledge about the wolf and highest on negativity towards wolves.

 

Concerning experiences with wolves the survey showed that the Swedes whom have had more experiences with wolves had more negative attitudes towards wolves. This is probably due to the fact that people who grew up in areas with wolves (group 2 and 4) had more experiences and thus more negative experiences.

 

Even when the variables, experience and knowledge were controlled for groups 2 and 4 (non-hunters in wolf areas and hunters of wolf areas, respectively) were more negative.

This highlights an important issue: that Swedes living in wolf areas may not dislike the wolf directly, but dislike it because they feel it is their own local issue to say if the wolf should stay or not.

 

 

Afterword

 

I find it sad if the last statement is the real issue - that the fate of the wolf should depend on a principal. Because, all in all it is the people of groups 2 and 4, (hunters and non-hunters living in wolf area) that I believe often are the most influential when it comes to the government. As it says in the survey, the highest majority is positive towards wolves, but still there are given acceptance to shoot alpha males and females relatively often.

Personally I want the wolf to stay in Norway and Sweden, and reproduce to the double, as a symbol of beauty and nature. I actually care quite a lot about the wolf. I would really enjoy hearing a wolf howl, but I think I would be a bit scared if the howling came closer.

But then again, if I was Swedish and a subject of this survey I would belong to group 1 –

a Swedish non-hunter.