European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 711–721 | Cite as

Response-ability in wolf–dog conflicts

Original Article

Abstract

The conflict between wolves and dogs has been deemed as one of the most difficult specific issues in Finnish wolf policy. In this paper, we examine how this conflict materializes and discuss the role of anticipatory knowledge in enabling safe multispecies cohabitation. We have analyzed a dataset of 201 wolf–dog conflict narratives covering a time period of 26 years (1987–2013). This data consists of local newspaper articles, records from local wildlife management authorities, and e-mail correspondence from affected dog owners. Based on the analysis of this material, we conclude that preventing wolf caused damage on dogs calls for response-ability, defined as affective attuning to the presence of wolves. Such attuning allows humans to develop routines that enable them to anticipate wolf presence, for example by protecting and monitoring their dogs and by investing in effective social networking. The need to develop anticipatory knowledge and situated sensibility to the presence of the wolf necessarily leads to critical evaluation of the habits of keeping dogs. Hence, it also explains why there are no easy solutions to wolf–dog conflicts. To become attuned to the presence of wolves may sometimes require more than what humans are ready and willing to do. Thus, there seems to be affective thresholds for response-ability across the species. At the same time, however, some of the events could be avoided with fairly simple pragmatic solutions.

Keywords

Wolf policy Wolf–dog conflict Multispecies cohabitation Response-ability Anticipatory knowing 

References

  1. Aronson Å, Wabakken P, Svensson L, Strømseth T, Sand H, Maartmann E, Kojola I (2008) Varg i Skandinavien: Statusrapport för vintern 2007/2008. [Wolf in Scandinavia: Status Report of Winter 2007/2008] Høgskolen i Hedmark, Sweden. (In Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  2. Atchison J, Head L (2013) Eradicating bodies in invasive plant management. Environ Plan D: Soc Space 31:951–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backeryd J (2007) Wolf attacks on dogs in Scandinavia 1995–2005. Dissertation, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry J, Smith K (2008) Landscape, politics, labour and identity: stewardship and the contribution of green political theory. Landsc Res 33(5):565–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bologov V, Miltner D (2003) Wolf depredation on domestic dogs in central part of European Russia. Abstracts of the World Wolf Congress 2003, Banff, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown K, Dilley R (2012) Ways of knowing for ‘response-ability’ in more-than-human encounters: the role of anticipatory knowledges in outdoor access with dogs. Area 44(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buller H (2008) Safe from the wolf: biosecurity, biodiversity, and competing philosophies of nature. Environ Plan A 40:1583–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Despret V (2013) Responding bodies and partial affinities in human-animal worlds. Theory, Cult Soc 30(7/8):51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnish Hunter’s Association (2014) Suosituimmat metsästyskoirarodut vuonna 2013. [Most popular hunting dog breeds in 2013] News on the webpage of the Association: http://www.metsastajaliitto.com/?q=node/1308 (published on 17 January 2014)
  10. Gross M (2008) Return of the wolf: ecological restoration and the deliberate inclusion of the unexpected. Environ Politics 17(1):115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haraway D (2008) When species meet. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. Haraway D (2012) Awash in urine: DES and Premarin® in multispecies response-ability. Women's Stud Quart 40(1–2):301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heikkinen S, Hiltunen H, Kojola I, Määttä E (2009) Suurpetojen lukumäärä ja lisääntyminen vuonna 2008. [Number and reproduction of large carnivores in 2008] In: Wikman M (ed.) Monitoring game abundance in Finland in 2009. Riista- ja kalatalous – Selvityksiä 18/2009. pp18-20. (In Finnish with English abstract)Google Scholar
  14. Hinchliffe S, Ward KJ (2014) Geographies of folded life: How immunity reframes biosecurity. Geoforum 53:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobson K (2007) Political animals? on animals as subjects in an enlarged political geography. Pol Geograp 26(3):250–267Google Scholar
  16. Jokinen A (2011) Tiedon synty kollektiivisessa lintujen havainnoinnissa: lajiluettelon, paikan ja tietämisen vuorovaikutus. [Building knowledge in collective bird watching: the joint effect of species list, place and knowing]. Terra 123(2):63–74 (In Finnish with English abstract)Google Scholar
  17. Kojola I, Kuittinen J (2002) Wolf attacks on dogs in Finland. Wildl Soc Bull 30(2):498–501Google Scholar
  18. Kojola I, Kuittinen J, Ronkainen S (2004a) Miksi susi käy koirien kimppuun? [Why is wolf attacking dogs?] Suomen Riista 50:84–89. (In Finnish with English summary)Google Scholar
  19. Kojola I, Ronkainen S, Hakala A, Heikkinen S, Kokko S (2004b) Interactions between wolves Canis lupus and dogs C. familiaris in Finland. Wildl Biol 10:101–105Google Scholar
  20. Koster J, Noss A (2014) Hunting dogs and the extraction of wildlife as a resource. In: Gompper M (ed) Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 265–285Google Scholar
  21. Latimer J, Miele M (2013) Naturecultures? science, affect and the non-human. Theor, Cult Soc 30(7/8):5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LCIE Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (2013) A manifesto for large carnivore conservation in Europe (ver.20.06.2013). Available at: http://www1.nina.no/lcie_new/pdf/635253308262465095_LCIE%20manifesto%20for%20large%20carnivore%20conservation%20in%20Europe%202013.pdf (Visited on 30 June 2015)
  23. Leong KM (2009) The tragedy of becoming common: landscape change and perceptions of wildlife. Soc Nat Resour 23(2):111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lescureux N, Linnell J (2010) Knowledge and perceptions of Macedonian hunters and herders: the influence of species specific ecology of bears, wolves, and lynx. Hum Ecol 38:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorimer J (2008) Counting corncrakes: the affective science of the UK corncrake census. Soc Stud Sci 38(3):377–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MAF (2013) Talousarvioon varatut määrärahat eivät riitä viime vuoden suurpetovahinkojen maksamiseen täysimääräisenä. Tiedote 130423. [Budget funds do not cover last year's large carnivore damage payment in full. Press Release 130423. In Finnish] Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Available at: http://www.mmm.fi/fi/index/etusivu/tiedotteet/130423_suurpetovahingot.html (Published on 23 April 2013)
  27. Mason V, Hope P (2014) Echoes in the dark: technological encounters with bats. J Rural Stud 33:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McNay M (2002) A case history of wolf-human encounters in Alaska and Canada. wildlife technical bulletin 13. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, JuneauGoogle Scholar
  29. Milton K (2002) Loving nature. towards an ecology of emotion. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Nygren N, Jokinen A (2013) Significance of affect and ethics in applying conservation standards: the practices of flying squirrel surveyors. Geoforum 46:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paxson H (2008) Post-Pasteurian cultures: The microbiopolitics of raw-milk cheese in the United States. Cult Anthropol 23(1):15–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peltola T, Tuomisaari J (2015) Making a difference: forest biodiversity, affective capacities and the micro-politics of expert fieldwork. Geoforum 64:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peltola T, Heikkilä J, Vepsäläinen M (2013a) Exploring landscape in-the-making: a case study on the constitutive role of animals in society–nature interactions. Landsc Res 38(4):461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peltola T, Ratamäki O, Pellikka J (2013b) Salametsästys ja oikeuttamisen yhteisölliset strategiat. [Social and cultural strategies for justifying poaching in Finland]. In: Björn I, Jokinen P, Kotilainen J, Schuurman N, Sireni M (eds) Korpisosiologia(a). University Press of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, pp 208–223, In FinnishGoogle Scholar
  35. Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2014) Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management. Eur J Wildl Res 60:759–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rannikko P, Hiedanpää J, Pellikka J, Ratamäki O, Härkönen S, Salmi P (2011) Kohtaamisia metsässä. Eläinkiistoista yhteistoimintaan. [Encounters in the forest. From animal conflicts to co-operation] Metsäkustannus, Helsinki. (In Finnish)Google Scholar
  37. Ratamäki O (2009) Yhteiskunnallinen kestävyys ja hallinta suomalaisessa susipolitiikassa. [Societal Sustainability and Governance in Finland’s Wolf Policy] Publications 94. University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland. (In Finnish with English summary)Google Scholar
  38. Singleton V, Law J (2013) Devices as rituals: notes on enacting resistance. J Cult Econ 6(3):259–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sjölander-Lindqvist A (2008) Local identity, science and politics indivisible: the Swedish wolf controversy deconstructed. J Environ Policy Plan 10:71–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skogen K, Krange O (2003) A Wolf at the gate: the Anti-carnivore alliance as the symbolic construction of community. Sociol Rural 43(3):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smuts B (2001) Encounters with animal minds. J Conscious Stud 8(5–7):293–309Google Scholar
  42. Strum SC (1987) Almost human. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Thrift N (2008) Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Treves A, Jurewicz R, Naughton-Treves L, Rose R, Willging R, Wydeven A (2002) Wolf depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin, 1976–2000. Wildl Soc Bull 30(1):231–241Google Scholar
  45. Whatmore S, Thorne L (1998) Wild(er)ness: reconfiguring the geographies of wildlife. Trans Inst Br Geogr 23:435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolch J, Emel J (eds) (1998) Animal geographies: place, politics and identity in the nature–culture borderlands. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IrsteaSaint-Martin-d’Hères CedexFrance
  2. 2.Finnish Environment InstituteJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations