The missing lynx — understanding hunters' opposition to large carnivores

Abstract

Local opposition to large carnivores is a frequent source of conflict and a major obstacle for large carnivore conservation worldwide. The aim of our study is to understand hunters' reasons for opposing large carnivores, paying particular attention to the social dimension of the conflict. In an area where a vigorous conflict about lynx (Lynx lynx) exists without there actually being individuals of this species resident, we conducted group discussions with hunters, a group that includes many lynx opponents. Results were interpreted using the theories of social identity and psychological reactance. We found that, despite the absence of large carnivores, hunters' perceptions and reasoning resembled those present in areas with resident large carnivores. This underlines the significance of the social dimension. Results show that the hunters' position in the lynx conflict is shaped by past experiences with pro‐lynx groups (forestry and nature conservation). In this interaction, hunters see their social identity as being threatened which in turn leads to group discrimination and reactance processes — the latter possibly resulting in illegal shootings of lynx. Thus, hunters' opposition is not solely about the impacts of the lynx, but also about defending their social identity and withstanding impairment of their perceived freedoms by other interest groups. We argue that actively dealing with such group dynamics could serve as a missing link between large carnivore protection and conflict management. Future large carnivore management should focus more on shaping the quality of the interaction between the managers, advocates and opponents of large carnivores in order to overcome group‐conflict and reactance processes.

Analysing stakeholders’ perceptions of wolf, lynx and fox in a Dutch riverine area

“…A similar argument can be made for game hunters (Røskaft et al 2007). Lüchtrath and Schraml (2015) conclude that hunters' negative attitude is a result of defending their social identity. Hunters aim to ''upgrade their status'' as a group and distinguish themselves from other groups, such as the general public or nature conservationists (Lüchtrath and Schraml 2015).…”

“…Lüchtrath and Schraml (2015) conclude that hunters' negative attitude is a result of defending their social identity. Hunters aim to ''upgrade their status'' as a group and distinguish themselves from other groups, such as the general public or nature conservationists (Lüchtrath and Schraml 2015). Another argument for the negative perception among hunters could be that wolves may kill their dogs (Naughton- Treves et al 2003;Røskaft et al 2007).…”

“…Hunters' perceptions of single and multiple large carnivores are described in several studies (Kellert 1991;Bjerke et al 1998;Linnell et al 2000;Ericsson and Heberlein 2003;Naughton-treves et al 2003;Andersone and Ozolinš 2004;Røskaft et al 2007;Lüchtrath and Schraml 2015). Most of these studies show that hunters have (more) negative attitudes towards large carnivores (Linnell et al 2000;Ericsson and Heberlein 2003;Naughtontreves et al 2003;Røskaft et al 2007).…”

“…In addition, in countries where hunters are a significant stakeholder group, it is important to take their attitudes into account. Generally, they have a negative attitude towards large carnivores and this can strongly influence the debate (Lüchtrath and Schraml 2015).…”

The effect of reintroductions on the genetic variability in Eurasian lynx populations: the cases of Bohemian–Bavarian and Vosges–Palatinian populations

“…Poaching of lynx-a manifestation of the conflict between humans and lynx (e.g. Andrén et al 2006;Breitenmoser and Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008;Breitenmoser et al 2010;Lüchtrath and Schraml 2015)puts further strain on these genetically impoverished populations. A reduction in fitness due to low genetic variation and/or inbreeding has not yet been documented for wild lynx, but has been shown for captive lynx (Laikre 1999) that suffer problems similar to reintroduced populations (low diversity, few founders, inbreeding).…”