Fear, economic consequences, hunting competition, and distrust of authorities determine preferences for illegal lethal actions against gray wolves (Canis lupus): a choice experiment among landowners in Jutland, Denmark
Relying on random utility theory, we used a choice experiment, where respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical scenarios designed to reduce the sensitivity of the subject and thereby reveal whether landowners would respond by illegal actions. We also evaluate the determinants of preferences for these actions. The majority of the sample exhibited a negative attitude towards wolves and the choice experiment revealed that 60% of the sample preferred illegal measures, over moderate measures, whereas the remaining sample preferred to do nothing. […] Our results do not imply that 60% of landowners in Jutland will illegally kill wolves. However, negative attitudes, particularly when combined with a divide between rural- and urban communities, may promote disregard for regulations and illegal actions against problem species.
The missing lynx — understanding hunters' opposition to large carnivores
Ich mag Dich nicht, also erschieße ich Deinen Pudel, um meine Identität zu festigen!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.
Felony or act of justice? – Illegal killing of large carnivores as defiance of authorities
Dem edlen Jäger kann man nichts nachtragen, da er doch die Bevölkerung vor Wolfshorden schützt. Auch Grendel soll noch unterwegs sein, sagt man.Illegal killing of large carnivores is a sociopolitical crime and manifests as explicit resistance and indirect defiance of game management authorities and EU-drafted management actions. Neutralization techniques are used to negate the shame from the stigma and sanctions associated with violating the law. Hunting violators have become noble bandits as they defy the central authorities whilst supporting local people in their struggle to maintain a livelihood and a safe living environment in large carnivore territories.
Local Identity, Science and Politics Indivisible: The Swedish Wolf Controversy Deconstructed
Meine Identität ist bedroht, weil draußen jetzt noch ein Spieler auf dem Feld aktiv ist.The goal of the central state to work towards the recovery of wolves in Sweden is essentially not a conflict over wolves. Instead, the controversy illustrates how divergent perceptions of the local environment can be understood to constitute inconsistencies regarding how to understand the landscape, and most importantly, what the landscape conveys to people through providing a context for their relationships with ‘nature’ and with each other.
Perceptions and law enforcement of illegal and legal wolf killing in Norway: organized crime or folk crime?
On 20 April 2015, five men were convicted in a Norwegian court for breaching the penal law, namely for attempting to reduce the natural population of a protected endangered species on 15 February 2014. One was also charged with having killed a wolf on 14 March 2014. The sentences were the strictest ever imposed for similar crimes in Norway, with 20 months’ imprisonment for the main offender, partly because they were charged with organized crime—an aggravating circumstance. The verdict was appealed and a new conviction made on 5 April 2016, where the prison sentences for the five convicted men were considerably reduced, the strictest from 20 to 9 months, […] These verdicts invite discussion of how such crimes should be perceived-as serious organized crime or as “folk crimes”. This article argues that either way such acts should be regarded as theriocides that breach the Animal Welfare Act and its statement that animals have intrinsic value, and further that they cannot be viewed in isolation but must be seen in the context of state policy towards large predators. The crimes are thus discussed from a green criminology perspective, concentrating on seeing these theriocides as crimes, not “only” harms.
Deconstructing the Poaching Phenomenon: A Review of Typologies for Understanding Illegal Hunting
This review explores the way that the illegal hunting phenomenon has been framed by research. We demarcate three main approaches that have been used to deconstruct the crime. These include ‘drivers of the deviance’, ‘profiling perpetrators’ and ‘categorizing the crime’. Disciplinary silo thinking on the part of prominent theories, an overreliance on either a micro or a macro perspective, and adherence to either an instrumental or normative perspective are identified as weaknesses in existing approaches. Based on these limitations in addressing sociopolitical dimensions of the phenomenon, we call for a more integrative understanding that moves illegal hunting from being approached as a ‘crime’ or ‘deviance’ to being seen as a political phenomenon driven by the concepts of defiance and radicalization.
With or without a license to kill: Human-predator conflicts and theriocide in Norway
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _in_Norway
Auflistung der Fälle, Urteile etc. ab Seite 8.Conflicts between humans and predators1 have century long traditions and many causes, as humans’ wish to protect their livestock, and culturally based practices and prejudices, e.g.reflected in fairytales like Red riding hood and the wolf (See Kohm and Greenhill, 2013 for portrayal of wolves in popular culture). Underlying factors are anthropocentrism – whereby humans position themselves in the center of the world, thinking that everything and everyone, whether nature or non human species, are there for them, rather than being there in their own right, and speciesism – humans’ discrimination of non human species (e.g. Benton 1998; Beirne 1999; Nibert 2003; Sollund 2008). These phenomena imply that the humans think their own species is more valuable than other species, thus giving them the right to exploit the others. The most evident dogma in the human – non human animal relationship (or lack thereof) is that power gives right (Sollund 2014).