The growth of the Finnish wolf (Canis lupus) population during the last years has highlighted people's contradictory attitudes toward wolves. The supranational conservation objectives brought on by Finland's membership in the European Union (EU) and the regional application of the official policy on wolves have led to conflicts. This article is based on the preparation process of the wolf management plan in Finland. As a part of the process, a nationwide hearing was arranged in 2004. Fear of wolves is widespread and even more common in areas with low wolf population. People living in areas where wolves occur feel that they can no longer influence decision making which affects them and that the authorities, conservationists, and the EU do not listen to their opinions. Numerous requests have been made for the legislation and its interpretation, and concessions to these requests would promote consensus and increase tolerance for wolves. Proposed changes include reforming the damage compensation system and formulating a clearer interpretation of the conservation status of wolves. However, it seems impossible to create a policy that would be universally supported. As the wolf question has become more central in environmental policy, the conservation and management of the species have become more complicated, and the cooperation between various interest groups has declined. The wolf conflict could be mitigated by compromises, but because the conflict is value-based, solutions are illusive.

This article focuses on the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict by using stakeholder evaluations of the wolf as a tool. The recent growth of the wolf population has highlighted stakeholders_ contradictory objectives and revealed a conflict between the two main stakeholders, conservationists and hunters, in wolf management. The question of hunting emerges as the core of the conflict. The negative evaluation of the wolf by hunters reflects a competitive situation, which is typical of the historical development of wolf management in Finland. In areas with the most abundant wolf populations, hunters view the wolf most negatively. This study clearly demonstrates that the Finnish wolf conflict is rooted in the values of modern society and carries a long historical, practical and ecological background in which humans and wolves compete over resources, mainly the moose. The conflict between hunters and conservationists in wolf management is connected to the appreciation of moose as game and stems from competition between humans and wolves over their prey and the historical presence or absence of the wolf.

Contradictory attitudes towards lynx Lynx lynx management in Finland have emerged as a consequence of rapid growth of the lynx population together with the strict protection and conservation objectives determined by the European Union. In this study, conducted during 2004–2005, we examined local people's and stakeholders' opinions about lynx management through a nationwide survey. We also assessed local people's opinions through comments expressed at public meetings, which were recorded, transcribed and analysed. In general, lynx were seen as an important part of Finnish nature and its biodiversity, but it was also seen as a detriment to sustaining game populations. Hunters who manage roe deer Capreolus capreolus or white‐tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus or hare Lepus spp. populations were especially negative. Hunting and improved public awareness were considered the most effective methods to increase people's tolerance towards lynx and the damage they might cause. Stakeholders were interested in development of the existing damage compensation system and clear rules concerning management of problem individuals. In contrast to hunters, conservationists emphasised the conservation status of lynx and rejected the idea of population regulation through hunting. Many aspects of management were accepted by all stakeholders; other aspects were more controversial. To resolve the conflict between stakeholders regarding lynx management, compromise and cooperation will be required from stakeholders holding conflicting views. This may aid lynx management and also the conservation of the species in Finland in the future.

No abstract