Controversies over the return of large carnivores (e.g. wolves) are often interpreted as clashes between rural traditionalism and urban modernity. Rural communities, however, have never been culturally monolithic, and modernization increases their diversity. However, the popular image is one of rural communities united against vermin and urban romantics. An important reason for this is probably the successful construction of the anti‐carnivore front as a last line of defence against destructive forces threatening rural life. Drawing on examples from a study in Østerdalen, Norway, the struggle against wolf protection is discussed as an instance of symbolic construction of community. Images of a threatened community are vital to the self‐understanding of the wolf adversaries, but cleavages run through the alliance. Three principal groups may be identified: sheep farmers, landowners who lease hunting, and people with strong ties to traditional land use practices (primarily hunting) and a rural working‐class culture. These groups have not always been allies, and conflicts of interest run through the ‘resistance front’. The task here is to identify the social forces that now bring them together, and to explain why the carnivore issue is well suited as a significant component in their symbolic construction of community.

Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top-down 'command and control' approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top-down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas collaborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts.

Due to strict protection through the last decades, wolves have returned to many areas from which they have been absent for a long time. This is a conservation success story, but the wolves also cause conflicts wherever they arrive. We have studied the situation in southeastern Norway and in the French Alps, where the conflict patterns are similar. Diverging interpretations of the situation are supported by narratives, and two varieties have become increasingly significant in both countries. Rumors about the secret reintroduction of wolves are common among wolf adversaries. Another narrative, important to the pro‐wolf camp, is based on the notion that particular sheep husbandry practices (unattended rough grazing) are unique to either Norway or France—whereas there are in fact more similarities than differences. Yet, while the reintroduction‐conspiracy rumors are ridiculed, the notion of unique national conflict patterns has achieved a status almost of official truth. Furthermore, the story about natural wolf recovery is itself a value‐laden narrative, and not only “scientific fact.” The different status of these narratives tell us something about power relations: Given their different social basis, it seems relevant to consider the national uniqueness image and the natural recovery theory as tightly interwoven with symbolic power and the reintroduction conspiracy rumors as similarly interwoven with patterns of cultural resistance.

Controversies over large carnivores are often interpreted as clashes between rural traditionalism and urban modernity. Rural communities, however, have never been culturally monolithic, and modernization will increase the diversity. To probe such diverse and changing attitudes towards nature, I conducted a qualitative study of young people in a rural community in eastern Norway. Contrary to popular images of such communities as unified against "pests," all typical views of the carnivore issue were present. Those in favor of the large carnivores were typically middle-class youths with a strong "outward" orientation, while those who wanted to shoot the predators were mostly working-class boys with strong ties to the local hunting culture. This pattern was interpreted as a conflict between dominant and subordinate forms of knowledge, and between abstraction-oriented and production-oriented cultural forms. Aside from the growth of the pro-carnivore middle-class segments, the most significant effect of modernization appeared to be the removal of many young people from the subject matter of the conflict. A "subculturalization" of the working-class hunting culture also could be discerned, however.After decades of protection, the four species of large carnivores found in mainland Norway (brown bear, lynx, wolverine, and wolf) are now slowly recovering from the brink of extinction. This development is applauded by environmentalists, managers, biologists, and many politicians. Opinion polls also indicate enthusiasm in a majority of the general population. Increasing carnivore populations have spurred fierce conflicts, however. Livestock depredation and competition for huntable game are key issues, but the killing of hunting dogs and the possibility of attacks on people also feature in the controversies.In the public debate it is often suggested that this is a conflict representing a clash between old and new perspectives on nature, or rural traditionalism and urban modernity. Whereas this seems to touch some core issues, we know little about the operative mechanisms. In particular, we know little of how young people are handling such issues. According to other popular images, supported by current sociological theory on individualization in late

No abstract