A Wolf at the Gate: The Anti‐Carnivore Alliance and the Symbolic Construction of Community

Abstract

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.

The good bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict

“…In regions of scattered settlement, hunting is a way of life, and the wolf is considered a threat to this traditional way of life as well as to the quality of life. Similar sentiments have also been reported in Norway (Skogen and Krange 2003), and in Sweden, wolves have hindered hunting with dogs (Ericsson and Heberlein 2003). From a historical point of view, this traditional way of life and hunting was introduced as late as the end of the 1800s, during a period when the wolf was virtually eliminated from forests.…”

“…These conflicts share certain characteristics, usually with the return and growth of the wolf population eliciting demands to reduce the population and its growth. Such a discussion has been common in Finland and Scandinavia, the United States and several European countries (Fritts et al 2003;Skogen and Krange 2003;Skogen et al 2008;Ericsson et al 2004;Bisi et al 2007). Demands to slow the growth of the wolf population have led to a discussion over acceptable methods to achieve this purpose.…”

“…In Scandinavia, in both Norway and Sweden, where wolves have returned concomitantly to Finland, hunters have been willing to engage in wolf hunting (Skogen and Krange 2003;Ericsson et al 2004). This demand is connected to problems associated with hunting with dogs in wolf-occupied areas.…”

Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts

“…The protection of carnivores by law in the 1970s was perceived by some other rural inhabitants as being a national government imposed decision, where 'external forces' permitted the recolonization of Norway by large carnivores (Skogen & Krange 2003;Kleiven et al 2004). This opposition to central authorities may be absent or less important in Sweden, where it is more customary to determine policy at a national level (Otterlei & Sande 2010).…”

Social-Natural Landscape Reorganised: Swedish Forest-edge Farmers and Wolf Recovery

“…Skogen & Krange 2003;Wilson 1997). Although pro-wolf groups promote fauna diversity, other interest groups maintain that other 'heritage' values-not just those of the predator biodiversity-must be increasingly recognised in the discourse on environmental conservation (cf.…”