Bath, A. J. and LCIE. Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes, France. Bath, A. J. 1-133. 2000. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dep. of Geography, St. John's, Nfld, Canada, France LIFE-Nature Project "Le retour du loup dans les Alpes Françaises" and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE).

Keywords: 8FR/acceptance of predators/Alps/Canis lupus/Carnivora/communication/ human/human dimension/Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe/Malme/management policy/predator-human conflict/public attitude/public awareness/public education/public involvement/Savoie/Wolf/wolves

Abstract: This report examines public attitudes toward and beliefs about wolves and wolf management in two provinces in France: Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes. This report presents results that address overall attitudes toward wolves, attitudes toward hunting wolves and other management options, attitudes toward wolf-livestock conflicts, beliefs about wolves and their impacts, public knowledge about wolf biology, the nature of conflicts, personal experience with wolves, and socio-demographic characteristics. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from November 1999 to March 2000. Residents of Savoie (n=403) and Des Alpes Maritimes (n=397) were randomly selected proportional to population (omitting the large urban centers) and interviewed using a quantitative research instrument consisting of 69 items. While Savoie residents held more positive attitudes toward wolves than Des Alpes Maritimes residents, both believed it was important to maintain wolf populations in France for future generations. In Savoie 54% of residents agreed or strongly agreed with maintaining wolf populations in France for future generations, 33% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 13% were neutral. In Des Alpes Maritimes 45% of residents supported the statement, 42% opposed, and 13% were neutral.

Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes, France

Results targeted toward designing a more effective communication campaign and building better public awareness materials

August 2000

Report produced by:

Dr. Alistair Bath, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Department of Geography, St. John's, Nfld, Canada. A1B 3X9

Funding provided through the France LIFE-Nature Project Le Retour Du Loup Dans Les Alpes Françaises and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCI) Executive Summary

Human Dimensions in Wolf Management in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes, France: Results targeted toward designing a more effective communication campaign and building better public awareness materials

§ Understanding and addressing wolf management in France requires an understanding of the human dimension of the wolf management equation; the issue is more socio- political in nature than biological.

§ This report examines public attitudes toward and beliefs about wolves and wolf management in two provinces in France: Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes. This report presents results that address overall attitudes toward wolves, attitudes toward hunting wolves and other management options, attitudes toward wolf-livestock conflicts, beliefs about wolves and their impacts, public knowledge about wolf biology, the nature of conflicts, personal experience with wolves, and socio-demographic characteristics.

§ The overall purpose of the study is to establish a baseline assessment of public attitudes toward and beliefs about wolves and will allow for a later assessment of possible attitude and belief change after the implementation of a communication and public awareness campaign. By understanding the variables influencing attitudes, the communication and awareness campaign can design specific types of messages for particular target audiences.

§ Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from November 1999 to March 2000. Residents of Savoie (n=403) and Des Alpes Maritimes (n=397) were randomly selected proportional to population (omitting the large urban centers) and interviewed using a quantitative research instrument consisting of 69 items. Smaller samples of hunters from Savoie (n=22), environmental group members from Savoie (n=88) and Des Alpes Maritimes (n=86), and students (ages 13-16) from Des Alpes Maritimes (n=95) were also administered the quantitative questionnaire.

§ Qualitative interviews occurred with 23 different interest groups from the two provinces. The purpose of these interviews was to construct a common ground matrix (CGM) and thus identify key issues, possible solutions, and build trust and a willingness to work together between the interest groups.

§ While Savoie residents held more positive attitudes toward wolves than Des Alpes Maritimes residents, both believed it was important to maintain wolf populations in France for future generations. In Savoie 54% of residents agreed or strongly agreed with maintaining wolf populations in France for future generations, 33% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 13% were neutral. In Des Alpes Maritimes 45% of residents supported the statement, 42% opposed, and 13% were neutral.

§ Most Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes residents believe wolves would cause a significant impact on large and small game animals, and yet, most residents in both provinces oppose any form of hunting of wolves. This being said, residents do appear to be sensitive to livestock concerns and entertain some form of management if necessary.

§ Most residents believe farmers should be paid compensation for losses due to wolves, but stated clearly that only those farmers who used preventative measures against wolves should receive this compensation thus indicating that residents in both provinces want to see coexistence of wolves and people.

§ Knowledge about wolves remains low with all interest groups and the general public in both provinces. Most respondents overestimated the total number of wolves in France considerably often believing there were hundreds of wolves present. What makes this finding even more interesting is that even with beliefs of many more wolves than actually exist, there is still support for the conservation of the species within France by most respondents.

§ Many residents and members of interest groups also still have a strong fear of the animal indicating they would be afraid to hike in the woods if wolves were present. This is interesting given that 17% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents and nearly 9% of Savoie residents claim they have seen a wild wolf; percentages that appear high given the small numbers of wolves in France.

§ Residents of Des Alpes Maritimes indicated a much stronger interest in the issue of wolves and wolf management in France, a much stronger interest in learning more about wolves, and believed the issue was more important than their Savoie counterparts believed.

§ Results from the common ground matrix (CGM) indicated that the most important issues for the interest groups were: livestock depredation issues, maintaining a pastoral lifestyle, and identifying and implementing livestock protection measures. Livestock protection measures were also mentioned as one of the most common solutions.

§ All interest groups expressed a willingness to share information and continue to work together to better understand and address the issues facing wolves and wolf management in France. Keeping open lines of communication will be important to gain trust from interest groups. Mistrust exists within the general public and interest groups; for example, most respondents do believe that wolves were actively reintroduced into the country.

§ Results from the small sample of students suggest that while many are positive toward wolves, a large percentage of students remain neutral toward wolves. This group could be influenced by targeted communication messages as they form their attitudes toward wolves.

§ This report presents the results of this first quantitative assessment of attitudes and beliefs toward wolves in France. A second report will be produced to assess whether attitudes and beliefs change after implementation of the targeted communication effort. Such a pre and post design will be one of the first implemented anywhere in Europe on large carnivores.

Dr. Alistair Bath, Dept. of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF, Canada, A1B 3X9 Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Nature of human dimensions research ...... 7

Characteristics of the study area ...... 11

Methodology ...... 15 Qualitative issues ...... 15 Quantitative issues ...... 18

Results ...... 29 About the sample ...... 29 Attitudes toward the wolf ...... 37 Attitudes toward hunting-related issues ...... 47 Underlying beliefs about wolves and their impact ...... 54 Understanding biological facts and the nature of conflict ...... 60 Beliefs about wolf-livestock issues ...... 74 Qualitative results based on the Common Ground Matrix (CGM) ...... 89 Agricultural issues ...... 94 Communication ...... 95 Mistrust ...... 97 Biological issues ...... 98 Mortality ...... 99 Political ...... 100 Tourism ...... 101 Hunting ...... 102 Using CGM to explore key issues by group and province ...... 103 Using CGM to explore possible solutions ...... 106

Some quantitative results from interest groups ...... 110

Implications of findings for future communication efforts ...... 118 Key findings ...... 120 Implications of CGM for communication efforts ...... 125

Conclusion ...... 126

Appendix 1 ...... 128

References ...... 142

iv List of Tables

Table 1: Time Table: A brief history of wolves in France ...... 3

Table 2: Biophysical Characteristics of Des Alpes-Maritimes and Savoie ...... 13

Table 3: Populations and Sample Sizes for each Canton in the department of Alpes-Maritimes, France. Communes found within each Canton are listed ...... 20

Table 4: Populations and Sample Sizes for each Canton in the department of Savoie , France. Communes found within each Canton are listed...... 21

Table 5: Attitudinal and belief items used in HD study ...... 26

Table 6: Age ...... 30

Table 7: Have you ever seen a wolf in captivity? ...... 31

Table 8: Have you ever seen a wolf in the wild? ...... 31

Table 9: Do you feel concerned by the issue of the management of the return of the wolf in France and by the management solutions that will be proposed? ...... 33

Table 10: Will you remain informed of the solutions that will be proposed in response to the management of the return of the wolf in France with: ....35

Table 11: Would you like to receive more information on the issue of management of the return of the wolf in France? ...... 36

Table 12: Which of the following statements best describes your feeling toward wolves? ...... 38

Table 13: The presence of wolves in France is, for you: ...... 39

Table 14: The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes is, for you: ...... 40

Table 15: It is important to maintain wolf populations in France for future generations...... 40

Table 16: It is important to maintain wolf populations in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes for future generations...... 42

Table 17: It is important to have viable wolf populations in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes. . ..42

Table 18: We should assure an abundant population of wolves for future generations...... 43

v Table 19: If I have the opportunity or not to see a wolf, what is important for me is to know that they exist in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes...... 45

Table 20: It is not necessary to have wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes because there are already viable populations in other regions of Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes...... 46

Table 21: It is not necessary to have wolves in France because there are already viable populations in other European countries...... 46

Table 22: Wolves have a considerable impact on large game...... 47

Table 23: Wolves have a considerable impact on small game...... 48

Table 24: Wolves reduce populations of moufflons and chamois to unacceptable levels ...... 49

Table 25: In Savoie/Alpes-Maritime, we should be authorized to hunt wolves during the legal hunting season ...... 50

Table 26: In Savois / Des Alpes Maritimes, we should be authorized to hunt wolves year-round...... 51

Table 27: In Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, wolves should be killed by any means necessary, including killing pups in their dens or by poisoning. ....51

Table 28: Wolves help maintain an equilibrium among populations of large wild mammals ...... 52

Table 29: Wolves should remain completely protected in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes ...52

Table 30: Wolves should remain completely protected in France...... 54

Table 31: The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes favors tourism in the department...... 56

Table 32: Wolf attacks on man are more frequent in regions where wolves live in close proximity to humans...... 57

Table 33: I would be afraid to hike in forests where wolves were present ...... 58

Table 34: In your opinion, which of the following animals are most dangerous to man? ...... 58

Table 35: Wolves were reintroduced in France...... 59

Table 36: Wolves have returned naturally to France via Italy...... 60

Table 37: At one time, historically, there were wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes ....62

Table 38: Are wolves protected in France? ...... 63

vi Table 39: Is it true that generally only two members of the pack (1 dominant pair) reproduce each year? ...... 64

Table 40: What is the success rate for wolves with respect to the capture of wild prey? ...... 65

Table 41: In France, what is the average size of a pack of wolves? ...... 66

Table 42: In France, what is the average weight of a male adult wolf? ...... 66

Table 43: Presently in France, how many wolves exist? ...... 67

Table 44: Presently in Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes, how many wolves exist? ...... 70

Table 45: The number of wolves in France (population status) is: ...... 71

Table 46: The number of wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes (population status) is: ...71

Table 47: I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in France ...... 72

Table 48: We already have enough wolves in France...... 73

Table 49: I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes ...... 73

Table 50: We already have enough wolves in Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes...... 74

Table 51: Wolves cause much damage to livestock ...... 75

Table 52: In regions where wolves live in close proximity to livestock, they feed primarily on domestic animals...... 76

Table 53: In your opinion, how many sheep and other domestic animals were killed by wolves last year in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes? ...... 77

Table 54: Wolves attack sheep only if there are not enough wild prey available ...... 79

Table 55: Wolves kill sheep out of cruelty, not for nourishment...... 80

Table 56: I would agree with killing the wolf or wolves responsible for attacks on sheep...... 81

Table 57: I would be willing to contribute financially to a compensation program for livestock owners for their loss of animals due to wolves ...... 81

Table 58: Livestock owners situated in a zone where wolves are present should receive a fixed subsidy rather than compensations for occasional losses caused by wolf attacks...... 83

vii Table 59: Compensations given under attack circumstances should only be provided to livestock owners who use prevention measures to avoid wolf attacks (nocturnal regrouping, surveillance by a shepherd, or by guard dogs) ...... 83

Table 60: Livestock owners who lose animals because of wolf attacks should receive compensation...... 84

Table 61: I would like for my taxes to be used to compensate the damages to livestock caused by wolves...... 84

Table 62: The Minister of Agriculture should provide compensations to livestock owners for damages to livestock caused by wolves...... 85

Table 63: The Minister of Environment should provide compensations to livestock owners for damages to livestock caused by wolves...... 86

Table 64: Livestock owners should be obliged to attain insurance in order to insure protection against wolf attacks ...... 87

Table 65: The government should pay this insurance on behalf of the livestock owners...... 88

Table 66: A wolf hunt should be authorized in the department of Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes ...... 88

Table 67: Interest groups and their corresponding CGM number for matrix interpretation ...... 90

Table 68: Number of key issues per interest group ...... 91

Table 69: Comparisons between Alpes-Maritimes and Savoie interest groups with respect to key issues ...... 104

Table 70: Number of solutions proposed by key interest group ...... 107

viii Introduction

Wolves were eradicated in France at the beginning of the 20th century as negative

attitudes toward this large carnivore were strong. Such negative attitudes translated

into an aggressive eradication effort targeted at the wolf, a species at that time

perceived by many as a beast of waste and desolation. Support for the eradication

effort was nearly unanimous; public attitudes were negative, partly because of the

lack of knowledge about the species, and partly because of the perceived danger the

animal posed to humans and livestock. The wolf was and still remains a species of

many myths and misinformation. Until recently, questioning whether attitudes

toward wolves in France had changed was irrelevant as there were no wolves in the

country, but today after many years without wolves, France has now seen the return

of the large carnivore, Canis lupus to several of its provinces.

The first wolves were seen in the fall of 1992 in Mercantour National Park by Park

and National Office of Forestry guards while conducting a survey of the park’s

ungulate population. Since 1992, the wolf has expanded its range from Des Alpes

Maritimes to the neighboring provinces of Alpes de Haute, Hautes-Alpes, Var, Isère,

Savoie and Drôme. The estimated population today is approximately 30 individuals,

possibly in five packs.

The wolf is currently legally protected in France through international law, European

law and French law. The wolf is protected under international law, primarily, under

the Bern convention. Specifically, the wolf is protected under the conservation of

wildlife and natural habitats of Europe heading, and notably the articles 6 and 9

reinforced by recommendation 17 (1989) adopted on the 8th of December 1989 by

the permanent committee that studies the application of the Bern convention. In

1 addition, the wolf is protected through European Law by articles 12 and 16 of directive 92/43/CEE. Finally, under French law the wolf is protected by article L.211-

1 of the Rural Code issued into law 10th of July 1976 with respect to the protection of nature and modified by law numbers 95-101 the 2nd of February 1995; the latter relates to the reinforcement of the protection of the environment. Article L.211-2 of the above code issued in the decree in the Conseil d’etat 77-1295 on the 25th of

November 1977 also reinforces the wolf’s protection. The “arrete interministerial” of the 17th of April 1981, modified by an “arrete interministerial” of the 22nd of July 1993, and lastly by another on the 10th of October 1996 included Canis lupus in its list of protected animal species. Management of the wolf in France is being actively discussed once again and recently (spring 2000) a wolf Action Plan for France was drafted recommending a zoning system. This would mean there would be areas where wolves would be protected and other areas where some form of management of the species would be allowed. While habitat and current land use will certainly be two variables considered in this zoning system, public attitudes toward the wolf over space will also be considered.

In the past eight years as the wolf population in France has grown, attitudes and actions, both in favor and against the wolf, have been exhibited by the general public and special interest groups (Table 1). The agricultural community has held protests in the streets. In 1997, after approximately 150 sheep were killed, angry shepherds paraded 2000 sheep down the Promenade des Anglais

2 Table 1 Time Table: A brief history of wolves in France

Year Wolves: # of # of attacks Administrative action “Pro” action “Anti” action Press individuals (# of (# of attacks packs) compensated )

1900 Disappearance of wolves from France

1949 First release of Moufflons in PNM

1987 “Bete de Fontan” - approx. 300 hybrid killed wolf hybrid sheep killed

1992 1st observation of wolves in PNM

1993 2 (1) 10(36) • Official announcement by Demand, from Chambre Official announcement government - return of wolf d’Agriculture, real circumstances - return of wolf - “Terre • Total protection of wolf surrounding “natural” return of wolf Sauvage” • Genetic analysis - wolf pop. from Italy • PNM - tracking wolves & proposal of financial and technical aid for shepherds

1994 +10 (2) 51 (192)

1995 +12 (2) 104 (441) • PNM - educational efforts: public • Shepherds place stickers and National poll indicates & schools signs on hiking trails - St- 79% of population in Saveur-sur-Tinee favour of wolf • Numerous demonstrations, conferences, meetings of shepherds/livestock owners Time Table: A brief history of wolves in France

Year Wolves: # of # of attacks Administrative action “Pro” action “Anti” action Press individuals (# of (# of attacks packs) compensated )

1996 (4) 193 (796) • Proposals to change • ‘ Freres des loups -- explosion of • Vie agricole journal management of consults to wolf bridge: “Chasseurs de Merde”, announces: wolves attacks by DDAF in AM “Hunters killers”, “Caccias were re-introduced • Idea of zoning introduced (Min Merda”. • Genetic analyses Env., Min Agri.) conducted at Univ. • Creation of national committee Grenoble reveals on presence of wolf Italian origin of • Reaffirmation of protection of wolf wolves (Bern, wolf is a protected species ‘arrete)

1997 Transitory presence 194 (789) • LIFE-loup program started - ONC • 2000 sheep paraded on • Press announces of wolves in responsible for start-up, DDAF of Promenade des Anglais as DNA proof of wolves Maurienne Valley - AM coordinates field activity of protest by shepherds in Maurienne, SAVOIE group responsable for • Operational protocol of ONC - killing 150 sheep capture of 2 wolves, attack prevention measures - this given green light by Minister of Environment

1998 CAttested presence in Total (Alps) = • Interministerial mission on the • Large • Documentation for national • Press announces Belledone - SAVOIE 299 (1206) wolf - Pierre Braque meeting strategy for wolf conservation presence of wolves C17-20 (4-5) • 1st meeting - national committee of brought to table by committee on in Dauphine, on the wolf national the wolf, rejected by agricultural Belledone, Isere and • Total reimbursement of LIFE to scientific organizations Savoie livestock owners for year = 1 451 committe • Another large demonstration • Press announces 934 FF e on wolf against wolf presence - this time wolves responsable at Lyon for Belledone attacks

1999 C30(5) 407(unknown/ • Release of Chevalier and • Continuation of mass missing) Braque reports - the first of demonstrations, protests of which states :“cohabitation livestock owners against wolf between wolves and livestock presence - statement of unified raising not possible”, the agricultural unions given as to second: toward a zoning of the the impossibility of cohabitation wolf Time Table: A brief history of wolves in France

Year Wolves: # of # of attacks Administrative action “Pro” action “Anti” action Press individuals (# of (# of attacks packs) compensated )

2000 • Ministries of Agriculture and Fishery & Environment and Lands release “ Plan for the Preservation of Pastoralism and the Wolf”, which includes the suggestion of zoning, further scientific studies, and financing for prevention/protection, compensation, & other pastoral aids

Sources for # of wolves, # of packs, # of attacks, # of attacks compensated: 1) Programme Life: Protection des grands carnivores en Europe: le loup en France. 2) Direction Departementale de l’Agriculture et de la Foret des Alpes-Maritimes: Service de l’economie agricole et de l’amenagement rural 3) Publication by Life: “BilanLoup’99" 4) Webpage: Ministre de l’Amenagement du territoire et de l’environnement - www.environnement.gouv.fr demanding for some form of wolf management. Some of those in favor of wolves took stronger action; in 1996, a group, frères des loups exploded a bridge to protest hunters attitudes and actions toward wolves. In 1998, the scientific community held a national meeting to discuss issues surrounding wolf management. The debate in the last eight years seems to be growing in intensity. Understanding attitudes and knowledge levels toward wolves representative of the entire resource constituency is of utmost importance. Wildlife managers and government officials need to have scientific data to allow them to balance views heard by the loud minorities and truly understand how the majority of residents feel about the issue. It is within this societal context that this human dimension in wolf management project was initiated.

The wolf is believed to have come to southern France through the Alps from Italy, with the first two wolves seen in 1992. Genetic analysis has confirmed that the wolves in France have come from Italy. This being said, there is a lot of mistrust and beliefs about how the wolves got to France in the first place. Many residents in

Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes believe individuals who like wolves restored wolves actively. This belief continues to cause a mistrust of authority by many groups, an example of a behavioral conflict which needs to be addressed using means other than educational programs focused upon facts. While how wolves made it back to

France may be debatable amongst various interest groups, the return of the wolf to areas where it had been eradicated for nearly one hundred years has stirred emotions across many interest groups. For some, the return of the large carnivore to parts of its former range has generated positive feelings as opportunities now exist to hear a howl, to see paw prints, and to know that ungulates may again be affected by this predator. For others, the return of the wolf means a new competitor for limited game hunting opportunities, a threat to livestock, and a threat to human

6 safety. For a government charged with the management of the species there is a

need to determine how widespread these attitudes are and the knowledge levels of

the various publics. Without understanding the existing knowledge levels, extent and

nature of the attitudes, and those beliefs most directly linked to attitude, it is difficult

to design an effective communication campaign, appropriate awareness material,

and manage the resource for the entire constituency.

Nature of human dimensions research

Today, successful wildlife management involves not only an understanding of the

biology of the species and its habitat, but also an understanding of public attitudes

toward and knowledge about the species, and attitudes toward possible

management approaches to the species. The human dimension of wildlife resource

management is particularly important to understand when designing and

implementing management plans for large carnivores, which often arouse conflicting

emotions among the general public. Indeed, large carnivore management is often

more a socio-political issue than a biological one (Bath 1998). Wolf populations and

their conservation in France appear to be highly dependent upon human factors

more than biological factors; these human aspects of the wildlife resource

management equation need to be understood through a scientific and objective

process for successful wolf conservation to occur in France. Successful wolf

conservation is defined as the ability to implement a wolf management plan that has

the support of the general public and most interest groups.

While wildlife management by definition has for many years realized that there is

indeed a human dimension to successfully implementing species action and

management plans, integrating human dimensions into daily decision-making

7 remains a challenge for many wildlife agencies. In North America, Aldo Leopold, considered the founder of wildlife management, stated in 1943 that deer management was more about managing the people than managing the deer. Since those early statements, the human dimension in wildlife management is becoming increasingly integrated into wildlife management planning and decision-making in

North America and with some very positive results. Wolf restoration efforts in

Yellowstone National Park included a HD component, which was important in understanding the amount of support that existed for wolf restoration, and the reasons why people were in favor or against wolf restoration (Bath 1991, Bath 1989,

Bath and Buchanan 1989). This latter data were useful in designing effective educational efforts and working toward conflict resolution. Involving the public in the early development of a management plan was also the key to a successful wolf management plan for the Yukon, Canada. The Yukon Department of Renewable

Resources implemented a controversial wolf management plan that contained measures for wolf control. Human dimensions research was also integrated into decision-making regarding polar bear management and a proposed national park in

Churchill, Manitoba (Bath 1994). The integration of human dimension research into wildlife management issues in Europe is still relatively new. This project is the first quantitative HD in wolf management study representative of a large area in France, the provinces of Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes.

Human dimensions research “focuses on the public’s knowledge levels, expectations, attitudes and activities concerning fish and wildlife resources and associated habitats. There is a close tie between human dimensions and conservation education research” (Adams 1988). Human dimensions research can address various objectives:

8 • Baseline assessment to begin attitudinal and belief monitoring – has an educational effort, management policy, made a difference?

• Educational role – targeting specific weaknesses in knowledge to affect attitudes. Working toward designing more effective educational materials.

• Building partnerships – bringing groups together around a common data set. Working toward understanding the issues of a variety of interest groups, building trust, and initiating the first steps toward working together.

• Identification of areas of support and disagreement over management options, thus assessing the feasibility of approaches being successfully implemented.

• Identification of types of conflict (cognitive, values, costs/benefits, and behavioural conflicts) – the first step toward conflict resolution.

As the first quantitative HD in wolf management study in France, one purpose of the project is to establish a baseline assessment of attitudes and beliefs toward wolves and their possible management at a time when the wolf population is relatively low and less information has been communicated to the publics about wolves. This will allow for the evaluation of the effect of any future communication and public awareness efforts. It will also provide an understanding of how attitudes and beliefs change in relation to changes in the biological population, numbers of livestock damages, number of eco-tourism and economic opportunities, changes in legislation managing the wolf, and other social and economic conditions within the region.

The study will also examine the variables influencing attitudes. Understanding the factors affecting attitudes is an initial step toward influencing such attitudes through a communication campaign and public awareness materials. If managers can understand the nature of the attitudes held, it is then possible to develop appropriate messages to address the concerns causing those attitudes. These factors could include belief or lack of knowledge about the wolf, but could also include more complex issues involving economic concerns and mistrust of authorities. Various procedures can be used to explore these issues.

9 The primary purpose of this study however, is to identify knowledge levels and those beliefs most directly related to attitude so to offer recommendations directly to a communication officer for the wolf issue. What kinds of information/messages are important and need to be communicated? What do people already know, not know, and definitely need to know about wolves and their management? Understanding existing knowledge levels will ensure educational efforts are not targeted too low, too high, or on items that are not important in influencing attitudes. These messages may differ for each target audience requiring different programs and different amounts of time invested with certain publics. Certain publics may hold more neutral attitudes on certain items suggesting they could be influenced with information focused on those particular items. Providing a better understanding of the belief system and underlying issues affecting attitudes will allow for the design of an effective and efficient communication and public awareness campaign.

10 Characteristics of the study area

The Life – Nature project is focussed upon ten provinces in the French Alps. While

a human dimension study over the entire area would provide valuable information,

it was necessary to focus the study to a much smaller study area due to time and

financial constraints. The selection of the study area for the HD project was based

upon several factors, generally classified under the headings of biophysical and

human characteristics. Some of these characteristics will be discussed in more

detail shortly. Through discussions with individuals involved in the LIFE project and

a facilitated meeting focused on HD issues, two provinces were selected for the HD

study: Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie. By selecting these provinces, data could

be gathered from one province in the northern part of the LIFE project study area and

from one province in the southern part of the project area. While results can’t be

generalized to the entire LIFE project area, choosing a northern and southern

province could provide insight to possible differences that might occur between

northern and southern parts of the Alps.

The landscape of France and the provinces of Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie have

changed considerably over the last two centuries. Pre-agricultural revolution, France

was heavily forested; deciduous forests consisting primarily of beeches and oaks

dominated the landscape. In the temperate mountainous zones, there were

primarily firs and spruce. Also, in the Mediterranean zone pines and oaks were the

dominant species. The forested landscape was reduced considerably in favor of

intensive agriculture, and by the end of the 19th century much of the forests and

wildlife within those forests had been eliminated. An increase in environmental

awareness, and legislation protecting forest habitat implemented in the 20th century

11 have resulted in today’s landscape where forests occupy approximately 25% of the total land area in France.

The province of Des Alpes Maritimes is a unique region in France as it is the only area where the Alpine Arc plunges into the Mediterranean. The north-south oriented barrier of the Alps is influenced by both easterly and westerly air masses. In this zone, within only 40-50 km of the Mediterranean Sea, elevation changes from sea level to almost 3000 meters. In contrast, Savoie is located directly central to the

French Alpine Arc. This area has jagged, snow-covered ridges with peaks much farther apart than the close Alps found in Des Alpes Maritimes. In Savoie, the high altitude mountains are dry and more exposed to erosion than the peaks in Des Alpes

Maritimes, partly as a result of being less forested. Some of these biophysical characteristics are generalized for the two provinces in Table 2.

The human landscape has changed considerably in Des Alpes Maritimes and

Savoie over the last two centuries. At the end of the 19th century, Nice, the capital of Des Alpes Maritimes became the gateway to the Alps with a strong rural/communal economy within the province. Important trade routes existed for commercial goods oriented north - south between Nice and the Arriere-Pays.

12 Table 2

Biophysical Characteristics of Des Alpes-Maritimes and Savoie

Characteristic Alpes-Maritimes Savoie

Average temperature July - 23 degrees celsius General description of Savoie: “a temperate mountain country that is January - 5 degrees celsius humid with more or less cold winters and warm summers”

Average precipitation July - less than 25mm High alps valleys - 25mm on average

Common flora & where Olive, evergreen oak - found Grape vines found at lower altitude, found in Lower Provence (southern fir dominates the montane mid- region of Alpes-Maritimes) range, and finally grassy pastures lead to the snowy tips of most Beech, fir, pitch-pines, larch - mountain ranges found in montane region (northern, Mercantour region of Alpes-Maritimes)

Common fauna & where Bats, wolves, red fox, wild Bats, wolves, wild boar, Ibex, found boar, salamander, Ibex (a re- Chamois, snow voles, martens, introduced species - prefers badgers found throughout the sunlit cliffs), Moufflon, national park - Parc National de la Chamois (found on hillsides Vanoise. and pastures).

Geological Lower provence (southwestern Pre-alpine region (to west) primarily Characteristics Alpes-Maritimes) - limestone calcarious, central massifs primarily baous and ranges, Northeast granite of the department - primarily granite formations

Arable soil (%) 10 - 20% - not known

Primary agricultural Past - Lavender Past & Present - Vines occupy the form lower hillsides throughout Savoie, Present - pastoralism pastoralism present in higher mountain pastures (smaller flocks than Alpes-Maritimes)

Forest cover as 8.0 - 15% 8.0 - 15% percentage of total agricultural area

13 This agricultural economy did not last long, and as the economy shifted toward a stronger market economy, a dramatic shift in population from the rural areas

(Arriere-Pays) to Nice occurred. More than 80,000 individuals emigrated from the rural areas of the province to the Nicois region between 1911 and 1931. In Savoie, between 1861 and 1946, there was also a decline in the general population of

40,000. Interestingly however, by 1962 the population in Savoie had regained its former population of 1861. Both provinces continued to experience a shift from rural to urban areas throughout this period.

In 1945, the Confederation Generale de l’agriculture was founded, a union management organization that also created FNSEA (Federation Nationale des syndicates d’exploitants agricoles) and the CNJA (Cercle Nationale des Jeunes

Agriculteurs). The formation of these organizations resulted in union-led empowerment for agriculturalists in France. While the organizations could not stop the change in the agricultural economy and the rural to urban shift, they have played and continue to play, an important role in keeping agricultural issues as high profile issues within France. The organizations have also become key players in the wolf management debate and in getting government agencies to revitalize rural areas through additional subsidies.

Today, a pastoral lifestyle is practiced in Des Alpes Maritimes as part of a re- valorization program that began in the 1960s to revitalize rural parts of the province.

From a historical agricultural perspective, the province was primarily focused on cattle prior to this rural development initiative, but today through active subsidies the province consists mainly of sheep producers. In Savoie, this rural initiative appears not to have had as much an impact. Flocks in Savoie tend to be smaller than in Des

14 Alpes Maritimes, and agriculturalists in Savoie tend not to be as highly dependent on

just agriculture for their living as their counterparts in Des Alpes Maritimes. This is

interesting given the fact that Savoie is a much more rural province than Des Alpes

Maritimes. With a much smaller population (373,258 versus 1,011,326) Savoie has

approximately 85% of its population rural compared to only 4% in Des Alpes

Maritimes. This contrast of a rural versus an urban province was also a

consideration in the selection of Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes as the study area

for the HD project.

Methodology

Qualitative issues

A qualitative and quantitative approach was used to collect data for this HD in wolf

management in France study. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23

interest groups identified as key players in the wolf management debate in France.

These groups were identified based upon a set of criteria:

• Expressed interest in the wolf management issue in France

• Potential role in influencing decisions concerning wolf management

• Expressed interest in learning more about the nature of this HD study

• Expressed willingness to discuss issues openly, and

• Expressed willingness to begin to work together toward finding common ground between all interest groups and addressing key issues.

15 The interest groups who participated in the HD study were:

• LIFE project biologists

• Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages (ASPAS)

• Group Loup France (GLF)

• Federation Rhone-Alpes pour la protection de la nature (FRAPNA)

• France nature environnement (FNE)

• Federation de chasse – Alpes Maritimes

• Federation de chasse – Savoie

• Federation des chasseurs de haute montagne

• Lieutenant de Louveterie – Alpes-Maritimes

• Lieutenant de Louveterie – Savoie

• Federation departementale ovine Alpes-Maritimes (FDO - Alpes-Maritimes)

• Federation departementale ovine Savoie (FDO - Savoie)

• Federation departementale des syndicates d'exploitants agricoles Alpes-Maritimes (FDSEA - Alpes Maritimes)

• Federation departementale des syndicates d'exploitants agricoles Savoie (FDSEA - Savoie)

• Confederation departementale des jeunes agriculteurs Alpes-Maritimes (CDJA Alpes-Maritimes)

• Confederation departementale des jeunes agriculteurs Savoie (CDJA – Savoie)

• Chambre d'Agriculture Alpes-Maritimes

• Confederation Paysanne Alpes-Maritimes

• Mayor – St. Martin-Vesubie

• Directeur Adjoint – Parc National du Mercantour

• Direction regional de l'environnement, Provence-Alpes Cote d'Azur (DIREN – PACA)

16 • Vie agricole (newspaper in study region)

• Association randonnees pedestres

Representatives of each group, usually members at the executive board level of the organization, were contacted and interviewed by two members of the research team. These qualitative interviews usually lasted approximately two hours in length.

The length of the interview varied amongst the groups and depended upon the number of people involved from the organization and the interest shown. All groups interviewed expressed a great deal of interest in the study and in receiving the results. This bodes well for future cooperation toward understanding and addressing wolf management issues in France.

The purpose of the qualitative interviews was to gather data that could be used in the development of a common ground matrix (CGM). Basically, this is a matrix that illustrates the key issues and solutions from each group in a visual manner. The result allows for an assessment of the common issues and solutions between each group, basically the common ground, hence its name. A CGM provides a safe starting place for all groups as they see that there are issues of common concern.

The CGM also provides a starting point for working toward a common vision, common set of objectives, and a means to achieve that end. The qualitative interviews also provided an opportunity to inform the various interest groups about the nature of human dimensions in wildlife resource management, the objective nature of this project, and begin to build possible partners for future HD work and discussion concerning wolf management. Results of the qualitative interviews and presentation of the CGM is provided in the results section.

17 Quantitative issues

Obtaining representative data from residents of Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie that

could be generalized to the entire population was considered important in the design

of the HD study. To be able to generalize to a larger population and thus provide

managers with an accurate picture of public attitudes and knowledge levels toward

the issue and the ability to balance the viewpoints of vocal interest groups (both in

favor and against wolf restoration), a quantitative survey was implemented. Fowler

(1988) suggests that a “full-scale probability survey should be undertaken only after

it is certain that the information cannot be obtained in other ways and the need for

information is significant”. Considering this is the first large scale HD study of its

kind on wolf management issues in France and given the controversial nature of

managing this large carnivore, Fowler’s criteria is definitely met.

The quantitative methodological issues for this HD study will be discussed within a

framework suggested by Fowler (1988). The key issues are: the sampling frame

and chance of selection, sampling procedure, questionnaire design and pre-testing,

exact wording of the items, interview process, field results and quality control

checking.

A sampling frame “is the set of people that has a chance to be selected, given the

sampling approach that is chosen” (Fowler 1988). Residents of Savoie and Des

Alpes Maritimes usually over 18 years of age were eligible to participate in the study.

Residents from the large urban areas such as Nice were omitted from the sampling

frame. Random sampling proportional to canton population occurred to ensure a

sample representative of the entire region. The number of completed questionnaires

18 required by each canton was calculated by taking the population numbers (over 18 years old) for the canton multiplied by the percentage of the total population to obtain an overall sample of 400 respondents per province. A sample size of 400 was chosen per province to allow for results to be accurate 19 times out of 20, plus or minus five percent. Such a sample size results in a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval, an acceptable standard in social science research. To achieve this level of accuracy a minimum sample of 384 is actually needed but “in practice most researchers attempt to obtain about 400 completed responses as usually a few questionnaires must be discarded during analysis” (Sheskin 1985). Tables 3 and 4 indicate the sample sizes needed and obtained from the various cantons within each province.

19 Table 3: Populations and Sample Sizes for each Canton in the department of Alpes-Maritimes, France. Communes found within each Canton are listed

Canton: Communes: Echantillon/Sample Size: Population (18 yrs +):

Breil-sur-Roya: Breil-sur-Roya, Fontan, Saorge 34 2758

Besaudun-les-Alpes, Bouyon, Cipières, Consegudes, Coursegoules: 23 1728 Coursegoules, Ferres, Greolières, Roquesteron-Grasse

Beuil, Chateauneuf d’Entraunes, Dalius, Entraunes, Guillaumes: 29 2181 Guillaumes, Péone, St. Martin d’Entraunes, Sauze,

Ascros, Auvare, Croix-sur-Roudoule, Rigaud, St. Antonin, Puget-Théniers: 31 2386 Penne, Puget-Rostane, Puget-Théniers, St. Léger

Roquebillière: Bélvèdre, Bollène-Vésubie, Roquebillière 27 2375

Bonson, Cuébris, Gilette, Pierre Feu, Tourette-sur- Roquesteron: 41 3253 Château, Revest-les-Roches, Roquesteron, Sigale,

Aiglun, Amirat, Andon, Briançonnet, Collongues, Gars, Saint-Auban: 24 1919 Caille, Monjoules, St. Auban, Sallagriffon, Seranon,

Saint-Etienne-de-Tinée: Isola, St-Delmas-le-Selvage, St-Etienne-de-Tinée 27 2177

Saint-Martin-Vésubie: St-Martin-Vesubie, Venanson 16 1221

Clans, Ilonse, Marie, Rimplas, Roubion, Roure, St-Saveur- Saint-Saveur-sur-Tinée: 26 2106 sur-Tinee, Valdeblore

Sospel: Castillon, Moulinet, Sospel 44 3416

Lantosque: Lantosque, Utelle 19 1467

Biavols, Lieuche, Malaussene, Massoins, Pierlas, Thiery, Villars-sur-Var: 27 2124 Touet-sur-Var, Tour, Tournefort, Villars-sur-Var

Tende: La Brigue, Tende 32 2479 Table 4: Populations and Sample Sizes for each Canton in the department of Savoie , France. Communes found within each Canton are listed.

Echantillon/Sample Population (18 Canton Communes Size yrs+)

Aiguebelle, Aiton, Argentine, St-George-les-Hurtieres, St- Aiguebelle: Pierre-de-Belleville, Bonvillaret, Epierre, Montgilbert, 5 4966 Montsapey, Randens, St-Alban-les-Hurtieres, St-Leger

Aime, Bellentre, Mont-Giraud, La Cote d’Aime, Granier, Aime: 10 8576 Peisy-Nancroix, Landry, Macot-la-Plagne, Valezan

Albens, Biolle, St-Ourse, Cessens, Epersy, Mongnard, Albens: 6 6512 St-Germain-la-Chambotte, St-Girod

Albertville- Allondaz, Cesarches, Mercury, Pallud, Thenesol, 5 4290 Nord: Venthon

Beaufort: Beaufort, Hauteluce, Queige, Villard-sur-Doron 5 4161

Bourg-St- Bourg-St-Maurice, Les Chapelles, Seez, Montvalizan, 18 14566 Maurice: Ste-Foy-Tarentaise, Val d’Isere, Villaroger, Tignes

Les Allules, Bozel, La Perriere, St-Bon-Tarentaise, Bozel: Brides-les-Bains, Champagny-en-Vanoise, Planay, 11 9010 Feissons-sur-Salins, Montagny, Pralognan-la-Vanoise

Chambéry- Sonnaz 2 1222 Nord:

La Chambre, La Chapelle, St-Auban-les-Villards, La Chambre: Chavannes-en-Maurienne, Montaimont, St-Remy-de- 5 3973 Maurienne, St-Etienne-de-Cuines

Betton-Bettonet, Bourgneuf, Chamousset, Villard-Leger, Chamoux- Chamonix-sur-Gelon, Champ-Laurent, Chateauneuf, 7 7432 sur-Gelon: Coise-St-Jean-Pied-Gaulthier, Montendry

Aillon-le-Jeune, Aillon-le-Vieux, Ecole, Motte-en-Bauges, Le Arith, Bellecombe-en-Bauges, Noyer, Jarsey, St- 2 3382 Châtelard: Francois-de-Sales, Le Compote, Lescharaines, Doucy- en-Bauges, St-Marie

Attignat-Oncin, Bauche, Corbel, St-Pierre-de-Genebroz, Echelles: Echelles, Entremont-le-Vieux, St-Christophe, St-Thibault- 7 4686 de-Cous, St-Franc, St-Jean-de-Couz, Pierre-d’Entremont

Bonvillard, Clery, Verrens-Arvey, Tournon, Frontenex, Gresy-sur- Gresy-sur-Isere, Notre-Dame-des-Milliers, Plancherine, 9 6746 Isère: St-Helene-sur-Isere, St-Vital

Lanslebour Bessains, Bonneval-sur-Arc, Termignon, Bramans, g-Mont- Lanslebourg-Mont-Cenis, Lanslevillard, Sollieres- 3 2574 Cenis: Sardienes

Aussois, Avrieux, Fourneaux, Freney, Modane, St- Modane: 8 6547 Andre, Villarodin-Bourget

21 Echantillon/Sample Population (18 Canton Communes Size yrs+)

Apremont, Arbin, Chavanne, St-Pierre-de-Soucy, Chignin, Francin, Laissaud, Les Marches, Mollettes, Montmelian, Montmélian: 17 12954 Villard d-Hery, Myans, Planaise, St-Helene-du-Lac, Villaroux

Motte- Bourdeau, Bourget-du-Lac, Chapelle-du-Mont-du-Chat, 18 15426 Servolex: Motte-Servolex

Aigueblanche, Avanchers-Valmorel, Bais, St-Jean-de- Belleville, St-Oyan, Bonneval, Feissons-sur-Isere, Moûtiers: Fontains-les-Puits, St-Marcel, Salins-les-Thermes, 20 15640 Moutiers, Lechere, Notre-Dame-des-Pres, St-Martin-de- Belleville, Villarlurin

Aiguebellette-le-Lac, Ayn, St-Alban-de-Montbel, Vecel- Pont-de- de-Montbel, Bridoire, Belmont-Tramonet, Dullin, Lepin-le- 9 7361 Beauvoisin: Lac, St-Beron, Domessin, Pont-de-Beauvoisin

Arvillard, Bourget-en-Trute, Chapelle-Blanche, La Rochette: Rotherans, Croix-sur-la-Rochette, Detrier, Etable, Table, 13 12110 Ponlet, Peste, Rochette, Verneil, Villard-Salet

Chariaz, Chindrieux, Conjux, Motz, Ruffieux, St-Pierre-de- Ruffieux: Curtille, Serrieres-de-Chautagne, Vions, Culox (out of 4 3762 dept. - Ain)

Avressieux, Champagneux, Gerbaix, St-Maurice-de- St-Genix- Rotherans, Gresin, Marcieux, Nevalaise, Rochefort, St- 5 5188 sur-Guiers: Genix-sur-Guiers, St-Marie-d’Alvey

Albiex-le-Jeune, Albiex-Montrand, Le Chalet, Montvernier, Villargondran, St-Jean-de-Maurienne, Fontecouverte-la- St-Jean-de- Toussiere, Hermillon, Jarrier, Pontamfrey-Montpascal, St- 23 15666 Maurienne: Pancrase, St-Julien-Mont-Denis, St-Sorlin-d’Arves, Montricher-Albanne, St-Jean-d-Arves, Villarembert

St-Michel- Orelle, St-Martin-d’Arc, St-Martin-de-la-Porte, St-Michel- de- 8 6225 de-Maureinne, Valloire, Valmeinier Maurienne:

St-Pierre- Cruet, Freterive, St-Jean-de-la-Porte, St-Pierre-D’Albigny, 7 5556 d’Albigny: La Thuile

Cohennoz, Crest-Voland, St-Nicholas-la-Chapelle, Flumet, Ugine: 16 10980 Giettaz, Marthod, Notre-Dame-de-Bellecombe, Ugine

La Balme, Brillieme, Ontex, St-Pierre-d’Alvey, Yenne, La- Chapelle-St-Martin, Jongieux, St-Jean-de-Chevelu, Yenne: 5 5683 Traize, Lucey, Meyrieux-Trouet, St-Paul, Verthenox, Loisieux

Albertville- Bathie, Cevins, Esserts-Blay, Gilly-sur-Isere, Grignon, 14 9435 Sud: Monthion, Rogniax, St-Paul-sur-Isere, Tours-en-Savoie

Aix-les- Brison-St-Innocent, Gresy-sur-Aix, Montcel, Trevignin, Bains-Nord- Pugny-Chatenod, St-Offenge-Dessous, St-Offenge- 11 7521 Grésy: Dessus

22 Echantillon/Sample Population (18 Canton Communes Size yrs+)

Barberaz, Challes-les-Eaux, Ravoire, St-Baldoph, St- La Ravoire: 23 18843 Jeoire-Prieure

Saint-Alban- Barby, Bassens, Verel-Pragondran, Curienne, Deserts, 19 15228 Lyesse: Puygros, St-Alban-Lyesse, St-Jean-d’Arvey, Thoiry

Aix-les- Drummetaz-Claraford, Mery, Mouxy, Tresserve, Vivers- 13 10597 Bains-Sud: du-Lac, Voglans

Cognin, Jacob-Bellecombette, Montagnole, St-Sulpice, St- Cognin: 16 13018 Cassin, Vimines

Aix-les- Aix-les-Bains 32 25732 Bains:

Albertville: Albertville 22 17340

Households were randomly selected prior to entering the village using a random

number table (eg. 3rd house on the right). Individuals within the household were

randomly selected using the next birthday rule. The person in the household whose

birthday was coming up next was asked to participate in the study; this ensured

randomness of participants. In larger areas a grid system was set up over the

village and random streets and households were chosen. The questionnaire was

administered as a personal structured interview to respondents. In addition to the

general public sample selected randomly from the population of residents in Savoie

and Des Alpes Maritimes, additional sampling was done of hunters, members of

environmental groups, and students through the cooperation with these

organizations. Sample sizes for these groups were small with only 22 hunters

selected from Savoie, 174 environmental group members selected (86 from Des

Alpes Maritimes and 88 from Savoie) and 95 students (mostly aged 13-16) from Des

Alpes Maritimes. Due to the small sample sizes this data is not representative of the

respective groups but it does provide some insight into how some of these interest

groups feel about wolves and wolf management. These questionnaires were self-

23 administered. Questionnaires were mailed to hunters and members of the environmental organizations and returned by the mail. Data from students were gathered by administering the questionnaire in several classrooms of teenagers in

Des Alpes Maritimes.

Traditionally HD studies tended to be one-shot case studies collecting data at only one point in time and usually crisis management driven. This study has been designed as a pre and post-test design. This report discusses the results of the pretest. After a communication and public awareness campaign, this study will be implemented again allowing for a direct comparison of attitudes and knowledge levels and an ability to assess the effectiveness of the communication and public awareness efforts.

“The successful drafting of a questionnaire is as much an art as a science” (Sheskin

1985). Although an art, there are many points which if carefully considered can ensure a quality research instrument. To address all the aspects of the design process takes time. “Any serious questionnaire effort should evolve over at least four to six weeks” (Sheskin 1985). In this study, design of the questionnaire began with a facilitated workshop with LIFE project members and multiple rounds

24 ofdiscussion; the design process took over three months. The questionnaire consisted of five sections:

• Attitudes toward wolves

• Beliefs about wolves or a knowledge section made up of factual questions

• Attitudes toward various management approaches

• Personal experience with wolves and assessments of the importance of the issue to the respondent, and

• Socio-demographic information about each respondent.

Several of the attitudinal and belief items had been tested before in HD studies on wolf management in Yellowstone National Park, Poland, Spain and Croatia. Previous studies had revealed high reliability estimates for the attitude scale, meaning that the attitudinal items when combined consistently were good measures of attitudes toward wolves. Several of the belief items and attitudes toward management options had also been pre-tested in previous questionnaires with positive results. A list of the attitudinal and belief items used in this study can be found in Table 5. A copy of the entire questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.

Data from Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes residents were collected between

November 1999 and March 2000 through personal interviews using a team of up to four research assistants. The interviewer team consisted of one male and three females. “An interview has been described as a conversation with a purpose”

(Fowler and Mangione 1990). During the interview process, interviewers can affect the data. Interviewer bias becomes more of a problem when conducting unstructured interviews that require large amounts of probing; in this study most of the items were closed-ended reducing the chances of interviewer bias. It is however, important to

25 train the interviewers in the nature of the study, the importance of being objective, and

the importance of reading the questions exactly as worded. All interviewers used in

this study received a training session. While research has not revealed huge

differences between the success rates of male versus female interviewers, most of

the interviewers selected in this study were female as females are seen as less

threatening when approaching potential respondents and thus are more likely to have

better success in obtaining a response.

Personal interviewing can yield the highest response rate of any survey technique.

Refusal rates were low in this study and those who did refuse to participate tended

to be elderly men and women. This is consistent with other field projects that have

Table 5

Attitudinal and belief items used in HD study

Attitude Items Belief Items

Which of the following statements best Presently in France, how many wolves do you think describes your attitude toward wolves? exist?

Do you think the number in France is: increasing, The presence of wolves in France is, for you. decreasing, stable.

The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Presently in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, how Maritimes is, for you. many wolves do you think exist?

It is important to maintain wolf populations in Do you think the number in Savoie / Des Alpes France for future generations. Maritimes is: increasing, decreasing, or stable?

It is important to maintain wolf populations in In France, what is the average weight of a male adult Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes for future wolf? generations.

It is important to have viable populations of At one time there were wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes. Maritimes:

We should assure an abundant population of Wolves have returned naturally into France via Italy: wolves for future generations.

26 Attitudinal and belief items used in HD study

Attitude Items Belief Items

If I have the opportunity to see a wolf or not, what is important to me is to know that they Are wolves protected in France? exist in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Wolves have a considerable impact on big Is it true that, generally, only two members of the game. pack (1 couple) reproduce each year?

In your opinion, how many sheep and other Wolves have a considerable impact on small domestic animals were killed by wolves last year in game. Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes?

Wolves reduce populations of Moufflons and Wolves attack sheep only if there is not enough wild Chamois to unacceptable levels. prey:

It would not be necessary to have wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes if there were Wolves kill sheep out of cruelty, not for nourishment. already viable populations in other regions of France.

It would not be necessary to have wolves in What is the probability for a wolf to capture, with France if there were already viable populations success, a wild prey? in other European countries.

In France, what is the average size of a pack of Wolves were re-introduced in France. wolves?

Wolves should remain completely protected in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Wolves should remain completely protected in France.

In Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, we should be authorized to hunt wolves during the legal hunting season.

In Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, we should be authorized to hunt wolves year-round.

In Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, wolves should be killed by all means necessary, including killing pups in their dens and by poisoning.

Wolves help to keep in balance populations of large wild mammals.

27 Attitudinal and belief items used in HD study

Attitude Items Belief Items

The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes favours tourism in the department.

Wolves cause much destruction of livestock (domestic animals).

Attacks by wolves on man are more frequent in regions where wolves live in close proximity to humans.

In regions where wolves live close to flocks of sheep, they feed primarily upon domestic animals.

I would be afraid to walk in forests where wolves were present.

In your opinion, which animal is the most dangerous for man?

found similar results in response rates. Across the two provinces, there were no

cantons where refusal rates were significantly higher than any other. This would

suggest non-response bias is not an issue to worry about with this study for the

general public residents. Sample sizes for hunters, members of environmental

groups, and students however are low, and results from these groups should be

interpreted cautiously.

Quality control and checking procedures were used during the data entry and analysis

stages of this study. A random 10% of all questionnaires were checked for data entry

errors and any errors found corrected. Only a few errors were found and these were

corrected before conducting any analysis. Quality control and checking procedures

did not reveal any significant problems with the data and analysis completed.

28 Results

This section of the report will present the qualitative and quantitative results. Before

discussing the quantitative descriptive results from Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes,

the age and gender characteristics of the sample will be examined. In addition,

variables asking respondents about the importance of the issue will be presented.

Gaining first an understanding of the characteristics of the sample sets a context

within which other research results can be discussed.

The results from the general public in the two provinces are then examined by

section:

• General attitudes toward the wolf

• Attitudes toward hunting-related issues

• Understanding beliefs about wolves and their impact

• Understanding biological facts and the nature of conflict

• Beliefs about wolf-livestock issues

The results of the common ground matrix (CGM) exercise with the 23 interest groups

will be presented after discussing the quantitative descriptive results. Additional

quantitative data on smaller sample sizes of hunters, members of environmental

groups, and students are explored after these CGM results.

About the sample There were 397 respondents to the questionnaire from Des Alpes Maritimes and 403

respondents from Savoie. In Des Alpes Maritimes, 49% (n=196) of those

respondents were female with the remaining 51% (n=201) male. Slightly more

29 females were in the Savoie sample (54%, n=219); there were only 184 males (46%) in the Savoie sample.

The mean age of Des Alpes Maritimes respondents is 47.29 years old compared to a slightly younger mean age of 46.23 years old of Savoie respondents. Approximately

40% of respondents from both provinces are between 26 and 45 years old. Reflective of the rural nature of the two provinces, nearly 19% of Des Alpes Maritimes respondents were over 66 years old compared to 16% of Savoie respondents (Table

6). Only a small percentage of the general public sample in Des Alpes Maritimes (7%) and Savoie (4%) hunted in the previous year. A very large majority of residents in both provinces do not hunt. While most residents in both provinces had not seen a wolf in the wild, it is interesting to note that nearly 17% of respondents from Des Alpes

Table 6

Age characteristics of the general public sample

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total 15 to 25 Count 33 46 79 % within Department 8.3% 11.4% 9.9% 26 to 35 Count 80 77 157 % within Department 20.2% 19.1% 19.6% 36 to 45 Count 86 90 176 % within Department 21.7% 22.3% 22.0% 46 to 55 Count 73 76 149 % within Department 18.4% 18.9% 18.6% 56 to 65 Count 51 49 100 % within Department 12.8% 12.2% 12.5% 66 to 75 Count 53 48 101 % within Department 13.4% 11.9% 12.6% Over 75 Count 21 17 38 % within Department 5.3% 4.2% 4.8% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30 Maritimes indicated they had seen a wild wolf. This was twice the number of respondents in Savoie (8.5%) who claimed they had seen a wild wolf (Table 7).

Given the small number of wolves in France and the secretive nature of the species, it is very interesting that such a large percentage of the general public in both provinces claim to have seen wolves. It may be that these respondents have seen wild dogs and believed them to be wolves. This result is made even more interesting by knowing that most residents in both provinces have seen wolves in captivity (Table

8). This may add validity to the wild wolf viewing results. In contrast to the wild wolf viewing results, a much larger majority of residents in Savoie (73%) have seen captive wolves compared to Des Alpes Maritimes residents (55%).

Table 7

Have you ever seen a wolf in captivity?

Avez-vous déjà vu un loup en captivité?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 215 293 508 % within Department 54.6% 72.9% 63.8% No Count 179 109 288 % within Department 45.4% 27.1% 36.2% Total Count 394 402 796 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 8

Have you ever seen a wolf in the wild?

Avez-vous déjà vu un loup dans la nature?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 66 34 100 % within Department 16.8% 8.5% 12.6% No Count 327 367 694 % within Department 83.2% 91.5% 87.4% Total Count 393 401 794 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

31 Three items asked respondents about their interest in the wolf management issue in

France. Table 9 presents the results using a ten-point scale ranging from not concerned (1) to very concerned (10) to the item: Do you feel concerned by the issue of the management of the return of the wolf in France and by the management solutions that will be proposed? While approximately 29% of Savoie and Des Alpes

Maritimes residents expressed a five on the ten-point scale, a big difference can be seen when examining the percentage of not concerned and very concerned percentages by province. In Savoie only 4% of residents indicated 10 (very concerned) compared to more than 20% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents. And while 27% of Savoie residents indicated the issue was of no concern to them, only

19% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents believed the same. Mean scores for the two provinces (Des Alpes mean score=5.68, Savoie mean score=4.25) were statistically significantly different (t=7.02, p<0.001). This stronger concern and interest in the issue by Des Alpes Maritimes residents is further exemplified in Table 10. More than

31% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents indicated they were very interested in remaining informed about the proposed solutions to wolf management issues in

France while only 9% of their Savoie counterparts felt the same. Results of t-tests indicate once again a statistically significant difference in mean scores between the two provinces (Des Alpes Maritimes 6.84, Savoie 5.16) on this item (t=8.46, p<0.001).

32 Table 9

Do you feel concerned by the issue of the management of the return of the wolf in France and by the management solutions that will be proposed?

Vous sentez-vous concerné par la problématique de la gestion du retour du loup en France et par les solutions de gestion qui seront proposées?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Not Concerned Count 74 107 181 % within Department 18.7% 26.6% 22.7% 2 Count 8 22 30 % within Department 2.0% 5.5% 3.8% 3 Count 15 31 46 % within Department 3.8% 7.7% 5.8% 4 Count 7 24 31 % within Department 1.8% 6.0% 3.9% 5 Count 113 115 228 % within Department 28.6% 28.5% 28.6% 6 Count 29 24 53 % within Department 7.3% 6.0% 6.6% 7 Count 23 24 47 % within Department 5.8% 6.0% 5.9% 8 Count 35 33 68 % within Department 8.9% 8.2% 8.5% 9 Count 10 7 17 % within Department 2.5% 1.7% 2.1% Very Concerned Count 81 16 97 % within Department 20.5% 4.0% 12.2% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

33 One last item was used to assess resident commitment or interest in the wolf management issue. Residents were asked if they would like to receive more information on the issue of management of the return of the wolf in France. While

31% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents stated they wanted a lot of information; only

13% of Savoie residents felt the same (Table 11). In fact, over 31% of Savoie residents indicated they wanted no information on wolves compared to only 18% of

Des Alpes Maritimes residents. Mean scores once again on this item are significantly different (t=5.13, p<0.001) indicating a much stronger interest by Des Alpes Maritimes residents (Mean=6.22 compared to

5.00 for Savoie) to stay informed about wolf management issues. Such results have direct implications for communication and public awareness efforts. Wolf education materials sent to residents of Savoie may not be received well, whereas residents of

Des Alpes Maritimes really wish to learn more, and would appreciate much more educational materials than Savoie residents.

These first few variables (gender, age, hunting participation, whether residents have viewed a wolf, and importance of the issue) set the stage for a more detailed discussion of resident responses to attitudinal and belief items. From these first few items we have already learned a lot about the characteristics of the sample.

34 Table 10

Will you remain informed of the solutions that will be proposed in response to the management of the return of the wolf in France with:

Allez-vous vous tenir au courant des solutions qui seront proposées en réponse au retour du loup en France, avec:

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Not interested Count 34 70 104 % within Department 8.6% 17.4% 13.0% 2 Count 8 17 25 % within Department 2.0% 4.2% 3.1% 3 Count 7 19 26 % within Department 1.8% 4.7% 3.3% 4 Count 9 15 24 % within Department 2.3% 3.7% 3.0% 5 Count 91 128 219 % within Department 23.0% 31.8% 27.4% 6 Count 30 30 60 % within Department 7.6% 7.4% 7.5% 7 Count 31 33 64 % within Department 7.8% 8.2% 8.0% 8 Count 48 46 94 % within Department 12.2% 11.4% 11.8% 9 Count 13 9 22 % within Department 3.3% 2.2% 2.8% Very Interested Count 124 36 160 % within Department 31.4% 8.9% 20.1% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

35 Table 11

Would you like to receive more information on the issue of management of the return of the wolf in France?

Souhaitez-vous recevoir plus d'informations sur la problématique de la gestion du retour du Loup en France?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total No info. Count 71 126 197 % within Department 18.0% 31.3% 24.7% 2 Count 9 13 22 % within Department 2.3% 3.2% 2.8% 3 Count 14 15 29 % within Department 3.5% 3.7% 3.6% 4 Count 7 9 16 % within Department 1.8% 2.2% 2.0% 5 Count 88 67 155 % within Department 22.3% 16.6% 19.4% 6 Count 18 12 30 % within Department 4.6% 3.0% 3.8% 7 Count 16 29 45 % within Department 4.1% 7.2% 5.6% 8 Count 34 65 99 % within Department 8.6% 16.1% 12.4% 9 Count 16 16 32 % within Department 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% A lot of info Count 122 51 173 % within Department 30.9% 12.7% 21.7% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

36 Attitudes toward the wolf Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined attitude as “a learned predisposition to respond in

a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object.”

Attitudes have been conceptualized further into four main components that have been

adapted for this study:

Affective – feelings of liking or disliking of the wolf

Cognitive – beliefs about the wolf that may be true or not true

Behavioural intention – a statement of how one would behave in a certain situation (eg. Willingness to view a wolf)

Behaviour – overt or actual behaviour (eg. purchased a trip to view wolves) and verbal behaviour (what someone states they did).

The different sections of the questionnaire attempt to address each component of

attitude. In this section, affective aspects of attitude are discussed.

Residents of Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes held a mixture of feelings toward

wolves. Many of the Des Alpes Maritimes residents (46%) indicated they liked or

strongly liked wolves, approximately 20% were neutral, and 34% indicated a dislike

or strongly dislike of the animal (Table 12). In contrast, residents of Savoie were less

positive toward wolves (41% expressing like or strongly like of wolves), but also less

negative (24% dislike or strongly dislike the animal) than their Des Alpes Maritimes

counterparts. What is interesting is the large number of Savoie residents (35%) that

stated they neither liked nor disliked wolves. This seems consistent with previous

items that indicated that Savoie residents did not assign much importance to the wolf

management issue in France. Such a large number of neutral responses may

37 suggest a public that could be influenced by an awareness campaign. This must be

balanced with the ambivalent attitude toward the issue and lack of desire to learn

about the issue.

And while residents of both provinces generally expressed a liking of wolves, a large

number believed the presence of wolves in France was bad. In Des Alpes Maritimes

45% of residents stated the presence of wolves in France was bad, compared to 37%

who stated good, and 18% neutral (Table 13). In contrast, the number of residents

in Savoie who thought having wolves in France was good (36%) was about the same

as the number who thought it was a bad (35%). Once again a large percentage of

Savoie residents (29%) expressed a neutral response. When asked about the

presence of wolves within their own province

Table 12

Which of the following statements best describes your feeling toward wolves?

Laquelle des propositions suivantes décrit le mieux vos sentiments envers les loups?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Dislike Count 74 44 118 % within Department 18.8% 10.9% 14.8% Dislike Count 61 52 113 % within Department 15.5% 12.9% 14.2% Neutral Count 77 141 218 % within Department 19.6% 35.1% 27.4% Like Count 142 129 271 % within Department 36.1% 32.1% 34.1% Strongly Like Count 39 36 75 % within Department 9.9% 9.0% 9.4% Total Count 393 402 795 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

38 Table 13

The presence of wolves in France is, for you:

La présence des loups en France est, pour vous :

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Good Count 146 146 292 % within Department 37.2% 36.2% 36.7% Bad Count 177 141 318 % within Department 45.2% 35.0% 40.0% Neutral Count 69 116 185 % within Department 17.6% 28.8% 23.3% Total Count 392 403 795 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

feelings became more negative toward wolves. Only 31% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents believed having wolves in the province was good while a much larger percentage (55%) now indicated it was bad to have wolves in the province. A similar pattern was evident for Savoie residents. The percentage of residents still believing having wolves was good decreased only slightly to 34% from 36%, however, the percentage believing the presence of wolves was bad increased from 35% to 42%

(Table 14).

In both provinces, those residents who had expressed neutral responses toward the presence of wolves in France moved their attitudes toward the negative when asked about wolves in their own particular province. This does suggest that those residents who are neutral can be influenced relatively easily when forced to think about the issue “a little closer to home.” The majority of Savoie residents (54%) agreed or strongly agreed that it is important to maintain wolf populations in France for future generations (Table 15). While 33.5% disagreed

39 Table 14

The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes is, for you:

La présence des loups en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes est, pour vous :

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Good Count 120 136 256 % within Department 30.8% 33.9% 32.4% Bad Count 214 169 383 % within Department 55.0% 42.1% 48.5% Neutral Count 55 96 151 % within Department 14.1% 23.9% 19.1% Total Count 389 401 790 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 15

It is important to maintain wolf populations in France for future generations.

Il est important de maintenir les populations de loups en France pour les générations futures.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 102 68 170 % within Department 25.7% 16.9% 21.3% Disagree Count 64 67 131 % within Department 16.1% 16.6% 16.4% Neutral Count 53 52 105 % within Department 13.4% 12.9% 13.1% Agree Count 115 166 281 % within Department 29.0% 41.2% 35.1% Strongly Agree Count 63 50 113 % within Department 15.9% 12.4% 14.1% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

40 or strongly disagreed with the statement, only 13% were neutral, significantly less neutral responses than in past items. The value of wolves for future generations may be important enough to support having wolves in France and move away from a neutral or indifferent attitude. In terms of developing a persuasive communication message, maintaining wolves for future generations (basically so children and grandchildren have an opportunity to know that wolves exist in France) is a strong message. Individuals opposed to wolves will have difficulty developing a counter- argument that it is not important for children or grandchildren to have the opportunity to know wolves exist in France. Such a message and argument could not be won in a public debate. Those in favor of wolf conservation need to look for this type of message to develop their communication campaign around. While a large percentage of Des Alpes Maritimes residents (45%) also supported maintaining wolves for future generations in France, an equally large number (42%) were opposed. The number of neutral responses in both provinces was similar at approximately 13%.

When residents were asked about maintaining wolf populations within their own province for future generations, attitudes changed toward the negative slightly. In

Savoie, 49% of residents still supported having wolf populations maintained for future generations in their province, down only slightly from the 54% support for wolf populations being maintained in France. Neutral responses remained basically the same in Savoie and those disagreeing only slightly increased to 37.5% (Table 16).

The situation was different in Des Alpes Maritimes; approximately 49% disagreed or strongly disagreed with having wolves in the province, 40% were still supportive, and

11% neutral. Basically, in Des Alpes Maritimes several respondents moved from the neutral to the negative and approximately 5% that were positive moved toward a

41 negative response. Residents in Savoie appear to hold more positive attitudes toward wolves than Des Alpes Maritimes residents.

Savoie residents remained consistent in their positive attitudes with their support

(50%) for viable populations to exist within their province; 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed and once again only 13% were neutral. In Des Alpes Maritimes, residents were divided once again on the issue; 47% disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was important to have a viable wolf population within the province while 44% agreed or strongly agreed (Table 17).

Table 16

It is important to maintain wolf populations in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes for future generations.

Il est important de maintenir les populations de loups en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes pour les générations futures.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 108 80 188 % within Department 27.2% 19.9% 23.5% Disagree Count 88 71 159 % within Department 22.2% 17.6% 19.9% Neutral Count 42 54 96 % within Department 10.6% 13.4% 12.0% Agree Count 107 151 258 % within Department 27.0% 37.5% 32.3% Strongly Agree Count 52 47 99 % within Department 13.1% 11.7% 12.4% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

42 Table 17

It is important to have viable wolf populations in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Il est important d'avoir des populations viables de loups en Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 105 77 182 % within Department 26.4% 19.1% 22.8% Disagree Count 80 73 153 % within Department 20.2% 18.1% 19.1% Neutral Count 38 51 89 % within Department 9.6% 12.7% 11.1% Agree Count 126 154 280 % within Department 31.7% 38.2% 35.0% Strongly Agree Count 48 48 96 % within Department 12.1% 11.9% 12.0% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The results from the next item, “We should assure an abundant population of wolves for future generations”, highlights the importance of choosing the correct words in conveying a message. Previous items had indicated some support for wolves for future generations and some support for a viable population, as well as differences between the residents of the two provinces. Approximately 85% of residents in both provinces strongly disagreed or disagreed that there should be an abundant population of wolves for future generations (Table 18). It will be important to explore, possibly through a focus group, how many wolves the public perceives as “abundant” as well as how many wolves are perceived as “viable”. While biologists may have an idea of the number of wolves that would constitute a viable population, the public may see this number as an abundant population.

43 Table 18

We should assure an abundant population of wolves for future generations.

Nous devrions assurer aux générations futures une population abondante de loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 151 132 283 % within Department 38.0% 32.8% 35.4% Disagree Count 191 212 403 % within Department 48.1% 52.6% 50.4% Neutral Count 28 32 60 % within Department 7.1% 7.9% 7.5% Agree Count 14 25 39 % within Department 3.5% 6.2% 4.9% Strongly Agree Count 13 2 15 % within Department 3.3% .5% 1.9% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

It will be important to explain this concept carefully. On a positive note, a large percentage of residents in both provinces do support a viable population, and share a willingness to ensure wolves do exist for future generations. The challenge will be defining both socially and biophysically the number of wolves that constitute a viable population. Table 19 presents the results to the item: “Whether or not I have the opportunity to see a wolf, it is important for me to know that they exist in Savoie / Des

Alpes Maritimes.” In Savoie, an overwhelming 63% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement; only 26% disagreed. In Des Alpes Maritimes, residents were once again split but a large percentage (48%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement;

41.5% indicated strongly disagree or disagree. This suggests that from a communication campaign perspective once again a value persuasive message emphasizing the existence value of the wolf is important and would gain support with the public. Such value messages may be as important, if not more, in influencing attitudes than factual knowledge messages.

44 Additional attitudinal items explored the importance of having wolves within the province if they existed in other regions of France and if they existed in other parts of

Europe. Two items worded in the negative may have lead to difficulty of interpretation by respondents. Most residents (52%) of Des Alpes Maritimes believed it was still important to have wolves in the province even if they existed in viable populations in other parts of France. Savoie residents (45%) generally felt the same way (Table 20).

When asked about whether it was still necessary to have wolves in France if healthy populations existed in other parts of Europe, the majority of residents in both provinces (approximately 51%) stated that it was still necessary to have wolves in

France (Table 21). From a communication perspective, there may be another value persuasive message that could be developed that contains a national pride value in it. It seems that having wolves in France and indeed within the province is important whether or not wolves exist elsewhere in Europe or in other parts of France.

Table 19

If I have the opportunity or not to see a wolf, it is important for me to know that they exist in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Que j’ai l’occasion, ou non, de voir un loup, ce qui est important pour moi c’est de savoir qu’ils existent en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 103 42 145 % within Department 25.9% 10.4% 18.1% Disagree Count 62 62 124 % within Department 15.6% 15.4% 15.5% Neutral Count 42 46 88 % within Department 10.6% 11.4% 11.0% Agree Count 147 225 372 % within Department 37.0% 55.8% 46.5% Strongly Agree Count 43 28 71 % within Department 10.8% 6.9% 8.9% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

45 Table 20

It is not necessary to have wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes because there are already viable populations in other regions of Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Il n’est pas nécessaire d’avoir des loups en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes parce qu’il y a déjà des populations viables dans d’autres régions de Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 30 25 55 % within Department 7.6% 6.2% 6.9% Disagree Count 178 155 333 % within Department 44.8% 38.5% 41.6% Neutral Count 41 55 96 % within Department 10.3% 13.6% 12.0% Agree Count 120 142 262 % within Department 30.2% 35.2% 32.8% Strongly Agree Count 28 26 54 % within Department 7.1% 6.5% 6.8% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 21

It is not necessary to have wolves in France because there are already viable populations in other European countries.

Il n’est pas nécessaire d’avoir des loups en France parce qu’il y a déjà des populations viables dans d’autres pays européens.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly Disagree Count 39 38 77 % within Department 9.8% 9.5% 9.6% Disagree Count 163 174 337 % within Department 41.1% 43.3% 42.2% Neutral Count 29 52 81 % within Department 7.3% 12.9% 10.1% Agree Count 130 92 222 % within Department 32.7% 22.9% 27.8% Strongly Agree Count 36 46 82 % within Department 9.1% 11.4% 10.3% Total Count 397 402 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

46 Attitudes toward hunting-related issues The impact wolves have on ungulate numbers and hunting opportunities is often an

argument that surfaces when debating forms of management of the wolf. During

discussions of wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park, this issue was

often mentioned. Most hunters and the majority of the statewide general publics were

not concerned about the impacts wolves might have on ungulates and hunting

opportunities (Bath and Buchanan 1989). To examine whether the same was true

in France several items were used to assess attitudes related to wolves and hunting.

In response to the item: “Wolves have a considerable impact on large game”, most

residents (54%) of Des Alpes Maritimes agreed or strongly agreed, 28.5% disagreed

or strongly disagreed, and 18% were neutral. Approximately the same percentage

of residents in Savoie (29.5%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, but only 43% in

contrast to 54% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents believed wolves had a

considerable impact on large game; 28% of Savoie residents were neutral (Table

22).

Table 22

Wolves have a considerable impact on large game.

Les loups ont un impact considérable sur le grand gibier.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 9 2 11 % within Department 2.3% .5% 1.4% Disagree Count 104 117 221 % within Department 26.2% 29.0% 27.6% Neutral Count 71 112 183 % within Department 17.9% 27.8% 22.9% Agree Count 120 140 260 % within Department 30.2% 34.7% 32.5% Strongly Agree Count 93 32 125 % within Department 23.4% 7.9% 15.6% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

47 Savoie residents felt wolves had a much bigger impact on smaller game than large game. Nearly 53% of Savoie residents stated they agreed or strongly agreed that wolves have a considerable impact on small game compared to 43% believing a considerable impact on large game. Approximately 46% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents believed that wolves had a significant impact on small game.

Approximately a quarter of the respondents in both provinces selected neither agree nor disagree to this item (Table 23).

Table 23

Wolves have a considerable impact on small game.

Les loups ont un impact considérable sur le petit gibier.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 13 3 16 % within Department 3.3% .7% 2.0% Disagree Count 107 83 190 % within Department 27.0% 20.6% 23.8% Neutral Count 96 105 201 % within Department 24.2% 26.1% 25.1% Agree Count 125 184 309 % within Department 31.5% 45.7% 38.6% Strongly Agree Count 56 28 84 % within Department 14.1% 6.9% 10.5% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

While responses to previous items suggested that residents believed wolves had a significant impact on large and small game populations, when asked specifically about the impact wolves have on moufflon and chamois, only 21% and 39% of

Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes residents respectively believed wolves reduced populations to unacceptable levels. Many Savoie residents (42%) disagreed or strongly disagreed or stated neutral (36%). Des Alpes Maritimes residents were split

48 on this item (Table 24).

Table 24

Wolves reduce populations of moufflons and chamois to unacceptable levels.

Les loups réduisent les populations de mouflons et de chamois à des niveaux inacceptables.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 18 19 37 % within Department 4.6% 4.7% 4.6% Disagree Count 119 152 271 % within Department 30.1% 37.7% 34.0% Neutral Count 103 146 249 % within Department 26.1% 36.2% 31.2% Agree Count 72 73 145 % within Department 18.2% 18.1% 18.2% Strongly Agree Count 83 13 96 % within Department 21.0% 3.2% 12.0% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The above hunting related items focused upon the affective and cognitive aspects of attitude asking respondents about perceived impact of wolves on ungulates and exploring the affective (liking/disliking) aspects toward these ungulates. The next few items are more behavioral intention items asking about support or disagreement toward various management/hunting practices.

Most residents of Savoie (53%) and Des Alpes Maritimes (54%) opposed a legal hunting season within their respective provinces for wolves. Approximately 35% indicated they would support such a management action (Table 25). Even stronger opposition was found from residents toward a year round hunting season within their respective provinces (Table 26). More than 74% of Savoie residents and 68% of Des

Alpes Maritimes residents disagreed or strongly disagreed with such an idea. When

49 Table 25

In Savoie/Alpes-Maritime, we should be authorized to hunt wolves during the legal hunting season.

En Savoie/Alpes-Maritime, on devrait être autorisé à chasser les loups pendant la saison légale de chasse.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 76 79 155 % within Department 19.1% 19.6% 19.4% Disagree Count 137 133 270 % within Department 34.5% 33.0% 33.8% Neutral Count 49 48 97 % within Department 12.3% 11.9% 12.1% Agree Count 90 107 197 % within Department 22.7% 26.6% 24.6% Strongly Agree Count 45 36 81 % within Department 11.3% 8.9% 10.1% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

asked about killing pups in their dens or using poison to control wolves (Table 27), more than 84% of Savoie residents opposed such a practice (55% very strongly) and 77% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents held similar views (44% very strongly).

It seems little support exists from the general public to have hunters shoot wolves within the respective provinces even within a regulated season. Residents from Des

Alpes Maritimes (43%) and Savoie (49%) seem to believe that wolves help maintain an equilibrium among populations of large wild mammals (Table 28), however, 21% and 27% of Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie residents were neutral on the issue.

While previous items would suggest that residents believe generally that wolves cause significant impacts to small and large game, they are sensitive to the word equilibrium or balance. Communicating a message that wolves maintain a balance or equilibrium is another value message that is perceived as positive by respondents.

50 Table 26

In Savois / Des Alpes Maritimes, we should be authorized to hunt wolves year-round.

En Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, on devrait être autorisé à chasser les loups pendant toute l’année.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 93 106 199 % within Department 23.5% 26.3% 24.9% Disagree Count 176 194 370 % within Department 44.4% 48.1% 46.3% Neutral Count 37 42 79 % within Department 9.3% 10.4% 9.9% Agree Count 49 33 82 % within Department 12.4% 8.2% 10.3% Strongly Agree Count 41 28 69 % within Department 10.4% 6.9% 8.6% Total Count 396 403 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 27

In Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, wolves should be killed by any means necessary, including killing pups in their dens or by poisoning.

En Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes, les loups devraient être tués par tous les moyens nécessaires, y compris en tuant les petits dans les tanières ou par empoisonnement.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 174 223 397 % within Department 43.8% 55.3% 49.6% Disagree Count 131 116 247 % within Department 33.0% 28.8% 30.9% Neutral Count 22 27 49 % within Department 5.5% 6.7% 6.1% Agree Count 33 13 46 % within Department 8.3% 3.2% 5.8% Strongly Agree Count 37 24 61 % within Department 9.3% 6.0% 7.6% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

51 Table 28

Wolves help maintain an equilibrium among populations of large wild mammals.

Les loups aident à garder en équilibre les populations de grands mammifères sauvages .

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 45 15 60 % within Department 11.4% 3.7% 7.5% Disagree Count 96 79 175 % within Department 24.2% 19.6% 21.9% Neutral Count 83 110 193 % within Department 21.0% 27.3% 24.2% Agree Count 128 152 280 % within Department 32.3% 37.7% 35.0% Strongly Agree Count 44 47 91 % within Department 11.1% 11.7% 11.4% Total Count 396 403 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 29

Wolves should remain completely protected in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes

Les loups doivent rester complètement protégés dans en Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 80 58 138 % within Department 20.2% 14.4% 17.3% Disagree Count 123 97 220 % within Department 31.0% 24.1% 27.5% Neutral Count 27 48 75 % within Department 6.8% 11.9% 9.4% Agree Count 127 153 280 % within Department 32.0% 38.0% 35.0% Strongly Agree Count 40 47 87 % within Department 10.1% 11.7% 10.9% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

52 If support does not exist for hunting the species, and a belief exists that wolves maintain a balance, which is seen as positive, one might assume that support should exist for the complete protection of the species. When residents, however, are asked about whether wolves should remain completely protected within their province, strong positive attitudes do not occur. While most Savoie respondents

(50%) do agree or strongly agree in complete protection for wolves within Savoie, only 42% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents feel wolves should be completely protected in their province. Most Des Alpes Maritimes residents (51%) believe wolves should not be completely protected within their province (Table 29) and many

(47%) believe they should not remain completely protected in France (Table 30).

Support for full protection remains stronger in Savoie with 53% supporting complete protection of the wolf in France.

The apparent contradiction in not wanting wolves to be hunted within their respective provinces, but being cautious about complete protection can be explained by examining responses to several of the wolf-livestock items to be discussed later.

Residents from both provinces appear sympathetic to the agricultural community and the issue of wolves killing livestock, and seem to want to keep an option open for killing problem animals. In fact, after being asked a series of questions regarding wolf-livestock issues and then an item about whether a wolf hunt should be authorized within their respective provinces, the majority of residents in both provinces supported such a hunt. This suggests that the general public while sensitive to wolves and their protection can be swayed through arguments stressing the need to control and/or reduce wolf numbers because of livestock depredation.

53 Table 30

Wolves should remain completely protected in France.

Les loups doivent rester complètement protégés en France.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 75 56 131 % within Department 18.9% 13.9% 16.4% Disagree Count 113 93 206 % within Department 28.5% 23.1% 25.8% Neutral Count 31 42 73 % within Department 7.8% 10.4% 9.1% Agree Count 135 162 297 % within Department 34.0% 40.2% 37.1% Strongly Agree Count 43 50 93 % within Department 10.8% 12.4% 11.6% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

This being said, there is another issue that intertwines in understanding these

attitudes and that is the underlying belief structure, particularly as we will see shortly

the numbers of wolves believed to exist in the province and country by residents of

Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes.

Underlying beliefs about wolves and their impact

Public attitudes toward wolves and their management are affected by a collection of

beliefs that make up a belief system. Some of these beliefs are more important than

others in affecting attitudes. Our overall attitude toward wolves is a product of our

beliefs and the evaluation of that belief (whether it is good or bad, and the likelihood

that the belief could occur). In forming our attitudes toward wolves people strive to

keep their affective components of attitude (liking or disliking of wolves) consistent

with their cognitive component (beliefs and evaluations of those beliefs). For

54 example, if I dislike wolves (affective), I believe they have killed people (cognitive belief), and having people killed is of course bad (evaluation of belief), the behavioral intention that could result from this is to support a wolf control program and actual behavior (fourth component of attitude) may be a history of shooting wolves. In this example all aspects of attitude are consistent with each other producing a negative overall attitude toward wolves. Persuasive communication efforts strive to understand the underlying beliefs and directly affect or change the belief most strongly linked to attitude, thus causing what’s been called cognitive dissonance

(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In this above example, if information convinces me that wolves do not kill people, I no longer have a consistent reason to dislike wolves, resulting then in a change of other components of my attitude. In this section, results about beliefs about wolves and their possible impact are presented.

For some individuals, support for conservation efforts occurs only when economically it can be shown that the species generates income. Table 31 presents the results of an item regarding perceived tourism benefits to the province if wolves are present. Most residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (59%) and in Savoie (63.5%) do not believe that the presence of wolves affects positively tourism within their province. A recent report from WWF-UK (2000) suggests that tourism and carnivores can generate significant economic benefits to local communities.

Sharing examples from other regions and conducting an economic study of the value of wolves in France may affect this belief and influence those whose attitudes toward wolves are strongly driven by economic arguments.

55 Table 31

The presence of wolves in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes favors tourism in the department.

La présence des loups en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes favorise le tourisme dans le département.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 72 60 132 % within Department 18.1% 14.9% 16.5% Disagree Count 161 196 357 % within Department 40.6% 48.6% 44.6% Neutral Count 67 88 155 % within Department 16.9% 21.8% 19.4% Agree Count 84 55 139 % within Department 21.2% 13.6% 17.4% Strongly Agree Count 13 4 17 % within Department 3.3% 1.0% 2.1% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Attitudes are learned from childhood and attitudes toward wolves may be affected by the many myths and stories of wolves attacking small children dressed in red

(Little Red Riding Hood) and attacks on livestock (Three Little Pigs and others).

Three belief items focused upon this fear element of wolves. In response to: “Wolf attacks on man are more frequent in regions where wolves live in close proximity to humans”, most residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (58%) and in Savoie (57%) disagreed or strongly disagreed (Table 32). A relatively large percentage (26% of

Des Alpes Maritimes residents and 29% of Savoie residents) stated neither agree nor disagree, and close to 15% agreed with the statement suggesting that there may be a need to address this issue within an educational program. When residents were asked about whether they would personally be afraid to hike in the woods if wolves were present, a large percentage of Savoie residents (45%) and Des Alpes

56 Table 32

Wolf attacks on man are more frequent in regions where wolves live in close proximity to humans.

Les attaques de loup sur les hommes sont plus fréquentes dans les régions où les loups vivent à proximité des humains.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 98 83 181 % within Department 24.9% 20.6% 22.7% Disagree Count 130 146 276 % within Department 33.1% 36.2% 34.7% Neutral Count 103 117 220 % within Department 26.2% 29.0% 27.6% Agree Count 53 50 103 % within Department 13.5% 12.4% 12.9% Strongly Agree Count 9 7 16 % within Department 2.3% 1.7% 2.0% Total Count 393 403 796 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Maritimes residents (39%) agreed or strongly agreed (Table 33). Very few individuals indicated neutral on this item. Basically, those that may have been neutral on the previous item stated an opinion when asked specifically about their fear. Lastly, residents were asked about their fear of large carnivores and which animal was most dangerous given the wolf, bear, lynx, all of them, and none of them

(Table 34). Many respondents correctly identified the bear as the most dangerous, however, a third of respondents from both provinces stated that all of the animals were dangerous. Approximately 18% of residents from both provinces stated none were dangerous. Perhaps of interest to those managing lynx, more than twice the number of respondents believed lynx were more dangerous to humans than wolves.

Certain beliefs about wolves seem to be part of every European country’s cultural history. Many residents in a variety of countries throughout Europe believe that

57 Table 33

I would be afraid to hike in forests where wolves were present.

J’aurais peur de me promener dans des forêts où les loups sont présents.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 147 124 271 % within Department 37.0% 30.8% 33.9% Disagree Count 75 79 154 % within Department 18.9% 19.6% 19.3% Neutral Count 21 18 39 % within Department 5.3% 4.5% 4.9% Agree Count 83 108 191 % within Department 20.9% 26.8% 23.9% Strongly Agree Count 71 74 145 % within Department 17.9% 18.4% 18.1% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 34

In your opinion, which of the following animals are most dangerous to man?

A votre avis, quel animal est le plus dangereux pour l’homme?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Wolf Count 21 16 37 % within Department 5.4% 4.0% 4.7% Bear Count 133 144 277 % within Department 34.1% 36.0% 35.1% Lynx Count 39 45 84 % within Department 10.0% 11.3% 10.6% All Count 128 125 253 % within Department 32.8% 31.3% 32.0% None Count 69 70 139 % within Department 17.7% 17.5% 17.6% Total Count 390 400 790 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

58 wolves were actively reintroduced to their country, often by helicopter, and by the government or environmentalists. For example in Croatia, residents believe wolves were brought to the country by United Nations’ helicopters. France seems to be no different. Most residents of Des Alpes Maritimes (60%) and a large percentage of

Savoie residents (49%) believe wolves were reintroduced into France (Table 35).

However, responses to another item on this issue (Table 36) suggest that residents may not have fully understood the question and the meaning of reintroduction. When asked whether wolves have returned naturally to France via Italy, different responses were found. A large percentage of Des Alpes Maritimes residents (45%) stated “no”,

39% responded “yes”, and 16% indicated they “did not know”. In contrast, only 24% of Savoie residents stated “no” the wolves had not returned naturally, 45% stated

“yes”, and a large percentage (31%) indicated they “did not know”. This latter

Table 35

Wolves were reintroduced in France.

Les loups ont été réintroduits en France.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 23 11 34 % within Department 5.8% 2.7% 4.3% Disagree Count 55 81 136 % within Department 13.9% 20.1% 17.0% Neutral Count 81 114 195 % within Department 20.4% 28.4% 24.4% Agree Count 155 152 307 % within Department 39.0% 37.8% 38.4% Strongly Agree Count 83 44 127 % within Department 20.9% 10.9% 15.9% Total Count 397 402 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

59 Table 36

Wolves have returned naturally to France via Italy.

Les loups sont revenus naturellement en France à partir de l’Italie.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 153 182 335 % within Department 38.7% 45.3% 42.0% No Count 178 95 273 % within Department 45.1% 23.6% 34.3% Don't Know Count 64 125 189 % within Department 16.2% 31.1% 23.7% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

questionnaire item (Table36), because the wording is more specific, is a better

indicator of this feeling toward natural versus active wolf restoration in France. The

large number of Savoie residents who expressed they did not know may indicate

they could be influenced by communication messages addressing this issue.

Understanding biological facts and the nature of conflict

When designing educational materials and communication campaigns, traditionally

the focus of the messages has been on the biology of the species, its historical

range, population numbers and present status, the assumption being that by

increasing the public’s biological knowledge of the species their attitudes will

become more positive. While indeed several studies have shown that respondents

with higher knowledge levels about wolves tend to have more positive attitudes

toward the species (Bath 1989, Bath and Buchanan 1989, Bath 1991, Kellert 1985),

an increase in knowledge can also affect attitudes in a negative direction (Bath

1994). And as discussed earlier, there may be other persuasive messages that

might be as important if not more important than such basic biological facts (for

60 example existence and future generation values). A lot of this depends upon the nature of the conflicts between the groups.

Conflicts may exist because of a lack of knowledge about facts. This cognitive conflict can be resolved with educational messages. Conflicts though may occur over values. For example, two parties agree on the number of wolves in France but disagree on the value that they should be protected for future generations. Thirdly, a conflict may result over a disagreement over costs and benefits. There is agreement that there are 30 wolves left in France (no cognitive conflict). It is important to protect them for future generations (no value conflict), but one group wants wolves protected in one area and not the other. This may occur because one party wants the benefits of an eco-tourism operation in one place and someone else in another area so they choose to disagree about the overall wolf management.

Another example of a cost/benefit conflict may be a shepherd who agrees on the numbers of wolves, the value that wolves should be protected, but wants wolves not protected in his/her immediate area. This could be because he/she does not wish to bear the costs from livestock depredation. The fourth type of conflict is a behavioral conflict and may result because of past mistrust between agencies or individuals; quite often it can even be personal. For example, some residents believe that officials from Mercantour National Park actively restored wolves to France and because of this belief are unable to trust what the Park says on other issues.

Residents may also just remain annoyed at an agency for past issues and disagree just because that agency is suggesting the idea. These behavioral, cost/benefit, and value issues are difficult to address through educational materials and messaging, but may be tackled through a more active public involvement process and communication campaign.

61 The results from the biologically based belief questions are presented in the following tables. From these items knowledge scores can be calculated. One measure of the effectiveness of an educational and communication campaign is to compare knowledge scores before and after the campaign. Most residents in Des Alpes

Maritimes (82%) and Savoie (79%) correctly identified that wolves historically had existed in their respective provinces (Table 37). Most residents in both provinces also knew that wolves were protected in France (Table 38). A very large percentage of residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (86%) knew this legal status but only 65% of residents of Savoie could correctly identify that the wolf was protected. A small number of Savoie residents (12%) believed the wolf was not protected while 23% stated they did not know for sure.

Table 37

At one time, historically, there were wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes

Autrefois, il y avait des loups en Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 324 318 642 % within Department 82.0% 79.1% 80.6% No Count 22 13 35 % within Department 5.6% 3.2% 4.4% Don't Know Count 49 71 120 % within Department 12.4% 17.7% 15.1% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

62 Table 38

Are wolves protected in France?

Les loups sont protégés en France?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 341 261 602 % within Department 86.3% 64.9% 75.5% No Count 18 48 66 % within Department 4.6% 11.9% 8.3% Don't Know Count 36 93 129 % within Department 9.1% 23.1% 16.2% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Only 37% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents and less Savoie residents (25%) identified correctly that generally only two members of a wolf pack breed and reproduce in a single year. Most residents of Savoie (55%) and 45% of the Des

Alpes Maritimes residents expressed that they did not know. Approximately 20% of respondents in both provinces believed that the statement was false (Table 39).

While biological research in France has yet to determine the success rate for wolves with respect to the number of chases of wild prey, research from North America suggests that success rates per chase tend to be quite low. While it will vary by season, pack size, winter conditions, and prey, it seems safe to say that in most cases it will be less than 10%. Many respondents expressed that they did not know the success rate. Of those individuals who indicated an answer, most believed it was better than 20%. More than 30% of Des Alpes Maritimes respondents believed it was 50% or 100% success rate (Table 40).

Fear of hiking in the woods if wolves were present did exist amongst a good percentage of the residents. This fear may be linked with the knowledge of pack size and average weight of an adult male wolf, the next two items to discuss. Many

63 Table 39

Is it true that generally only two members of the pack (1 dominant pair) reproduce each year?

Est-il vrai que, généralement, seuls deux membres de la meute (1 couple) se reproduisent chaque année?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Yes Count 147 99 246 % within Department 37.2% 24.6% 30.9% No Count 70 83 153 % within Department 17.7% 20.6% 19.2% Don't Know Count 178 220 398 % within Department 45.1% 54.7% 49.9% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Des Alpes Maritimes respondents (49%) and many Savoie respondents (43%) identified correctly that the average pack size was 1-7 animals. About 25% of residents in both provinces however thought pack sizes were bigger (8-15) and a large percentage did not know (Table 41). Only ten individuals (2.5%) of all respondents believed wolf pack sizes were greater than 16 animals. Perceptions of huge marauding packs in the woods for those individuals may be the cause of fear to hike in the woods. The general public often overestimates the size of wolves, however, most residents in both provinces correctly identified the average weight of an adult male wolf as 26-50kg (Table 42).

64 Table 40

What is the success rate for wolves with respect to the capture of wild prey?

Quelle est la probabilité pour un loup de capturer avec succès une proie sauvage?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Every Time Count 38 27 65 % within Department 9.6% 6.7% 8.2% 1/2 Count 86 66 152 % within Department 21.8% 16.4% 19.1% 1/3 Count 73 58 131 % within Department 18.5% 14.4% 16.4% 1/5 Count 43 52 95 % within Department 10.9% 12.9% 11.9% 1/12 Count 22 9 31 % within Department 5.6% 2.2% 3.9% 1/20 Count 4 6 10 % within Department 1.0% 1.5% 1.3% Don't Know Count 128 185 313 % within Department 32.5% 45.9% 39.3% Total Count 394 403 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

In past HD in wolf management studies, the public perception of the number of wolves and the status of the population (whether it is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same) have been important factors in influencing attitudes. Presently in France there are approximately 30 wolves in the entire country; most residents

(82%) in each province had no idea how many wolves existed in France, and did not feel comfortable even offering any number on the open-ended question. The item was asked as an open-ended question so not to bias responses; given a set of categories or potential answers, respondents tend to gravitate to the middle of the response set. An open-ended question removes this effect, however, a larger non- response to the item is the result, as was the case here.

65 Table 41

In France, what is the average size of a pack of wolves?

En France, quelle est la taille moyenne d'une meute de loups?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total 1-7 Count 193 173 366 % within Department 49.0% 42.9% 45.9% 8-15 Count 101 96 197 % within Department 25.6% 23.8% 24.7% 16-30 Count 3 5 8 % within Department .8% 1.2% 1.0% +30 Count 2 2 % within Department .5% .3% Don't Know Count 95 129 224 % within Department 24.1% 32.0% 28.1% Total Count 394 403 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 42

In France, what is the average weight of a male adult wolf ?

En France, quel est le poids moyen d’un loup mâle adulte ?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total 1-25 kg Count 31 27 58 % within Department 7.9% 6.7% 7.3% 26-50 kg Count 253 227 480 % within Department 64.4% 56.6% 60.5% 51-75 kg Count 48 52 100 % within Department 12.2% 13.0% 12.6% +75 kg Count 1 6 7 % within Department .3% 1.5% .9% Don't Know Count 60 89 149 % within Department 15.3% 22.2% 18.8% Total Count 393 401 794 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

66 Of those few respondents stating a number of wolves they believe exist in France, approximately 59% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents and 58% of Savoie residents believe more than 50 wolves exist in France (Table 43). Approximately one third of the respondents from each province indicated there were more than 100 wolves in

France, more than three times the actual number of wolves. Such misinformation and lack of information has a significant impact on attitudes toward the species and attitudes toward management approaches. It is interesting to note that even with this overestimate of wolves in France, the general feeling of residents is to protect the species and ensure its existence for future generations. As more residents realize the low number of wolves in the country this support should increase. Therefore, communicating the numbers of wolves that exist in France and the probability that this number would survive for future generations are key messages for all residents.

Table 43

Presently in France, how many wolves exist?

Actuellement en France, combien pensez-vous qu'il y ait de loups?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total 1 to 30 Count 13 17 30 % within Department 3.3% 4.2% 3.8% 31 to 50 Count 17 12 29 % within Department 4.3% 3.0% 3.6% 51 to 100 Count 22 18 40 % within Department 5.5% 4.5% 5.0% 101 to 200 Count 6 10 16 % within Department 1.5% 2.5% 2.0% 201 to 1000 Count 13 10 23 % within Department 3.3% 2.5% 2.9% Over 1000 Count 326 334 660 % within Department 82.1% 83.3% 82.7% Total Count 397 401 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

67 Most residents in each province also were unsure about how many wolves actually existed within their province and chose not to give any number on the open-ended item. Perhaps interesting though, twice as many Des Alpes Maritimes residents offered a response on the number of wolves they believe exist within their own province than offered a response for the numbers they believe exist in France. It seems more Des Alpes Maritimes residents felt that they understood the conditions in their own province better than the national scene. In actual fact, incorrect beliefs about wolf numbers at the provincial level by residents from both provinces were still high. Approximately 67% of Des Alpes residents stated there were more than 26 wolves in their province alone; about 25% believe more than 50 wolves exist in their province. In contrast, 20% of Savoie residents believe there are more than 26 wolves in Savoie; and only 8% believe there are more than 50 wolves in the province.

There is a small percentage of Savoie residents (14%) who believe there are no wolves in Savoie; most residents (62%) believe there are between 1 and 20 wolves within the province (Table 44).

Most residents in both provinces correctly identified that the number of wolves in

France is increasing (Table 45). Approximately 14% of Savoie residents believed the wolf population was decreasing while 17% indicated they were not sure. Most residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (77%) and in Savoie (68%) identified correctly that wolf populations were increasing within their respective provinces (Table 46). About

12% of Savoie residents believed wolf numbers were decreasing in Savoie.

The last four items in this section asked respondents about their feelings toward increasing and decreasing the number of wolves in France and in their respective

68 provinces. Most residents of Des Alpes Maritimes (67%) and most residents of

Savoie (53.5%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement: “I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in France” (Table 47). On a corresponding item (We already have enough wolves in France) used as a check on consistency of responses where respondents would answer in the positive to stay consistent with their earlier attitude answered in the negative, similar percentages were found.

Approximately 65% of Des Alpes Maritimes respondents agreed or strongly agreed that France had enough wolves, while 51% of Savoie residents expressed the same view (Table 48). When asked the same two questions for their respective provinces similar responses were again found. Approximately 68% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents and 54% of Savoie residents disagreed or strongly disagreed that wolf numbers should be increased in their respective provinces (Table 49). The identical percentage of Des Alpes Maritimes residents (68%) indicated agreement or strong agreement to the statement: “There are already enough wolves in Des Alpes

Maritimes” (Table 50). This suggests the items were perfectly consistent in measuring attitudes toward this issue. For Savoie residents the percentage was slightly different from what was stated in Table 49 (a 7% difference, attributed to more Savoie residents indicating neutral in response to the item in Table 50). In summary, residents in both provinces feel that there are already enough wolves in

France and within their respective province, however, residents believe far greater numbers of wolves exist in France and within their respective provinces than actually do exist.

69 Table 44

Presently in Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes, how many wolves exist?

Actuellement en Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes, combien pensez-vous qu'il y ait de loups?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total None Count 1 10 11 % within Department .7% 14.1% 5.1% 1 to 5 Count 1 13 14 % within Department .7% 18.3% 6.5% 6 to 10 Count 12 18 30 % within Department 8.2% 25.4% 13.8% 11 to 15 Count 8 6 14 % within Department 5.5% 8.5% 6.5% 16 to 20 Count 18 7 25 % within Department 12.3% 9.9% 11.5% 21 to 25 Count 8 2 10 % within Department 5.5% 2.8% 4.6% 26 to 30 Count 28 6 34 % within Department 19.2% 8.5% 15.7% 31 to 40 Count 17 17 % within Department 11.6% 7.8% 41 to 50 Count 17 3 20 % within Department 11.6% 4.2% 9.2% 51 to 100 Count 22 3 25 % within Department 15.1% 4.2% 11.5% 101 to 200 Count 8 1 9 % within Department 5.5% 1.4% 4.1% Over 200 Count 6 2 8 % within Department 4.1% 2.8% 3.7% Total Count 146 71 217 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

70 Table 45

The number of wolves in France (population status) is:

Pensez-vous que le nombre de loups en France est:

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Increase Count 276 194 470 % within Department 80.5% 68.6% 75.1% Decrease Count 17 40 57 % within Department 5.0% 14.1% 9.1% Stable Count 50 49 99 % within Department 14.6% 17.3% 15.8% Total Count 343 283 626 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 46

The number of wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes (population status) is:

Pensez-vous que le nombre de loups en Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes est:

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Increase Count 269 186 455 % within Department 76.9% 68.1% 73.0% Decrease Count 17 34 51 % within Department 4.9% 12.5% 8.2% Stable Count 64 53 117 % within Department 18.3% 19.4% 18.8% Total Count 350 273 623 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

71 Table 47

I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in France.

Je serais d'accord pour une augmentation du nombre de loups en France.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 172 123 295 % within Department 43.4% 30.6% 37.0% Disagree Count 92 92 184 % within Department 23.2% 22.9% 23.1% Neutral Count 64 103 167 % within Department 16.2% 25.6% 20.9% Agree Count 51 69 120 % within Department 12.9% 17.2% 15.0% Strongly Agree Count 17 15 32 % within Department 4.3% 3.7% 4.0% Total Count 396 402 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

72 Table 48

We already have enough wolves in France.

Nous avons déjà assez de loups en France.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 12 11 23 % within Department 3.0% 2.7% 2.9% Disagree Count 35 55 90 % within Department 8.8% 13.7% 11.3% Neutral Count 94 131 225 % within Department 23.7% 32.6% 28.2% Agree Count 86 115 201 % within Department 21.7% 28.6% 25.2% Strongly Agree Count 169 90 259 % within Department 42.7% 22.4% 32.5% Total Count 396 402 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 49

I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Je serais d'accord avec une augmentation du nombre de loups en Savoie/Alpes-Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 186 128 314 % within Department 47.0% 31.8% 39.3% Disagree Count 82 90 172 % within Department 20.7% 22.4% 21.6% Neutral Count 68 100 168 % within Department 17.2% 24.9% 21.1% Agree Count 45 67 112 % within Department 11.4% 16.7% 14.0% Strongly Agree Count 15 17 32 % within Department 3.8% 4.2% 4.0% Total Count 396 402 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

73 Table 50

We already have enough wolves in Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes.

Nous avons déjà assez de loups en Savoie / Alpes-Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 13 10 23 % within Department 3.3% 2.5% 2.9% Disagree Count 33 57 90 % within Department 8.3% 14.2% 11.3% Neutral Count 82 139 221 % within Department 20.7% 34.6% 27.7% Agree Count 85 96 181 % within Department 21.5% 23.9% 22.7% Strongly Agree Count 183 100 283 % within Department 46.2% 24.9% 35.5% Total Count 396 402 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Beliefs about wolf-livestock issues Wolves occasionally kill livestock. The number of domestic animals killed per year

depends on many factors, some of which include livestock preventative measures

used, wild prey availability, sheep density, and perhaps wolf density. In Yellowstone

National Park, where there are about 150 wolves, there have been less than 70

livestock losses over a three-year period. In France, where there are only

approximately 30 wolves, livestock losses have been considerably higher;

shepherds have lost more than that number of sheep in a single night. The

magnitude of the wolf-livestock depredation issue in France is huge from a North

American perspective, and yet compensation is paid, and general public attitudes

remain positive toward wolves but sympathetic toward the agricultural community.

Several items in the questionnaire explored beliefs, affective aspects of attitude, and

behavioral intention related to livestock issues. The following tables present the

results from these items.

74 Residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (45%) and Savoie (30%) strongly agreed that wolves cause significant damage to livestock. More than 76% of residents in Des

Alpes Maritimes and 65% of Savoie residents agreed or strongly agreed with the above statement. While there were 21% of Savoie residents that did disagree that wolves cause significant damage to livestock; less than 15% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents felt the same way (Table 51).

Table 51

Wolves cause much damage to livestock

Les loups causent beaucoup de dégâts au bétail

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 4 10 14 % within Department 1.0% 2.5% 1.8% Disagree Count 52 73 125 % within Department 13.1% 18.1% 15.6% Neutral Count 37 57 94 % within Department 9.3% 14.1% 11.8% Agree Count 126 142 268 % within Department 31.8% 35.2% 33.5% Strongly Agree Count 177 121 298 % within Department 44.7% 30.0% 37.3% Total Count 396 403 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Residents have several strong beliefs about wolf behavior in sheep areas. Most Des

Alpes Maritimes (63.5%) and Savoie (56%) residents believe that in regions where wolves live in close proximity to livestock, they feed primarily on domestic animals

(Table 52). There are many examples in Europe and worldwide where wolves can exist close to livestock areas without ever causing any damage. As France moves to a zoning system, this may be an item that will need to be addressed in a

75 communication campaign. If many residents feel wolves can never coexist near sheep then potentially there could be very few areas where the general public could perceive having wolves.

Table 52

In regions where wolves live in close proximity to livestock, they feed primarily on domestic animals.

Dans les régions où les loups vivent près des troupeaux, ils se nourrissent essentiellement d’animaux domestiques.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 21 17 38 % within Department 5.3% 4.2% 4.8% Disagree Count 68 91 159 % within Department 17.1% 22.6% 19.9% Neutral Count 56 70 126 % within Department 14.1% 17.4% 15.8% Agree Count 175 168 343 % within Department 44.1% 41.7% 42.9% Strongly Agree Count 77 57 134 % within Department 19.4% 14.1% 16.8% Total Count 397 403 800 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Local, regional and national newspapers frequently cover stories of sheep killed by wolves in France. The effect of this news coverage is unknown on public attitudes toward wolves and public beliefs about the number of sheep actually lost per year due to wolves. Wolves have killed more sheep in Des Alpes Maritimes than in

Savoie; actual numbers of sheep killed by wolves varies per year and are difficult to confirm. In an effort to understand public perceptions or beliefs about such losses, residents in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes were asked: “In your opinion, how

76 many sheep and other domestic animals were killed by wolves last year in your province?” Table 53 presents the findings.

Table 53

In your opinion, how many sheep and other domestic animals were killed by wolves last year in Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes?

A votre avis, combien de moutons et autres animaux domestiques ont été tués par les loups l'année dernière dans en Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes?

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total None Count 2 14 16 % within Department 1.3% 12.1% 6.0% 1 to 10 Count 5 15 20 % within Department 3.3% 12.9% 7.5% 11 to 30 Count 12 5 17 % within Department 7.9% 4.3% 6.3% 31 to 50 Count 9 7 16 % within Department 5.9% 6.0% 6.0% 51 to 100 Count 29 28 57 % within Department 19.1% 24.1% 21.3% 101 to 200 Count 14 15 29 % within Department 9.2% 12.9% 10.8% 201 to 300 Count 19 11 30 % within Department 12.5% 9.5% 11.2% 301 to 500 Count 20 16 36 % within Department 13.2% 13.8% 13.4% 501 to 1000 Count 24 3 27 % within Department 15.8% 2.6% 10.1% Over 1000 Count 18 2 20 % within Department 11.8% 1.7% 7.5% Total Count 152 116 268 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

77 Most respondents had no idea on the numbers of sheep killed within their province and did not offer any number. Of those respondents who did, differences exist between the two provinces. Most Des Alpes Maritimes residents (63%) believe there were more than 100 sheep killed within their province last year; 28% believe the number was greater than 500. Approximately 19% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents believe the number of sheep killed was 51-100 animals and only 18% believe the numbers of sheep killed by wolves last year was less than 51. In contrast, 35% of

Savoie residents believe wolves killed less than 51 sheep in the province last year;

12% believe there were no sheep killed by wolves. About 24% of Savoie residents believe sheep losses attributed to wolves was between 51 and 100 animals. A large percentage of Savoie residents (41%) believe more than 100 sheep were killed by wolves within their province last year; only 4% believe losses were greater than 500 animals. While many respondents did not respond to this item as they did not have any idea about the number of sheep killed by wolves, those that did respond tend to believe a very significant number of sheep are killed by wolves. This belief partly explains the public sympathy toward the agricultural community, and the consideration of some form of wolf management rather than strict complete protection for the species.

Why wolves attack sheep is debatable. Biologists have discussed whether the number of wolf attacks on sheep are related to prey density. In some areas like in

Dalmatia region of Croatia, where wild prey is scarce and sheep density is higher than in surrounding areas, wolves do attack and survive mainly on sheep. Yet there are areas where wolves have lived with abundant prey, and still attacked sheep. It seems there is a general agreement that wolves occasionally attack sheep even when there is abundant wild prey available. Residents held mixed beliefs on this

78 issue. Most Savoie residents (49%) believed incorrectly that wolves attack sheep only if there is not enough wild prey; 36% correctly identified the statement as false, and 15% were not sure (Table 54). In contrast, a higher percentage (45%) of Des

Alpes Maritimes residents correctly identified the statement as false, however,

40.5% believed the statement true and the same percentage as Savoie residents were not sure.

Table 54

Wolves attack sheep only if there are not enough wild prey available.

Les loups s'attaquent aux moutons uniquement lorsqu'il n'y a pas suffisamment de proies sauvages.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total True Count 160 197 357 % within Department 40.5% 49.0% 44.8% False Count 176 146 322 % within Department 44.6% 36.3% 40.4% Don't Know Count 59 59 118 % within Department 14.9% 14.7% 14.8% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Most Des Alpes Maritimes (68%) and Savoie (73%) residents identified correctly the statement that: “wolves kill sheep out of cruelty, not for nourishment” as false. A small percentage (21.5%) of residents in Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie (18%) stated they believed wolves killed sheep out of cruelty (Table 55).

79 Table 55

Wolves kill sheep out of cruelty, not for nourishment.

Les loups tuent les moutons par cruauté, et non pas pour se nourrir.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total True Count 85 72 157 % within Department 21.5% 17.9% 19.7% False Count 270 295 565 % within Department 68.4% 73.2% 70.8% Don't Know Count 40 36 76 % within Department 10.1% 8.9% 9.5% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The last 11 items focus on management issues related to addressing wolf-livestock conflicts and obtain behavioral intention information from respondents. Basically, what will residents support and/or oppose if proposed in a management plan?. Most residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (54%) and Savoie (49%) supported killing the wolf or wolves responsible for attacks on sheep, however support is not strong (Table

56). Approximately 39% of Savoie residents and 36% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents did not support the killing of wolves that killed sheep, and approximately

11% were neutral.

Most residents in Des Alpes Maritimes (65%) and Savoie (64%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement: “I would be willing to contribute financially to a compensation program for livestock owners for their loss of animals due to wolves”

(Table 57). Approximately 28% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents expressed some form of agreement with the statement and slightly less support was found from

Savoie residents (22%).

80 Table 56

I would agree with killing the wolf or wolves responsible for attacks on sheep.

Je serais d'accord pour que soit tué le ou les loups qui sont responsable(s) d'attaques sur les troupeaux.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 41 52 93 % within Department 10.4% 12.9% 11.7% Disagree Count 100 106 206 % within Department 25.4% 26.4% 25.9% Neutral Count 42 46 88 % within Department 10.7% 11.4% 11.1% Agree Count 109 106 215 % within Department 27.7% 26.4% 27.0% Strongly Agree Count 102 92 194 % within Department 25.9% 22.9% 24.4% Total Count 394 402 796 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 57

I would be willing to contribute financially to a compensation program for livestock owners for their loss of animals due to wolves.

Je serais disposé à contribuer financièrement à un programme de compensation des éleveurs pour les pertes de bétail dues aux loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 143 128 271 % within Department 36.2% 31.8% 34.0% Disagree Count 114 130 244 % within Department 28.9% 32.3% 30.6% Neutral Count 28 50 78 % within Department 7.1% 12.4% 9.8% Agree Count 102 84 186 % within Department 25.8% 20.9% 23.3% Strongly Agree Count 8 10 18 % within Department 2.0% 2.5% 2.3% Total Count 395 402 797 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

81 The Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) has suggested that livestock owners receive a fixed subsidy for living in a carnivore zone rather than compensations for each loss caused by carnivore attacks. Residents were asked whether: “livestock owners situated in a zone where wolves are present should receive a fixed subsidy rather than compensations for occasional losses caused by wolf attacks.” The residents of Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie did not seem to support such an idea

(Table 58). Approximately 45% of residents from each province disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement; approximately 30% from each province agreed in some form with the idea and the remainder were neutral. A focus group could be used to explore the reasons why residents expressed these opinions. On the other hand, there was quite strong support from residents in both provinces

(approximately 60% from each province) to providing compensation for attacks only to those livestock owners who use preventative measures (Table 59). Most residents from Des Alpes Maritimes (85.5%) and Savoie (79%) strongly believe that livestock owners who lose animals because of wolf attacks should receive compensation (Table 60). Many residents also believe that their taxes should be used to compensate the damages to livestock caused by wolves. Approximately

50% of Des Alpes Maritimes residents and more than 55% of Savoie residents are willing to have their taxes used to compensate the damages caused by wolves

(Table 61). This is some evidence of the strong connection to the agricultural communities shown by the residents of the two provinces.

82 Table 58

Livestock owners situated in a zone where wolves are present should receive a fixed subsidy rather than compensations for occasional losses caused by wolf attacks.

Les propriétaires de troupeaux situés dans une zone de présence du loup devraient recevoir une prime forfaitaire plutôt que des compensations pour les pertes occasionnées par les loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 57 72 129 % within Department 14.4% 17.9% 16.2% Disagree Count 120 111 231 % within Department 30.3% 27.6% 28.9% Neutral Count 103 89 192 % within Department 26.0% 22.1% 24.1% Agree Count 99 108 207 % within Department 25.0% 26.9% 25.9% Strongly Agree Count 17 22 39 % within Department 4.3% 5.5% 4.9% Total Count 396 402 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 59

Compensations given under attack circumstances should only be provided to livestock owners who use prevention measures to avoid wolf attacks (nocturnal regrouping, surveillance by a shepherd, or by guard dogs).

Les compensations en cas de dommage ne devraient être versées que aux éleveurs qui utilisent des méthodes de prevention pour éviter les attaques de loup (regroupements nocturnes, surveillance par un berger et/ou par des chiens de protection)

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 32 35 67 % within Department 8.1% 8.7% 8.4% Disagree Count 79 68 147 % within Department 19.9% 16.9% 18.4% Neutral Count 49 52 101 % within Department 12.4% 12.9% 12.6% Agree Count 132 141 273 % within Department 33.3% 35.0% 34.2% Strongly Agree Count 104 107 211 % within Department 26.3% 26.6% 26.4% Total Count 396 403 799 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

83 Table 60

Livestock owners who lose animals because of wolf attacks should receive compensation.

Les propriétaires de troupeau qui perdent du bétail à cause des attaques de loups devraient être dédommagés.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 14 17 31 % within Department 3.5% 4.2% 3.9% Disagree Count 16 20 36 % within Department 4.1% 5.0% 4.5% Neutral Count 27 46 73 % within Department 6.8% 11.4% 9.1% Agree Count 217 234 451 % within Department 54.9% 58.1% 56.5% Strongly Agree Count 121 86 207 % within Department 30.6% 21.3% 25.9% Total Count 395 403 798 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 61

I would like for my taxes to be used to compensate the damages to livestock caused by wolves.

Je voudrais que mes impôts soient utilisés pour compenser les dégâts causés par les loups au bétail.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 87 60 147 % within Department 24.6% 18.8% 21.8% Disagree Count 62 52 114 % within Department 17.5% 16.3% 16.9% Neutral Count 29 31 60 % within Department 8.2% 9.7% 8.9% Agree Count 153 167 320 % within Department 43.2% 52.2% 47.5% Strongly Agree Count 23 10 33 % within Department 6.5% 3.1% 4.9% Total Count 354 320 674 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

84 Outside of Yellowstone National Park, USA when a confirmed wolf attack on livestock has occurred, a private environmental group, the Defenders of Wildlife, pays the compensation directly to the farmer. This action has helped address the concerns of using government dollars to fund wolf management issues. Costs of the wolf restoration effort was the most important reason why people opposed wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park, so when an environmental group through private donations started to pay compensation, many people switched to support the wolf restoration effort. Residents were asked if the Minister of Agriculture should provide compensation to livestock owners who suffer damage to livestock caused by wolves. A large percentage (71% and 68% from Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie respectively) believed the Ministry of Agriculture should provide this compensation

(Table 62). Residents when asked whether the Ministry of Environment should pay

Table 62

The Minister of Agriculture should provide compensations to livestock owners for damages to livestock caused by wolves.

C'est le Ministère de l'Agriculture qui devrait verser les compensations aux propriétaires de troupeau qui perdent du bétail à cause des loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 16 9 25 % within Department 4.5% 2.8% 3.7% Disagree Count 53 47 100 % within Department 15.0% 14.7% 14.8% Neutral Count 35 47 82 % within Department 9.9% 14.7% 12.2% Agree Count 196 159 355 % within Department 55.4% 49.7% 52.7% Strongly Agree Count 54 58 112 % within Department 15.3% 18.1% 16.6% Total Count 354 320 674 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

85 compensation showed even stronger support for the statement (75% and 73% from

Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie respectively). Only 13% of residents from each province disagreed (Table 63).

Another issue that is being debated across Europe is having livestock owners be obliged to attain insurance in order to insure protection against wolf attacks. Most respondents in Des Alpes Maritimes (51%) and in Savoie (51%) supported this action. Many residents though did oppose the idea; approximately 40% from each province believed livestock owners should not be obliged to attain insurance for protection against wolf attacks (Table 64). Most residents also believed that the government should pay this insurance on behalf of the livestock owners (Table 65).

Table 63

The Minister of Environment should provide compensations to livestock owners for damages to livestock caused by wolves.

C'est le Ministère de l'Environnement qui devrait verser les compensations aux propriétaires de troupeau qui perdent du bétail à cause des loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 7 7 14 % within Department 2.0% 2.2% 2.1% Disagree Count 42 35 77 % within Department 11.9% 10.9% 11.4% Neutral Count 39 44 83 % within Department 11.0% 13.8% 12.3% Agree Count 197 162 359 % within Department 55.6% 50.6% 53.3% Strongly Agree Count 69 72 141 % within Department 19.5% 22.5% 20.9% Total Count 354 320 674 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

86 Table 64

Livestock owners should be obliged to attain insurance in order to insure protection against wolf attacks.

Les propriétaires de troupeau devraient être obligés de prendre une assurance pour bénéficier d'une protection financière contre les attaques de loups.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 65 24 89 % within Department 18.4% 7.5% 13.2% Disagree Count 79 97 176 % within Department 22.3% 30.4% 26.2% Neutral Count 34 36 70 % within Department 9.6% 11.3% 10.4% Agree Count 133 121 254 % within Department 37.6% 37.9% 37.7% Strongly Agree Count 43 41 84 % within Department 12.1% 12.9% 12.5% Total Count 354 319 673 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The last item in this section asked residents whether a wolf hunt should be authorized in their province. In previous items residents had expressed opposition to any hunting as a management tool for the wolf, but at the same time residents were reluctant to support full protection of the wolf. Placing this question with the livestock items prompted most residents in Savoie (59%) and Des Alpes Maritimes

(55%) to support the idea (Table 66). Managers should realize though that any form of killing wolves remains a highly sensitive issue with a large percentage of the general public in the two provinces. Most residents in Savoie and Des Alpes

Maritimes want wolves to continue to exist within their provinces.

87 Table 65

The government should pay this insurance on behalf of the livestock owners.

Le gouvernement devrait prendre en charge cette assurance à la place des propriétaires de troupeaux.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 31 32 63 % within Department 8.8% 10.0% 9.3% Disagree Count 84 80 164 % within Department 23.7% 25.0% 24.3% Neutral Count 53 56 109 % within Department 15.0% 17.5% 16.2% Agree Count 133 113 246 % within Department 37.6% 35.3% 36.5% Strongly Agree Count 53 39 92 % within Department 15.0% 12.2% 13.6% Total Count 354 320 674 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 66

A wolf hunt should be authorized in the department of Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

La chasse aux loups devrait être autorisée dans le département de la Savoie / Des Alpes Maritimes.

Alpes-Maritimes Savoie Total Strongly DisagreeCount 46 40 86 % within Department 13.0% 12.5% 12.8% Disagree Count 82 59 141 % within Department 23.2% 18.4% 20.9% Neutral Count 32 32 64 % within Department 9.0% 10.0% 9.5% Agree Count 148 124 272 % within Department 41.8% 38.8% 40.4% Strongly Agree Count 46 65 111 % within Department 13.0% 20.3% 16.5% Total Count 354 320 674 % within Department 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

88 Qualitative results based on the Common Ground Matrix (CGM)

Individual interviews were held with each of the 23 organizations. Organizations were asked

about the key issues facing wolf management from their perspective and key solutions. The

idea of the CGM method is to present the results of the matrix back to the interest groups

with the key issues down the left hand side and only numbers (no group labels) across the

top of the CGM. Each group now within the same room is asked to try to find itself on the

CGM. As each group examines the CGM in an effort to locate his/her group, they realize that

this is not an easy task because many of their key concerns are shared by other interest

groups. By summing the number of Xs across the CGM, it is possible to identify the issues

that all groups believe are important. By summing the Xs down the columns, it is possible

to identify how narrow or broadly focused a group is. A list of the groups with their

corresponding CGM number is available in Table 67.

Table 68 presents the results of the CGM. Three key issues were found to be common with

many of the 23 interest groups:

• livestock depredation issues

• pastoral lifestyle, and

• livestock protection measures.

More than 50% of the groups identified these issues. To engage the various interest groups

in a meaningful public involvement process that may include a communication and public

awareness component, it will be important to demonstrate listening first before informing.

We are born with two ears and one mouth, and we should be listening at least twice as

much as talking. Most of these interest groups have expressed three issues; these issues

89 Table 67 Interest groups and their corresponding CGM number for matrix interpretation.

1 = Life Biologists 2 = ASPAS - Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages 3 = GLF - Group Loup France 4 = FRAPNA - Federation Rhone-Alpes pour la protection de la nature 5 = FNE - France nature environnement 6 = Federation de chasse - Alpes-Maritimes 7 = Federation de chasse - Savoie 8 = Federation des chasseurs de haute montagne 9 = Lieutenant de Louveterie - Alpes-Maritimes 10 = Lieutenant de Louveterie - Savoie 11 = FDO Alpes-Maritimes - Federation departementale ovine Alpes-Maritimes 12 = FDO Savoie - Federation departementale ovine Savoie 13 = FDSEA Alpes-Maritimes - Federation departementale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles Alpes-Maritimes 14 = FDSEA Savoie - Federation departementale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles Savoie 15 = CDJA Alpes-Maritimes - Confederation departementale des jeunes agriculteurs Alpes-Maritimes 16 = CDJA Savoie - Confederation departementale des jeunes agriculteurs Savoie 17 = Chambre d'Agriculture Alpes-Maritimes 18 = Confederation Paysanne Alpes-Maritimes 19 = Mayor - St-Martin-Vesubie 20 = Directeur Adjoint - Parc National du Mercantour 21 = DIREN-PACA - Direction regional de l'environnement, Provence-Alpes-Cote-d'Azur 22 = Vie agricole (newspaper) 23 = Association randonnees pedestres

90 Table 68

Number of key issues per interest group.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Key issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

Livestock depredation V V V V V V V V V V V V 12

Pastoralism as a lifestyle V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 14

Political Subject V V V 3

Conflicts between groups V V V V V V V 7

Subsidy dependance V V V 3

Scale of management V V V 3

Need for balance-voices V V V 3

Livestock protection V V V V V V V V V V V V 12

Prices of produce V V V V V V V V V 9

Poisoning V 1

Illegal shooting V V V 3

Current legal status V V 2

Communication V V V V V V V V 8

Biodiversity V V V V 4

Internationall legislation V V V 3

Ecotourism V V 2

Zoning V V V V 4

Habitat loss V 1

Compensation V V V V 4

Viable pop/Biology V V V 3

Public opinion V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Key issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3

Objective data needed V V V V V 5

Protection of wolf V V 2

Coexistance V V V V V V V V 8

Reintroduction V V V V V V V V 8

Rapid reproduction V V 2

Concern for game spp. V V V V V V 6

Concern for hunt restrictn. V V 2

Pastoralism for landscape V V V V V 5

Gov. witholding info V V V 3

Pastoralism imp. for youth V V 2

Wolf park V V V 3

Hiking V V 2

Wolf diseases V 1

Family life V 1

1 1 1 1 Total 4 6 5 8 3 3 8 5 8 5 5 4 6 3 7 7 7 5 3 - 3 4 3 2 should be the starting point for discussion and for the development of communication messages that would be targeted to these interest groups.

Reporting back the results of this listening exercise and exploring the challenges and opportunities within each of these issues should be the first steps with all groups. It is important to note that these issues and communication messages are completely different tan those needed for the general public residents in the two provinces.

The CGM revealed that administrative organizations (LIFE, Mayor, Park) tended to identify the largest number of issues. Group Loup France identified the most issues at 14. In contrast, some groups (Federation de chasse – Savoie, Federation des chasseurs de haute montagne, CDJA-Savoie, Association randonnees pedestres) were more narrowly focused, mentioning just a few key issues.

In total, the 23 groups identified thirty-five issues. These issues could be grouped into eight key areas:

• agricultural

• communication

• general mistrust

• biological

• mortality

• political

• tourism, and

• hunting issues.

93 The structure for a communication plan and public involvement process with the

interest groups lies in the understanding of the beliefs and attitudes underlying

these eight areas. Of these eight general issues some are more important than

others, and even within each area, importance of issues needs to be prioritized

by listening again to the specific groups.

Agricultural issues

Agricultural issues are the most complex of the eight areas and involve the most

underlying issues; they also include the three most common key issues to all

interest groups. Agricultural issues can be summarized by:

• livestock depredation concerns including the impact of the direct loss of sheep to wolves, the fear that losses will only increase, and the impact of wolf attacks upon the entire flock health

• the impacts wolves have on a pastoral lifestyle and the everyday challenges to maintain such a lifestyle in a changing economy including the mental stresses faced by the individual shepherd

• increased strain on the family life of shepherds, having to spend less time with family because must guard sheep against wolves, and continually searching for better areas for grazing animals

• pastoral lifestyle and cultural landscape, an uneasy feeling that the traditional lifestyle is no longer valued within the cultural landscape by the larger general public, losing a piece of our culture

• subsidy concerns particularly in light of current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms, and the changing conditions in the EU

• prices of produce decreasing, costs increasing, challenges of making a living in a growing competitive market

• livestock protection measures against wolves, what really works and is cost effective?

• compensation issues for livestock losses – fair pricing and efficient processing of claims

94 • youth agriculturalists are the real endangered species, who will carry on the tradition?

• coexistence of wolves and livestock can not really happen, can only have one or the other

Many of the agricultural issues are larger in scope than wolves and wolf

management. It seems that the agricultural community is under stress from a

variety of factors. Those concerned about communicating about wolves to the

agricultural community may do better to design persuasive messages that place the

agricultural community and wolf conservation advocates on the same side against

a common enemy. For example, pastoral lifestyle and wolves are threatened by

development pressure and changing land use. The general public is sensitive to

many of these agricultural concerns but they do believe livestock protection

measures should be practiced to receive compensation payments. In contrast to

the agricultural community the general public believes coexistence is possible.

Successful examples of agricultural practices in large carnivore zones (eg.

Carpathian mountains in Romania) could be shared with the agricultural community.

Further HD work is needed in this area to obtain scientific and representative data

of how widespread amongst the agricultural community are these key issues and

concerns.

Communication

Several groups mentioned the importance of communication. There was a

realization that a great deal of conflict existed between groups, but that there was a

real need to begin to be willing to listen to other points of view and work together

toward a common vision, goals and objectives. All groups expressed interest in the

95 nature of this human dimensions study and believed having an independent individual or group working toward understanding the views of all groups (pro-wolf, anti-wolf and indifferent) was needed; many mentioned that this HD study was an effective and safe way to start the communication process. As one individual mentioned: “I don’t care how the wolves got here, whether they were introduced or not, they are here and we have to live with them. We might as well talk with each other about how to coexist with them.” Communication issues could be summarized as:

• general communication between groups, learning to listen, and learning to effectively communicate

• the need for balancing views, how to understand and hear all points of view in a representative manner, basically how to hear from the general public

• public opinion issues, how easily is the public swayed by media articles, protests, and how do you gain an informed public, is public opinion listened to by politicians?

• Communication is a political subject. Communication is power. Who has the information/the facts and how can these be shared with a larger constituency? What is the political climate and is there political will for wolf conservation efforts?

• Conflicts between groups occur. How is the best way to identify the nature of the conflict and to resolve conflict?

On a positive note 23 different interests were willing to share their feelings and begin communicating. The next step is to share the results of this HD study with those groups and continue a public involvement process facilitated by an objective individual or agency willing to continue the listening process.

96 Mistrust

This issue could have been grouped with communication. Interest groups that

talked about mistrust highlighted three main concerns:

• The need for objective scientific research, both biophysical research and human dimension-oriented research. As mentioned earlier all groups spoke of the benefits of this objective HD study.

• Reintroduction issue of wolves. Many interest groups do not believe wolves naturally returned to France and this has lead to a mistrust of Park, government and environmental groups.

• Government withholding information. Three groups believed this was an important issue and a stumbling block toward effective communication and resolving of issues.

Mistrust of information, individuals and agencies are often at the root of conflicts

between groups. Trust is required before effective working relationships can be

developed. Such trust is not built with educational materials and presentation of

facts, but earned by spending time listening to issues and concerns and producing

material that is based upon that initial listening exercise. Agreeing to listen to each

other and work toward resolving each other’s concerns can be much more effective

than presentation of biological and value messages with these various interest

groups.

97 Biological issues

While five concerns under this heading of biological issues were heard during the

CGM exercise, discussion of a biological nature with groups made up a very small

part of the issues heard:

• Biodiversity

• Habitat loss

• Viable populations

• Rapid reproduction, and

• Wolf diseases

Only a few groups mentioned biological issues (never more than 4 of the 23 groups

at one time on a biological issue), and for the most part these groups were already

more pro-wolf or protection oriented than most groups. Group Loup France, Parc

National du Mercantour, DIREN-PACA and ASPAS were the groups that identified

all the biological concerns except for one.

The exception was the concern about rapid reproduction of wolves from the hunters

in Des Alpes Maritimes. It may be useful to address this issue with these groups in

that province, particularly linking breeding behavior and mortality rates of pups with

the discussion. Linking a discussion with the impacts of what may happen when

individual animals are killed that are not causing a problem could be enlightening.

Sharing examples of how wolves when put under extreme hunting pressure will have

more members of the pack breed, and when the pack structure is affected by the

killing of a key individual how the rest of the pack may turn to livestock to survive,

could be useful messages that also allow for engagement on issues such as illegal

killings. In general though, the results from the CGM suggest that communicating

98 biological messages with most interest groups may not be that effective in

influencing attitudes. As is the case so often in wolf management the issues of most

importance to people are more socio-economic and political in nature.

Mortality

Poisoning of wolves and illegal shooting of wolves were the two issues identified by

three interest groups under this heading of mortality. Only LIFE biologists mentioned

poisoning of wolves as an issue. No other interest group stated this was a concern.

From previous quantitative results with the general public, there is strong opposition

to the use of poisons. Perhaps not to cause a public backlash of attitudes against

the agricultural community, all groups feel that poisoning is not a debatable topic.

Three groups expressed illegal shooting as a key issue: LIFE biologists, Lieutenant

de Louveterie – Alpes Maritimes and Chambre d’Agriculture Alpes-Maritimes. All

three groups expressed some level of concern for the impacts of illegal shooting on

the overall population and the impacts on pack social structure and subsequent

behavior. From a communication perspective, this is the angle to pursue. Does

killing wolves randomly and illegally cause more problems in terms of livestock

depredation and overall pack stability and survivorship? As suggested earlier, these

issues might be the interesting starting discussion points for those groups

concerned about these issues. The groups from Des Alpes Maritimes also

expressed concern over the consequences (eg. penalties) of killing a wolf illegally.

99 Political

Five key issues identified through the CGM were grouped as political issues:

• Legal status

• International legislation

• Zoning

• Scale of management

• Protection of wolf

No more than four groups at one time identified one of these issues. The hunters

from Des Alpes Maritimes and the LIFE biologists were the two groups that identified

the legal status of the wolf as an issue. Three quite different groups (ASPAS,

Chambre d’Agriculture Alpes Maritimes, and Parc National du Mercantour)

expressed concern about international legislation. Groups were concerned about

the implications of the Bern convention and questioned what flexibility if any they had

to manage wolves. Zoning has been proposed as a possible approach to reducing

wolf-human conflicts in France; the challenge of course is defining the zones. Group

Loup France remains concerned about zoning and the implications such an

approach would have on the protection of the species overall. The Parc National du

Mercantour holds similar feelings. The Parc wants to protect wolves, but also

support the pastoral lifestyle within the park. The Lieutenant de Louveterie of Des

Alpes Maritimes and the FDO Alpes Maritimes expressed concern about how the

zones would be defined and the implications of living within a wolf protection zone.

Only three groups highlighted scale of management as an issue: LIFE biologists and

the Lieutenant de Louveterie from Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie. There are

mixed feelings about who should be able to manage wolves. While some individuals

100 believe it is a local issue, others believe it is a national issue. Several groups at

various times during the CGM process expressed concerns about a far-removed

from nature (and reality) Paris government making decisions with huge local impacts

with little to no knowledge.

The final issue stated as protection of the wolf was mentioned by GLF and FRAPNA,

two pro-wolf groups. Basically, they believed the wolf had to remain fully protected

in France.

Tourism

Only three issues were identified and considered under the label of tourism: eco-

tourism, hiking, and a wolf park. The Mayor of St. Martin Vesubie indicated all three

of these issues when discussing key issues in wolf management. All were

mentioned in a positive light as ways of bringing more income into communities and

regions. ASPAS also mentioned eco-tourism as a positive economic generator and

a means to illustrate the benefits of wolves to an area. The Association randonnees

pedestres mentioned only three issues in the overall exercise, hiking being one of

them; the other two issues were communication and pastoral lifestyle. The last item

identified as a key concern was the idea of a wolf park. The Mayor of St. Martin

Vesubie mentioned the idea of Mercantour being a wolf park as a positive step for

tourism and wolves. In contrast, the two other groups who highlighted this issue

were the hunters in Des Alpes Maritimes and the young agriculturalists (CDJA) also

from Des Alpes Maritimes. These groups were not supportive of the Parc National

du Mercantour turning into a wolf park at the expense of the local agricultural

community.

101 Hunting

The last issues that emerged from the CGM were concerns about wolves becoming

a game species and increased hunting restrictions. While only the hunting

federation in Des Alpes Maritimes and Savoie voiced concerns over hunting

restrictions, there were six groups that expressed concerns about the wolf becoming

a game species. The Parc National du Mercantour and DIREN-PACA expressed

concerns about wolves becoming a game species and the implications this may

have to wolf conservation in France. There was also concern for how the rest of the

EU may respond to a decision to have wolves a game species. The hunters

organizations in Savoie, Des Alpes Maritimes and of the high mountains as well as

the Lieutenant de Louveterie of Savoie all expressed concern about the legal change

of the wolf to game status.

The CGM as its name suggests does identify the key issues of concern to the

majority of groups and to individual groups. This information allows managers to

specifically design persuasive messages that are on topical issues of high

importance to a particular interest group. The exercise also allows managers to

explore geographic differences amongst the two provinces across issues, thus

allowing for the design of different messages to the same target group that may exist

in two provinces. Finally, the CGM offers managers direction on which groups have

many concerns and thus need more time being heard. A communication officer can

then divide his/her time visiting various groups based upon the extent of concerns

for each group.

102 Using CGM to explore key issues by group and province

From a communication and public involvement perspective it is necessary to

understand whether the same issues are important with a variety of interest groups.

The previous discussion has explored some of those issues. It is also important to

know whether the same group but in a different geographic region have different

issues. For example, research on hunters’ attitudes toward wolves in three regions

of Croatia revealed that attitudes of the same interest group did differ considerably

across space. Ministry of Tourism in Croatia is now using that information to

encourage eco-tourism opportunities where attitudes are positive. Communication

messages will be designed by region and group, rather than just by interest group.

In France, there are five groups involved in the CGM exercise that exist in both

Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes: FDC, Louveterie, FDO, FDSEA, and CDJA. Table

69 illustrates the issues of just these groups and examines how each group directly

compares to its counterpart in the other province. The most common issues

identified were coexistence, livestock depredation, pastoral lifestyle, livestock

protection and reintroduction. All Des Alpes-Maritimes groups identified more issues

than their Savoie counterparts. This may be due to the Des Alpes Maritimes groups

having a longer history with wolves. As evident by the mention of reintroduction as

a key issue with these groups, mistrust of management agencies remains strong.

While coexistence was stated by more than half of these groups as an issue, these

groups believed coexistence of

103 Table 69 Comparisons between Alpes-Maritimes and Savoie interest groups with respect to key issues

Key issue FDC - AM FDC - Louveterie Louvetrie - FDO - AM FDO - FDSEA - FDSEA - CDJA - AM CDJA - Total Savoie - AM Savoie Savoie AM Savoie Savoie

Livestock depredation V V V V V 5

Pastoralism as lifestyle V V V V V 5

Political subject

Conflict between groups V V 2

Subsidy dependance

Scale of Management V V 2

Need for balance- voices

Livestock protection V V V V V 5

Prices of produce V V 2

Poisoning

Illegal shooting V 1

Current legal status V 1

Communication V 1

Biodiversity

International Legislation

Ecotourism

Zoning V V 2

Habitat loss Key issue FDC - AM FDC - Louveterie Louvetrie - FDO - AM FDO - FDSEA - FDSEA - CDJA - AM CDJA - Total Savoie - AM Savoie Savoie AM Savoie Savoie

Compensation V V 2

Viable pop/ Biology

Public opinion

Objective data needed V V 2

Protection of wolf

Coexistance V V V V V V 6

Reintroduction V V V V V 5

Rapid reproduction V V 2

Concern for game spp. V V V 3

Concern for hunt restrict. V V 2

Pastoralism for landscape V V 2

Government witholding V 1 info

Imp.of pastoralism to V V 2 youth

Wolf Park V 1

Hiking

Wolf diseases

Family life & pastoralism V 1

Total 8 3 8 5 8 5 5 4 5 3 wolves and agricultural communities would be very difficult to achieve.

Communication messages will have to address these tough issues of coexistence

and mistrust about reintroduction. Communication with Savoie groups can be more

focused on fewer issues, while a broader program covering more issues will be

needed to connect with the same groups in Des Alpes Maritimes.

Using CGM to explore possible solutions

All 23 interest groups were asked about possible solutions toward understanding and

addressing the complex issues of wolf management in France. In contrast to the 35

issues raised by all groups, a total of 23 solutions were only generated; and while the

number of issues ranged from three to 14 depending upon the group, solutions had

the narrower range of one to seven depending upon the group (Table 70). The most

common solution mentioned was livestock protection measures, however, only six

of the 23 groups indicated this response. Other solutions mentioned by at least five

groups included zoning, political direction, rite to defend livestock, optimism for

coexistence, problem animal removed, and getting rid of all wolves. The 23

solutions generated by the groups may be summarized as:

• Removing the interaction between wolves and livestock

• Minimizing the interaction between wolves and livestock

• Minimizing and/or mitigating the impact of wolf-livestock interactions

• Supporting information and societal context

While no groups suggested removing sheep from areas to resolve conflicts, five

groups suggested as a solution, to get rid of the wolves. For the Confederation

106 Table 70

Number of solutions proposed by key interest group

Solutions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total

HD research V 1

Scientific data V V V V 4

Subsidy system V V V 3

Political direction V V V V V 5

Right to defend V V V V V 5 livestock

Remove full V V V V 4 protection

Optimism for V V V V V 5 Coexistence

Let time pass V V 2

Zoning V V V V V 5

Problem animal V V V V V V 5 removed

Open comm. btw. V V V V 4 groups

Media fairness V V 2

Livestock V V V V V V 6 protection

Compensation V V V V 4 Solutions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total

Don’t let expand V V 2 into cities

Education V V V 3

Could kill problem V 1 wolves

Get rid of wolves V V V V V 5

Fence park V V V V 4

Ecologists pay V 1

Tourism V 1

Control over mtn. V 1 pastures

Insurance V 1 neccessary

Total 7 1 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 5 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 1 5 7 3 1 3 Paysanne Alpes Maritimes and the Vie agricole this was the only solution proposed.

The other solution proposed by groups to remove the interaction between wolves and livestock was to fence the park. For the FDO Alpes Maritimes and the CDJA

Alpes Maritimes fencing the park and getting rid of the wolves were the only two solutions proposed. On a positive note, pro-wolf groups did not suggest removal of sheep from areas, but instead were willing to discuss removal of problem animals and livestock protection measures as possible solutions.

Minimizing the interaction between wolves and livestock consisted of several possible solutions: livestock protection, opportunity to defend livestock, zoning, remove full protection, and killing problem wolves. Most of the interest groups (15 of the 23) mentioned at least one of the above solutions to addressing wolf-human conflicts. This suggests a willingness by most groups to work together toward minimizing the wolf and livestock conflicts. Developing livestock protection measures and killing problem wolves were the two most common solutions suggested. These issues were also considered important by the general public respondents in Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes.

Five suggested solutions could be classified as solutions that accept the presence of wolves and attempt to mitigate the impact of wolves on livestock. These solutions were: a subsidy system, compensation, having ecologists pay for damages, insurance being necessary, and tourism. Only 7 of the 23 groups mentioned at least one of these solutions. Compensation issues, meaning address issues quickly and efficiently, was the most common solution mentioned within this group. It seems

109 paying a subsidy or compensation still remains acceptable as a solution to several

interest groups.

The last set of solutions were grouped under societal context or support system as

the following items are part of working toward solutions. These include: HD

research, scientific data, optimism for coexistence, political direction, let time pass,

open communication between groups, media fairness, and education. Eleven of the

23 groups mentioned at least one of these items. Open communication was

stressed by four groups, most of which tended to be more pro-wolf. Sharing

information and continuing to work toward solutions are first steps toward getting all

interest groups to agree on a set of compromises that can be used to effectively

manage wolves in France.

Some quantitative results from interest groups

The main focus of this HD project was to obtain representative data from the general

public but additional sampling did occur obtaining a little data from hunters (only 22

respondents from Savoie), members of environmental groups (86 from Des Alpes

Maritimes and 88 from Savoie giving a total of 174), and 95 students (most between

13 and 16 years old) from Des Alpes Maritimes. Results from such small sample

sizes can provide some insight to issues that may need to be addressed with these

target groups, however, results can not be generalized and thought to be

representative of these respective groups. Additional data from these target groups

will be obtained in the post-test assessment of attitudes and beliefs.

110 Hunters and environmental group members on many items were at each end of the attitudinal spectrum regarding wolves and their management. The general public and the students from Des Alpes Maritimes were in the middle of this attitudinal spectrum, many times leaning more toward the environmentalist’s views than the hunter’s views. For example, most students (60%) liked or strongly liked wolves.

Almost all environmentalists (94%) expressed a similar attitude of liking or strongly liking wolves. In contrast, most hunters (71%) expressed dislike or strong dislike of the animal; only 29% suggested they liked wolves. Most hunters (73%) believed wolves were bad to have in France; environmental members were completely different in their attitude with 91% believing it was good to have wolves in France.

Students had quite mixed feelings about the wolf. While many students (41%) expressed that wolves were good to have in France, 26% indicated bad, and a relatively large percentage 33% indicated neutral. While in North America we often see attitudes toward wolves polarized into either a love’em or hate’em attitude, such isn’t the case in France. This large number of students who have not formed an evaluation of wolves in France could be influenced with targeted communication messages.

Most hunters (77%) were not interested in having wolves for future generations. In contrast, 94% of the environmental members wanted to ensure wolves exist for future generations. Interestingly, while 57% of students did want wolves to exist for future generations, nearly 30% felt the same as most hunters. And while hunters expressed quite strongly they did not want wolves for future generations, significantly less (59%) felt strongly that they should not exist at all in France; 32% of hunters agreed with existence. This would suggest in the hunter’s hierarchy value system, existence value may in fact exist with hunters and this value may be much stronger

111 than the futuristic value expressed through the item about future generations.

Students once again had mixed opinions about wolves. Many (45%) felt wolves should exist, 23% were against existence (less than those who were against future generations), and a large percentage (32%) was neutral. Managers and communication officers have traditionally believed students to hold positive attitudes toward wolves. This data suggests that students are very much undecided and are at a stage where they are trying to formulate their opinions on these issues. This makes it a ripe environment for environmental education and strong persuasive messages targeted to the large neutral group who should be susceptible to changing attitudes once better informed.

Building trust between various groups is a key to resolving some of the conflict between groups. One item reflective of the lack of trust between groups is the issue of how wolves got to France in the first place. Most hunters (73%) and students

(48%) believe wolves were reintroduced into France. While 30% of the students are neutral, only 22% disagree that wolves were actively reintroduced into France. In contrast, approximately 79% of environmental members believe wolves naturally arrived to France and were not actively reintroduced.

The students, environmental group members and hunters were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: “It is not necessary to have wolves in France if there are viable populations elsewhere in Europe”. If respondents were negative toward wolves, they would agree or strongly agree with this statement as it was worded in the negative. If respondents were positive toward wolves they would disagree in some way with the statement. The results seem to suggest that some respondents may not have understood completely the question. In contrast to past

112 responses on items, many hunters (43%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement; 33% of hunters agreed in some way. Hunters were more positive than students (41% disagreed or strongly disagreed), however once again many students

(39%) expressed neutral responses. As expected a large percentage (83%) of environmental group members disagreed with the statement. If we assume that hunters did understand the item and responded favorably, this might indicate some sense of national pride in having wolves in France and a belief that just because they exist elsewhere in Europe does not mean they should not exist within the country.

However, given that most hunters felt wolves should not exist in the country on a previous item, believe wolves should not exist for future generations, and that they should not be protected, it would seem that they may have misunderstood the question.

Wolves currently are completely protected in France and within the provinces of Des

Alpes Maritimes and Savoie. Most hunters (71%) disagree that wolves should remain fully protected in France; many (52%) very strongly disagree with complete protection of the animal. At the other end of the spectrum equally as adamant are the environmental respondents; 86% agree with full protection and 56% very strongly agree. Students are between these two groups attitudinally; many students (45%) support complete protection, however, 33% oppose full protection and a smaller percentage indicated a neutral response on this item. Even stronger opposition occurred from hunters when asked about keeping full protection for wolves at the provincial level (76% with 57% strongly disagreeing). Interestingly, members of environmental groups also became more adamant in their views about protecting wolves within their province (87%). Students also held stronger attitudes in support of having wolves within their province (49% in favor). Such results challenge the

113 traditional myth that positive attitudes may diminish as the issue comes “closer to home”. The Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon often seen in environmental issues does not appear to be the case with students and members of environmental groups. These results contrast with those observed from the general public whose attitudes did slightly change toward less support for wolves as they were asked about wolves closer to their front door.

Hunting of wolves within France is strongly opposed by environmental group respondents and students, and is only weakly supported by hunters themselves.

Most students (64%) and environmentalists (90%) oppose hunting seasons on wolves. Both groups are more adamant about a year round hunting season on wolves (97% environmental members oppose and 72% of students oppose). And when asked about the use of poisons to kill wolves, nearly all members of the environmental groups (98%) and 76% of students oppose the use of poisons in killing wolves. Most hunters (57%) do support some kind of hunting season on wolves, less (50%) support year round hunting on the animal, and only a minority

(32%) support the use of poisons. One of the factors behind support or opposition to hunting is the group’s belief in whether wolves create a dynamic equilibrium between prey and predator numbers. Most hunters (77%) disagree that wolves create any kind of equilibrium between prey and predator numbers; environmental respondents on the other hand agree (84%) that wolves create this equilibrium.

Students were equally divided in their responses. About one third (36%) believed there was this equilibrium, 34% were neutral, and 31% did not feel wolves created such equilibrium. Most students and environmental group members (56% and 65% respectively) opposed even the killing of problem wolves that routinely kill livestock.

More than 80% of hunters supported killing problem wolves. Given the divergent

114 views on this topic and its influence on attitudes toward management policy (hunting versus protection), this would be a good topic to discuss from a communication perspective.

While many factors can affect attitudes toward wolves and their management in

France (some of which have been already discussed, for example, mistrust), beliefs about whether wolves are dangerous to humans and wolf population numbers may be the most important factors. When asked about whether wolf attacks on people are common in areas where the two are in close proximity, most hunters, environmental members and students realized that such events were rare (41%,

86%, 49% respectively). There were large percentages however in the hunters group (36%) and students (34%) who indicated neutral responses. When asked whether they would be afraid to hike in the woods if wolves were present, huge differences were found amongst the three groups. Approximately 41% of the hunters stated they would be afraid to hike in the woods if wolves were present; only

6% of environmental group members expressed a similar feeling. Nearly a third

(29%) of the students stated they would be afraid to hike in the woods if wolves were present. Another item that offers information about this fear element asked respondents which animal was more dangerous to them; the options were wolves, bears, lynx, none are dangerous, and all are dangerous. While most environmental members (55%) expressed that none were dangerous, many hunters and students stated all were dangerous (23% and 38% respectively). All groups did indicate correctly that bears were more dangerous than other species. All groups also believed that lynx was more dangerous to humans than wolves. The general public respondents in both provinces expressed similar views.

115 Knowledge of wolf numbers in France by individuals remains incredibly low and this is the most important factor influencing attitudes toward the species. Individuals that believe there are high numbers of wolves tend to hold more negative attitudes than those believing wolf numbers are less. Only 15 hunters responded to the item asking about the number of wolves in the country. Of those 15 hunters, ten believed there were 50 or more wolves in France, one hunter suggested 25 wolves, two suggested 30 wolves, and one each believed 40 and 45 wolves. Approximately 34% of the environmental group members believe there are more than 50 wolves in

France, 25% believe there are less than 30 and the remaining 41% believe wolf numbers are between 30 and 47. Students tended to dramatically overestimate the number of wolves in France. While 13% believe there are less than 30 wolves and

9% believe there are 50 wolves, 74% of the students believe there are more than 100 wolves. Of those students, 21% believe there are 100-250 animals, 28% believe there are 300-500 wolves, and 25% believe there are more than 800 wolves in

France. Given these results, it is most interesting that 30% of students disagree that there is enough wolves in France, 31% are neutral, and only 38% agree that there are enough wolves in France. With better knowledge about actual wolf numbers this latter number should decrease. Environmental group members, who have a fairly accurate assessment of wolf numbers, believe there are not enough wolves in

France (65% disagree with the statement: there are enough wolves in France). Most hunters who also know the existing numbers of wolves felt that there is enough wolves in France.

One of the most important communication messages for students is an accurate number of wolves in France. As students realize there are significantly less wolves than they now believe, attitudes toward wolves should become increasingly more

116 positive. The large number of neutral responses should shift toward positive attitudes toward the species. Communication efforts should ensure delivery of this message about population numbers especially for this target group. In contrast, hunters realize the actual number of wolves and thus more important messages for this target group may be messages that address issues of perceived danger and fear of the animal.

Another factor contributing to the fear of wolves and the negative attitude toward the species, particularly for students, is an overestimation of the weight of the average male wolf. Approximately 40% of students believe wolves are 51-75kg and another

9% believe wolves were even heavier. In addition, 31% of students indicated they did not know the average weight of a male wolf. An incredibly large percentage

(80%) of students then have no idea on the weight of the wolf. Most hunters and environmental group members identified correctly the average weight of a male adult wolf as 26 to 50kg. There were still 15% of environmental group members and 24% of hunters who believe wolves were heavier than 50kg.

Most hunters and environmental group members correctly identified that the average pack size is one to seven animals; only 37% of students knew this information. More than 10% of students believe pack sizes are greater than 16 animals, and 28% believe pack size is 8-15 animals; another 24% stated they did not know. Usually pack size is not an important variable in affecting attitudes, however, beliefs of large numbers of marauding animals may be contributing to the neutral and negative attitudes held by students.

117 The results mentioned above offer the communication officer an insight into what

messages should be delivered to what interest groups. The following results indicate

to the officer the willingness of those groups to receive the message. On a scale of

one to ten, where one indicated not concerned about the wolf issue and ten

indicating very concerned, only 1% of environmental group members indicated no

concern; 11% of hunters expressed no concern while a larger percentage of

students (25%) expressed no concern. Large percentages of the environmental

group members and hunters (45% and 50% respectively) indicated they were very

concerned; only 17% of students expressed such concern for the issue.

Respondents were also asked about their willingness to receive information about

the issue. While only 1% of environmental group members and 11% of hunters

indicated they didn’t want any information, 21% of students expressed this opinion.

Both hunters (53%) and environmental group members (49%) expressed a strong

desire for a lot of information (ten on a scale of one to ten). Only 25% of students

on the other hand, requested a lot of information. This suggests that active

communication with hunters and environmental groups should occur. Students are

less interested in wolves and wolf management issues but this interest should

change as knowledge levels increase about the species.

Implications of findings for future communication efforts

Communication could be described as the process of sending a message and

having it received, understood, and then listening to the response or feedback from

the recipient of the message. That message should not be targeted too high or too

low or on information that is not directly related to influencing attitudes and behavior

118 change. As we are born with two ears and only one mouth we should probably be listening at least twice as much as talking for effective communication. After listening to the key interest groups and the general public regarding their concerns and key issues, then communication occurs when those results are given back to those groups, thus indicating one has received the message and truly has listened.

For the various interest groups the results of this study should be shared with each group. Of particular importance are the results of the common ground matrix that offer a safe starting point to engage all groups. The question should be posed to each group about how they feel the process should continue, if at all. A meeting with all groups in the same room sharing their thoughts in a facilitated discussion may be a starting point. These issues of communication and how to ensure continued involvement in the resource management decision-making process by all interest groups will be addressed later. For now, the key findings and their implications for increasing public awareness and acceptance of wolves are presented.

Addressing the general public and increasing their awareness of wolves and wolf management requires an understanding of the types of messages that can be delivered (value messages and factual messages) and the pertinent topics to address based partly upon the percentage of neutral or unknown responses to certain items. Those expressing neutral responses may be more easily influenced, positively or negatively, by targeted communication messages. Wording of such items will be important as results indicated how slight changes in wording dramatically change support or opposition to the management approach.

119 Key findings

Most general public residents of Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes are in fact

supportive of having wolves in France. And most residents of both provinces also

support maintaining wolves in France for future generations. These findings are

made even the more interesting when considering that most respondents do not

have any idea on the number of wolves in France and many believe there are much

higher numbers of wolves in France than actually do exist. For managers and

government officials that truly want to manage the resource for their entire resource

constituency, they can move confidently toward conservation efforts toward wolves

knowing they have a large amount of public support for such a decision.

Savoie residents tend to be more positive about wolves than residents of Des Alpes

Maritimes, however, these Savoie residents are considerably less interested in

learning more about wolves and their management than their counterparts. The

issue of wolves and wolf management is much more important to Des Alpes

Maritimes residents than to Savoie residents. These feelings are revealed not only

through the responses directly to such items about receiving information, willingness

to learn more, and importance of the issue, but also through the number of neutral

responses often expressed by Savoie residents in comparison to the residents from

Des Alpes Maritimes. These neutral responses by Savoie residents on various

items could be areas to target as it does seem these neutral attitudes can be

affected relatively easily. For example, on several items it was possible to see the

neutral respondents shift toward either positive or negative when asked to think

about certain issues. While often in resource management issues a Not In My Back

Yard or NIMBY phenomenon is often observed, this did not seem that strong for

120 residents of the two provinces; Savoie residents continued to support having wolves within their province and numbers were close but slightly negative in Des Alpes

Maritimes. The NIMBY phenomenon also did not seem to influence significantly students attitudes toward wolves.

Two important value persuasive messages should be stressed in any communication effort and these may be more important than even factual messages about wolves. The issue of having wolves for future generations appears important in both provinces and to many respondents. The other issue is one of existence value – having wolves exist in France seems important even if wolves exist elsewhere in Europe. This latter message may be linked with national pride and natural heritage. Both messages would be considered “strong winning” messages in a communication debate. Basically, in communicating arguments for the conservation of wolves, one tries to get messages that are strong messages that also provide little chance for strong counter-arguments. The future generations argument is a good example. Arguing that as a mother raises her children, and these children have a right to see wolves in the future and possibly see or hear wolves in the wild, being similar to a wolf raising her pups and that they too have a right to exist are strong winning arguments. Counter-arguments saying that children or grandchildren shouldn’t have an opportunity to hear or see wolves or that pups shouldn’t be allowed to grow up are not readily accepted by the public. Addressing this issue should influence those with neutral attitudes.

Words must be chosen carefully to present to the public. While most residents support wolves for future generations and also viable populations of wolves in

France, strong opposition was expressed toward “abundant” wolf populations for

121 future generations. And while support for viable populations does exist in Savoie, there is little knowledge of actual wolf numbers in France. Focus groups could be used to explore what people believe by viable populations versus abundant populations in France. Such information could be useful in formulating the message concerning numbers of wolves. In addition, explaining numbers in terms of probability that wolves would exist for future generations, or probability of pups surviving should prove useful. Knowledge about the numbers of wolves is directly related to attitudes. Because most respondents believe there are far more wolves in France than actually do exist, communicating accurate numbers should only increase positive attitudes toward wolves especially if the message can be linked that existing numbers do not constitute a viable population. Another possible spin on this message is the use of the word “equilibrium” which is seen as a positive concept by the public. Most respondents believed in a balance between wolves and their prey being a positive aspect of having wolves. Choosing words and phrases that ring with the public should ensure an effective communication and awareness campaign.

While many respondents believe wolves have a significant impact on big and small game animals, most residents and interest groups did not support hunting of wolves.

In many cases there was a strong opposition of killing any wolves indicating that if managers listen solely to the hunting lobby voice managers will not be making decisions representative of the entire constituency, and may find themselves against strong public opposition. Such results have implications toward communicating about a zoning management regime for France. While most respondents oppose hunting, there does seem to be some sensitivity to the livestock community and their concerns about livestock depredation.

122 This sensitivity toward the livestock community suggests that messages can not be developed that are directly seen as against the livestock community as this could result in neutral respondents becoming negative toward wolves and being influenced by the livestock organizations. While livestock operators should be encouraged with this public sensitivity to their cause, most residents still remain quite strongly opposed to killing wolves, and only weakly supportive of killing problem animals.

Respondents also tend to hold strong support for compensation to livestock operators who suffer losses due to wolves, but only for those farmers who use preventative measures. This may be a strong communication message for all groups.

Another angle for communication is developing a message that aligns environmental interests and livestock interests against a common enemy. For example, both groups may oppose the loss of habitat and the loss of a traditional way of life caused by urban development or industry. These are again seen as “winning messages”.

It is also interesting to note that while most residents opposed any form of killing wolves, their attitudes did shift after being exposed to several items concerning livestock-wolf conflicts. This may suggest that some form of management may be supported if put into this light rather than presented as a hunt per se. And while the agricultural community should be pleased to hear that the public is sensitive to the traditional lifestyle, the public remains firm that wolves and a pastoral lifestyle will learn to coexist by supporting compensation only to those who are using preventative measures.

Economics is increasingly being used as an argument for promoting the conservation of wolves and large carnivores. Recent reports from the UK, working

123 examples from the Carpathian Mountains in Romania, and recent developments in

Croatia all seem to point to the fact that wolves and large carnivores can generate income for local communities in the form of eco-tourism. This all being said, the residents in the two provinces in France did not believe at all that wolves could generate any new income in their area. There were not even very many respondents who stated neutral attitudes toward this economics issue suggesting that convincing people of the economic benefits of wolves may be very difficult, and perhaps not one of the most effective uses of communication monies.

There is a definite need for open communication between all interest groups including residents of the two provinces. Most respondents believe wolves were actively reintroduced into France, however, a large percentage of Savoie residents indicated a neutral response suggesting there may be room for a message developed there for these residents. The responses to this issue suggest a behavioral conflict or a lack of trust between organizations. It will be important to build trust, credibility, and an open dialogue on other issues before engaging people about this issue.

Traditionally communication and public awareness programs are built around the presentation of biological facts. The residents do have weak biological knowledge about wolves and increasing their knowledge should increase acceptance of the animal. One of the most important issues here to address is the fear of wolves.

The fear to hike in the woods if wolves were present was quite strong amongst residents and interest group respondents. This fear is influenced by over-estimates of a wolf’s size and weight, pack sizes, breeding behavior, attacks and perceived high numbers of animals that exist in France. The objective in communicating about

124 pack sizes, weight and especially wolf numbers would be to create cognitive

dissonance in the minds of those respondents holding neutral to negative attitudes.

For those respondents where the conflict lies as a cognitive one these facts should

improve public acceptance of wolves, but addressing values in communication

messages may be more effective in gaining public acceptance of wolves in France.

Implications of CGM for communication efforts

Communication with the general public may take quite a different form than

communication with various interest groups. All 23 groups although quite diverse in

their respective backgrounds and mandates, do share a common willingness to

work together and have a common interest in the results of this HD study. All groups

appreciated that a neutral party was conducting the study.

While values and biological fact messages will be important in increasing awareness

and acceptance of wolves with the general public, key issues to discuss with the

interest groups should focus on livestock depredation issues, pastoral lifestyles, and

livestock protection measures. This may mean doing much more listening and less

talking with the interest groups. In fact, biological messages were only one of eight

issues of interest for discussion mentioned by the interest groups. While messages

for shepherds need to be based on broader concepts such as protecting traditional

lifestyles, biological issues could be discussed with hunters. Hunters believe wolves

have a rapid reproduction rate and hold limited knowledge about breeding behavior

and survival rate of pups. Communicating about how usually only the dominant pair

breed, and the potential problems to the pack structure and behavior which can

125 occur when members of the pack are killed, may allow hunters to see the potential

impact of random killing of individuals.

All groups are interested in learning more about the legal obligations toward wolf

conservation and any flexibility in management that may be available. Groups are

very aware of the international policies, especially the Bern convention. These legal

issues could form an integral part of a communication package targeted to the

interest groups. The package does not need to advocate for a certain policy or

suggest advantages or disadvantages of a particular policy, it could just help provide

information thus increasing the possibility of an informed decision and continued

dialogue and openness between all groups.

While residents from Savoie and Des Alpes Maritimes strongly believe in working

toward a coexistence of wolves and people, several interest groups believe this is

not possible. Training and sharing experiences of livestock damage prevention

techniques preferably shepherds talking with shepherds should be done. Exchange

programs to see other areas may also prove useful. Shepherds from Romania may

be able to share experiences and may prove more credible than government

communication officers.

Conclusion

This human dimension in wolf management study is the first of its kind in France,

and while other studies have explored attitudes qualitatively, the results here offer

managers and many interest groups the first quantitative and balanced assessment

of public attitudes and beliefs on a provincial scale, representative of a large

126 segment of society. Such quantitative results create a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of future communication efforts and to monitor attitude change as the wolf population grows and policies affecting their management changes. On its own, the results provide direction for communication efforts, the beginnings of a public involvement process with interest groups, an understanding of the reasons behind certain attitudes, and the opportunity to balance extreme viewpoints. The true strength of the study, however, lies in its potential as a longitudinal study that can continue to evaluate and retarget new messages, and address key issues as they arise over time. Human dimensions research is not a one-shot, crisis-driven approach to solving complex issues but a beginning of a process that should see human dimensions integrated regularly into decision-making, thus providing managers with opportunities to better understand the people’s needs.

There will be further analysis of the data presented in this report to understand the value and belief systems underlying some of the attitudes. And similar in how one biological study over one year can’t answer all the biological questions, one HD study over less than a year can’t address all the social science questions. Wolf management in France and large carnivore management in general will always remain more a socio-political issue than a biological one, and thus will require significantly better understanding of this human dimension of the wildlife resource management equation.

127 Appendix 1: Questionnaire used to collect data

128 Section A: Your attitudes toward wolves. (Please circle the statement that best corresponds with your opinion). 1. Which of the following statements best describes your feeling toward wolves? a) Strongly dislike c) Indifferent e) Strongly like b) Dislike d) Like

2. The presence of wolves in France is, for you: a) A good thing b) A bad thing c) You are indifferent

3. The presence of wolves in Savoie is, for you: a) A good thing b) A bad thing c) You are indifferent

To continue we will provide a series of statements. Please choose the answer that best describes your opinion according to the following scale: 1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree. Strongly Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree 4. It is important to maintain wolf populations in France for future 1 2 3 4 5 generations.

5. It is important to maintain wolf populations in Savoie for future 1 2 3 4 5 generations.

6. It is important to have viable wolf populations in Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

7. We should assure an abundant population of wolves for future 1 2 3 4 5 generations.

8. If I have the opportunity or not to see a wolf, what is important for me 1 2 3 4 5 is to know that they exist in Savoie.

9. Wolves have a considerable impact on large game. 1 2 3 4 5 (ex: chamois, deer, etc...)

10. Wolves have a considerable impact on small game 1 2 3 4 5 (ex: marmots, etc...).

11. Wolves reduce populations of 1 2 3 4 5 moufflons and chamois to unacceptable levels.

12. It would not be necessary to have wolves in Savoie if there were 1 2 3 4 5 already viable populations in other regions of France. Strongly Strongly disagree disagree Neutral Agree agree 13. It is not necessary to have wolves in France because there are already 1 2 3 4 5 viable populations in other European countries.

13b. Wolves were reintroduced 1 2 3 4 5 in France.

14. Wolves should remain completely protected in Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Wolves should remain completely protected in France. 1 2 3 4 5

16. In Savoie, we should be authorized to hunt wolves during 1 2 3 4 5 the legal hunting season.

17. In Savoie, we should be authorized to hunt wolves year-round. 1 2 3 4 5

18. In Savoie, wolves should be killed by any means necessary, including killing pups in their dens or by 1 2 3 4 5 poisoning.

19. Wolves help maintain an equilibrium among populations of large wild mammals 1 2 3 4 5 (ex: chamois, cerfs, chevreuils, etc...).

20. The presence of wolves in 1 2 3 4 5 Savoie favors tourism in the department.

21. Wolves cause much damage 1 2 3 4 5 to livestock (domestic animals).

22. Wolf attacks on man are more frequent in regions where 1 2 3 4 5 wolves live in close proximity to humans.

23. In regions where wolves live in close proximity to livestock, they 1 2 3 4 5 feed primarily on domestic animals.

24. I would be afraid to hike in forests where wolves were present. 1 2 3 4 5

25. In your opinion, which of the following animals are most dangerous to man? a) The wolf b)The bear c) The lynx d) They are all dangerous e) Neither is dangerous Section B: Your knowledge of the wolf. Please circle the answer that best corresponds to your opinion.

1. Presently in France, how many wolves exist? ______wolves.

2. The number of wolves in France (population status) is: a) increasing b) decreasing c) stable

3. Presently in Savoie, how many wolves exist? ______wolves.

4. The number of wolves in Savoie (population status) is: a) increasing b) decreasing c) stable

5. In France, what is the average weight of a male adult wolf ? a) 1-25 kg b) 26-50 kg c) 51-75 kg d) more than 75 kg e) I don’t know

6. At one time, historically, there were wolves a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know in France.

6’) Wolves have returned naturally a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know to France via Italy.

7. Are wolves protected in France ? a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know

8. Is it true that generally only two members of the pack (1 dominant pair) reproduce each year? a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know

9. In your opinion, how many sheep and other domestic animals were killed by wolves last year in Savoie? ______sheep and others.

10. Wolves attack sheep only if there are not enough wild prey available. a) True b) False c) I don’t know

11. Wolves kill sheep out of cruelty, not for nourishment. a) True b) False c) I don’t know

12. What is the success rate for wolves with respect to the capture of wild prey? a) Every time d) 1 time out of 5 b) 1 time out of 2 e) 1 time out of 12 c) 1 time out of 3 f) 1 time out of 20 g) I don’t know

13. In France, what is the average size of a pack of wolves? a) 1-7 wolves c) 16-30 wolves b) 8-15 wolves d) Plus de 30 wolves e) I don’t know

. Section C: Your feelings with respect to the different management practices of the return of wolves and your behavior toward wolves. Please choose the answer that best describes your opinion according to the following scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree. Strongly Strongly disagree disagree neutral agree agree 1. I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves 1 2 3 4 5 in France.

If you agree or completely agree, what is your principal reason for wishing an increase in the number of wolves? ------

If you disagree or completely disagree, what is your principal reason for not wishing an increase in the number of wolves?

------

2. I would agree with an increase in the number of wolves in Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I would agree with killing the wolf or wolves responsible for attacks on 1 2 3 4 5 sheep.

4. I would be willing to contribute financially to a compensation program 1 2 3 4 5 for livestock owners for their loss of animals due to wolves.

5. We already have enough wolves in 1 2 3 4 5 France.

6. We already have enough wolves in 1 2 3 4 5 Savoie.

7. Livestock owners situated in a zone where wolves are present should receive 1 2 3 4 5 a fixed subsidy rather than compensations for occasional losses caused by wolf attacks.

8. Compensations given under attack 1 2 3 4 5 circumstances should only be provided to livestock owners who use prevention measures to avoid wolf attacks (nocturnal regrouping, surveillance by a shepherd, or by guard dogs).

9. Livestock owners who lose animals because of wolf attacks 1 2 3 4 5 should receive compensation. If you agree on strongly agree with question # 9, please answer the following questions a) to i). If you disagree, strongly disagree or are neutral, please answer the questions in section D. Thanks!

Strongly Strongly disagree disagree neutral agree agree a) I would like for my taxes to be used to compensate the damages to livestock 1 2 3 4 5 caused by wolves. b) The Minister of Agriculture should provide compensations to livestock owners 1 2 3 4 5 for damages to livestock caused by wolves. c) The Minister of Environment should provide compensations to livestock owners 1 2 3 4 5 for damages to livestock caused by wolves. d) Livestock owners should be obliged to attain insurance in order to insure 1 2 3 4 5 protection against wolf attacks. e) The government should pay this 1 2 3 4 5 insurance on behalf of the livestock owners. f) A wolf hunt should be authorized in the department of Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5 Section D: Your experience with wolves.

1. Have you ever seen a wolf in the wild? a) Yes b) No

2. Have you ever seen a wolf in captivity ? a) Yes b) No

3. Do you feel concerned by the issue of the management of the return of the wolf in France and by the management solutions that will be proposed ? (Please circle the number that best corresponds to your opinion on the following scale of 1 to 10).

Not concerned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Highly concerned

4. Will you remain informed of the solutions that will be proposed in response to the management of the return of the wolf in France with: (Please circle the number that best corresponds to your opinion on the following scale of 1 to 10).

No interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Much interest

5. Would you like to receive more information on the issue of management of the return of the wolf in France ?

Would not like more intormation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Would like a lot of information

Section E : Personal Information

I) a) Woman b) Man

II) Age : _____

III) Place of residence (name of community) ______

Place of birth (department) ______

IV) Occupation/Profession ? ______

V) Did you hunt in 1998/1999 ? a) Yes b) No

VI) If you are a livestock owner/raiser, what kind of animals do you have? a) Sheep b) Goats c)Cows d) Horses

VII) What type of pastoral system to you practice? a) Sedentary in fenced packages of land, without surveillance. b) Sedentary with communal estive, without surveillance. c) Sedentary with communal estive, with surveillance d) Transhumant, without surveillance e) Transhumant, without surveillance f) Other (specify) ______

Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any other comments on this subject or with regards to this questionnaire, please write them below.

Présentation du Questionnaire:

Vos perceptions à l’égard du Loup en France ‘Attitudes toward the wolf in France’

L’Université Mémoriale de Terre-Neuve au Canada (‘Memorial University of Newfoundland’) mène une enquête pour essayer de mieux connaître les perceptions des habitants vis à vis de la problématique du retour du loup en France. Cette étude est réalisée en coopération avec l’Initiative européenne pour les Grands Carnivores (‘Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe’) et s’inscrit dans le cadre d’un nouveau program LIFE qui débute cette année. Ce projet n’est ni pour, ni contre le loup mais a pour objectif de mieux comprendre et mieux cerner les intérêts de tous les groupes concernés par le retour loup en France. Pour cela, nous menons une enquête avec ce questionnaire, dans les deux départements de Savoie et des Alpes-Maritimes, auprès des habitants locaux, des jeunes, des chasseurs, des environnementalistes et des bergers. Nous vous remercions, de consacrer quelques minutes pour répondre aux questions suivantes au sujet de votre comportement, vos sentiments, vos convictions au sujet des loups. Vos réponses à ce questionnaire, combinées avec celles d’autres personnes interrogées, fourniront une vision claire de la perception du loup par les habitants, et de la façon dont le retour du loup devrait être abordé et géré. Chacune de vos réponses, qu’elle soit neutre, pour ou contre est très importante, et nous vous encourageons à répondre à toutes les questions. Celles-ci resteront strictement confidentielles et seront regroupées avec d’autres pour l’analyse. Ce questionnaire est totalement anonyme. Répondez, s’il vous plaît, librement à ces questions, sans inscrire votre nom sur le questionnaire.

Merci beaucoup d’avance pour votre participation à ce programme important.

Nos sincères salutations,

Dr. Alistair BATH Claire RILLIE Directeur du Projet Coordinatrice du Projet Section A: Vos sentiments envers les loups. (Entourez, s’il vous plaît, la proposition qui correspond le mieux à votre opinion). 1. Laquelle des propositions suivantes décrit le mieux vos sentiments envers les loups? a) Vous n’aimez pas du tout le loup c) Vous êtes indifférent e) Vous aimez beaucoup le loup b) Vous n’aimez pas le loup d) Vous aimez le loup

2. La présence des loups en France est, pour vous : a) Une bonne chose b) Une mauvaise chose c) Vous êtes indifférent

3. La présence des loups en Savoie est, pour vous : a) Une bonne chose b) Une mauvaise chose c) Vous êtes indifférent

Pour continuer, nous allons vous proposer une série de déclarations. Choisissez, s’il vous plaît, la réponse qui décrit le mieux votre opinion, selon l’échelle suivante: 1= Pas du tout d’accord, 2= Pas d’accord, 3= Neutre, 4= D’accord, 5= Complètement d’accord. (Si vous n’êtes pas sûr, choisissez la réponse la plus proche de vos pensées). Pas du tout Pas Complètement d’accord d’accord Neutre D’accord d’accord 4. Il est important de maintenir les populations de loups en France 1 2 3 4 5 pour les générations futures.

5. Il est important de maintenir les populations de loups en Savoie 1 2 3 4 5 pour les générations futures.

6. Il est important d’avoir des populations viables de loups en Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Nous devrions assurer aux générations futures une population abondante 1 2 3 4 5 de loups.

8. Que j’ai l’occasion, ou non, de voir un loup, ce qui est important 1 2 3 4 5 pour moi c’est de savoir qu’ils existent en Savoie.

9. Les loups ont un impact 1 2 3 4 5 considérable sur le grand gibier (ex: chamois, cerfs, etc...).

10. Les loups ont un impact considérable sur le petit gibier (ex: marmottes, etc...). 1 2 3 4 5

11. Les loups réduisent les populations de mouflons et de chamois à des 1 2 3 4 5 niveaux inacceptables.

12. Il ne serait pas nécessaire d’avoir des loups en Savoie parce si il y avait déjà des populations viables 1 2 3 4 5 dans d’autres régions de France. Pas du tout Pas Complètement d’accord d’accord Neutre D’accord d’accord 13. Il n’est pas nécessaire d’avoir des loups en France parce qu’il y a déjà des populations viables 1 2 3 4 5 dans d’autres pays européens.

13bis. Les loups ont été réintroduits en France. 1 2 3 4 5

14. Les loups doivent rester complètement protégés dans en Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Les loups doivent rester complètement protégés en France. 1 2 3 4 5

16. En Savoie, on devrait être autorisé à chasser les loups pendant la saison légale 1 2 3 4 5 de chasse.

17. En Savoie,on devrait être autorisé à chasser les loups pendant toute l’année. 1 2 3 4 5

18. En Savoie,les loups devraient être tués par tous les moyens nécessaires, y compris en tuant les petits dans les 1 2 3 4 5 tanières ou par empoisonnement.

19. Les loups aident à garder en équilibre les populations de grands 1 2 3 4 5 mammifères sauvages (ex: chamois, cerfs, chevreuils, etc...).

20. La présence des loups en Savoie favorise le tourisme dans le département. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Les loups causent beaucoup de dégâts au bétail (animaux domestiques.) 1 2 3 4 5

22. Les attaques de loup sur les hommes sont plus fréquentes dans les régions où les loups vivent à proximité des humains. 1 2 3 4 5

23. Dans les régions où les loups vivent près des troupeaux, ils se nourrissent essentiellement d’animaux domestiques. 1 2 3 4 5

24. J’aurais peur de me promener dans des forêts où les loups sont présents. 1 2 3 4 5

25. À votre avis, quel animal est le plus dangereux pour l’homme? a) Le loup b) L’ours; c) Le lynx; d) Ils sont tous dangereux; e) Aucun n’est dangereux Section B: Votre connaissance du loup. Entourez, s’il vous plaît, d’un cercle la réponse qui correspond le mieux à votre opinion.

1. Actuellement en France, combien pensez-vous qu’il y ait de loups ? ______loups.

2. Pensez-vous que le nombre de loups en France est : a) en augmentation b) en diminution c) stable

3. Actuellement en Savoie, combien pensez-vous qu’il y ait de loups ? ______loups.

4. Pensez-vous que le nombre de loups en Savoie est : a) en augmentation b) en diminution c) stable

5. En France, quel est le poids moyen d’un loup mâle adulte ? a) 1-25 kg b) 26-50 kg c) 51-75 kg d) plus de 75 kg e) Je ne sais pas

6. Autrefois, il y avait des loups en Savoie. a)Oui b)Non c)Je ne sais pas

6’) Les loups sont revenus naturellement en France à partir de l’Italie. a)Oui b)Nonc)Je ne sais pas

7. Les loups sont protégés en France ? a)Oui b)Non c)Je ne sais pas

8. Est-il vrai que, généralement, seuls deux membres de la meute (1 couple) se reproduisent chaque année? a)Oui b)Non c)Je ne sais pas

9. A votre avis, combien de moutons et autres animaux domestiques ont été tués par les loups l’année dernière dans en Savoie? ______moutons et autres.

10. Les loups s’attaquent aux moutons uniquement lorsqu’il n’y a pas suffisamment de proies sauvages. a) Vrai b) Faux c) Je ne sais pas

11. Les loups tuent les moutons par cruauté, et non pas pour se nourrir. a) Vrai b) Faux c) Je ne sais pas

12. Quelle est la probabilité pour un loup de capturer avec succès une proie sauvage?

a) Lors de chaque tentative d) 1 fois sur 5 tentatives b) 1 fois sur 2 tentatives e) 1 fois sur 12 tentatives c) 1 fois sur 3 tentatives f) 1 fois sur 20 tentatives g) Je ne sais pas

13. En France, quelle est la taille moyenne d’une meute de loups ? a) 1-7 loups c) 16-30 loups b) 8-15 loups d) Plus de 30 loups e) Je ne sais pas Section C: Vos sentiments vis à vis des différentes pratiques de gestion du retour des loups et votre comportement envers les loups. Entourez, s’il vous plaît, d’un cercle la réponse qui décrit le mieux votre opinion, en utilisant l’échelle suivante: 1= Pas du tout d’accord, 2= Pas d’accord, 3= Neutre, 4= D’accord, 5= Complètement d’accord.

Pas du tout Pas Complètement d’accord d’accord Neutre D’accord d’accord

1. Je serais d’accord pour une 1 2 3 4 5 augmentation du nombre de loups en France.

Si vous êtes “D’accord” ou “Complètement d’accord”, quelle est votre principale raison pour souhaiter une augmentation du nombre de loups en France ?

------

Si vous n’êtes “Pas d’accord” ou “Pas du tout d’accord”, quelle est votre principale raison pour ne pas souhaiter une augmentation du nombre de loups en France ?

------Pas du tout Pas Complètement d’accord d’accord Neutre D’accord d’accord 2. Je serais d’accord avec une augmentation du nombre de loups en Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Je serais d’accord pour que soit tué le ou les loups qui sont responsable(s) 1 2 3 4 5 d’attaques sur les troupeaux.

4. Je serais disposé à contribuer financièrement à un programme de compensation des éleveurs pour les 1 2 3 4 5 pertes de bétail dues aux loups.

5. Nous avons déjà assez de loups en France. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Nous avons déjà assez de loups en Savoie. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Les propriétaires de troupeaux situés dans une zone de présence du loup devraient recevoir une prime forfaitaire 1 2 3 4 5 plutôt que des compensations pour les pertes occasionnées par les loups. 8. Les compensations en cas de dommage ne devraient être versées que aux éleveurs qui utilisent des méthodes de prevention 1 2 3 4 5 pour éviter les attaques de loup (regroupements nocturnes, surveillance par un berger et/ou par des chiens de protection)

9. Les propriétaires de troupeau qui perdent du bétail à cause des attaques 1 2 3 4 5 de loups devraient être dédommagés.

Si vous êtes “D’accord” ou “Complètement d’accord” avec la question n• 9, s’il vous plaît, répondez aux questions qui suivent, numérotées de a) à i). Si vous n’êtes “Pas d’accord”, “Pas de tout d’accord”, ou “Neutre”, s’il vous plaît, répondez aux questions de la section D. Merci!

Pas du tout Pas Complètement d’accord d’accord Neutre D’accord d’accord a) Je voudrais que mes impôts soient utilisés pour compenser les 1 2 3 4 5 dégâts causés par les loups au bétail. b) C’est le Ministère de l’Agriculture qui devrait verser les compensations aux propriétaires de troupeau qui 1 2 3 4 5 perdent du bétail à cause des loups. c) C’est le Ministère de l’Environnement qui devrait verser les compensations aux propriétaires de troupeau qui 1 2 3 4 5 perdent du bétail à cause des loups. d) Les propriétaires de troupeau devraient être obligés de prendre une 1 2 3 4 5 assurance pour bénéficier d’une protection financière contre les attaques de loups. e) Le gouvernement devrait prendre en charge cette assurance à la place des 1 2 3 4 5 propriétaires de troupeaux. f) La chasse aux loups devrait être autorisée dans le département 1 2 3 4 5 de la Savoie. Section D: Votre expérience des loups.

1. Avez-vous déjà vu un loup dans la nature ? a) Oui b) Non

2. Avez-vous déjà vu un loup en captivité ? a) Oui b) Non

3. Vous sentez-vous concerné par la problématique de la gestion du retour du loup en France et par les solutions de gestion qui seront proposées. (Entourez, s’il vous plaît, le chiffre qui correspond le mieux à votre avis, sur cette échelle de 1 à 10).

Pas du tout concerné 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Énormément concerné

4. Allez-vous vous tenir au courant des solutions qui seront proposées en réponse au retour du loup en France, avec: (Entourez, s’il vous plaît, le chiffre qui correspond le mieux à votre avis, sur cette échelle de 1 à 10).

Aucun intérêt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Beaucoup d’intérêt

5. Souhaitez-vous recevoir plus d’informations sur la problématique de la gestion du retour du Loup en France?

Ne souhaite pas d’informations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Souhaite énormément d’informations

Section E : En ce qui vous concerne a) Femme b) Homme

II) Âge : _____

III) Lieu de résidence (nom de la commune) ______

Lieu de naissance (département) ______

IV) Occupation/Profession ? ______

V) Avez-vous chassé en 1998/1999 ? a) Oui b) Non

VI) Si vous êtes un éleveur, quel type de bétail avez-vous ? a) Moutons b) Chèvres c)Vaches d) Chevaux

VII) Quelle type de conduite pastorale pratiquez-vous ? a) Sédentaire dans des parcelles clôturées, sans gardiennage b) Sédentaire avec estive communale sans gardiennage c) Sédentaire avec estive communale avec gardiennage d) Transhumant, sans gardiennage e) Transhumant, avec gardiennage f) Autre (précisez) ______

Nous vous remercions pour votre coopération. Si vous avez d’autres commentaires sur ce sujet ou à propos de ce questionnaire, s’il vous plaît, écrivez-les ici. References

Adams, 1988. Establishing a human dimensions program. Hum. Dimension Newsl. 7(3):3-7.

Bath, A.J. 1998. The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife management. Ursus. 10:349-355.

Bath, A.J. 1994. Public attitudes toward polar bears: An application of human dimensions in wildlife resources research. Pages 168-174. in I. Thompson, ed. Proc. Int. Union Game Biol. XXI Congr., Vol. 1. Can. For. Ser., Halifax, Can.

Bath, A.J. 1991. Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Trans. North Am. Wildl. And Nat. Resour. Conf. 56:91- 95.

Bath, A.J. 1989. “The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park.” Society and Natural Resources Journal. 2: 297-306.

Bath, A.J. and T. Buchanan. 1989. “Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park.” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17: 519-525.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Fowler, F.J. 1988. “Survey research methods.” Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 1. Second edition. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.

Kellert, S.R. 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biol. Conserv. 31:167-189.

Sheskin, I.M. 1985. Survey Research for Geographers. Resource Publications in Geography. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.

WWF-UK, 2000. Tourism and Carnivores: The Challenge Ahead. 24pp.

142