The SusiAita project – looking at wolves from both sides of the fence

1 May – 31 December 2016 Activity report on the methods of protecting farm and production animals

Author: Antti Rinne Table of contents

1. Implemented by ...... 3 2. Information on the project ...... 3 3. Project summary ...... 4 4. Report ...... 6 4.1 Implementation ...... 6 4.1.1 Measures ...... 6 4.1.2 Schedule ...... 7 4.1.3 Resources ...... 8 4.1.4 Project events ...... 8 4.1.5 Costs and funding ...... 17 4.2 Partners ...... 17 4.3 Results and effects ...... 17 5. Methods for protecting farm and production animals ...... 19 5.1 Methods for protecting production animals ...... 19 5.2 Means of protecting dogs from large carnivores ...... 31 6. Experiences collected by the project on the methods for protecting farm and production animals ...... 35 7. Small working groups ...... 42 8. Feedback on the project ...... 45 9. Provision of information ...... 47 10. Suggestions for further measures ...... 49

2 1. Implemented by The Southwest Finland District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Martinkatu 5 20810 Turku, Finland Business ID 1506337-0

2. Information on the project Project name: SusiAita Project number: 27219 Number of decision on granting support: 95158 Programme: Development programme for the rural areas of mainland Finland 2014–2020 Measure in the progamme: 1.2 Communications and presentations Sub-measure in the progamme: Development of communications and presentations Leader group: Ykkösakseli ry Project implementation period: 1 May 2016 – 31 March 2017 Geographical scope of the project: Local/Regional Partners: The Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region & the Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland Steering committee: A steering committee was appointed for the project

Composition of the steering committee: Maarit Teuri, chairperson Ykkösakseli ry Antti Rinne, secretary Coordinator of the SusiAita project Sanna Tikander The Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region and The Southwest Finland District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Saija Porramo The Southwest Finland District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Jarmo Markkanen The Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region Jörgen Hermansson The Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland Kaivosoja Lauri Kaivosoja Sheep Farm Eija Hagelberg Southwest Finland Cultural Landscape Association Pekka Oksanen Kisko District Game Management Association

Website of the project: http://www.sll.fi/varsinais-suomi/toiminta/susiaitahanke

3 3. Project summary The objective of the SusiAita (WolfFence) project is to set up collaboration among the stakeholders affected by the wolf problem (livestock rearers, keepers of hobby animals, conservationists, hunting/game management, rural dwellers) to plan public events and distribute neutral information based on facts. Information is provided, for example, on wolf ecology, protection of farm and production animals and hunting dogs against predators, reporting predator sightings and predator damage, how and from which authority compensation for damage can be applied for and who is eligible for compensation. The purpose is to create an operating model for a local project that uses solution-oriented methods to resolve conflicts. After the conclusion of the project, the model can be also shared with other parties. All measures in the project seek to foster collaboration among stakeholders in the new wolf territory of Salo. On a larger scale, the project seeks to ensure and reconcile the vitality of rural areas with wolf protection in the region, but refrains from taking a stand on wolf policy. The project also arranged open public events and information sessions as well as demonstration events in different locations. The location-specific events and expert speakers presented good practices and gave practical advice. The speakers were people who had practical experience on wolves and the protection of farm and production animals. The presentations emphasised the importance of neutral information and practical experience. The purpose was to collect as many practical experiences as possible and make them available for animal keepers in this final report and as YouTube video summaries, among other things. The project also produced and published an instruction document on actions to take in case of predator damage. The project presented animal keepers with several methods of preventing predator damage. The methods offer theoretical knowledge and describe user experiences. The project participants also investigated and tested how the methods actually work. The most important participants were the speakers at the events, who gave concrete examples and described their experiences. This enabled the audience to gain a factual understanding of how well the methods work. A general conclusion on the methods of preventing predator damage is that all methods have their pros and cons, and none of them can be considered a one-size-fits-all solution. Each farm is unique, which means that every animal keeper must investigate the suitability of the methods for their particular circumstances. A lot of up-to-date information on wolves and related topics was distributed at the events. The speakers were representatives of the Natural Resources Institute of Finland, the Finnish Wildlife Agency and other organisations. The exclusion of middlemen ensured that the information was based on facts and neutral. Discussion at the events was often lively and continued in social media afterwards. Discussion between stakeholders has increased during the project, which in turn has increased understanding between them. The project coordinator participated in the social media discussions to distribute fact-based information and pieces of advice.

4 The SusiAita project successfully developed an operating model for a small-scale local project. We also received several suggested improvements for the model, which serve as the basis for further improvement. A key factor in the project was collaboration between organisations. Thanks to the collaboration, stakeholders were reached efficiently and neutrality of the operations could be guaranteed. The framework of topics worked well and the audience was generally very satisfied with them. The approach that emphasised local matters and concrete actions was highly praised and the events were popular, since their topic was the local conditions. Although the stakeholders were heard actively before and during the project, even more interaction would have been better. If a wide range of stakeholders were heard even more frequently, we would gain a better understanding of the hopes and needs of the local population, which is of paramount importance when trying to foster cooperation. A lot of time must be reserved for questions and discussion in each event. In addition, the participants must be able to get advice and information on topics associated with the project even after the event. The measures and results of the project in numbers:

• News stories, radio interviews, TV interviews: 42 • Invitations to events and speakers’ presentations: 35 • Youtube video summaries: 8, total number of views: 1,400 (by 30 Jan 2017) • Instructions on actions to take in case of predator damage (in Finnish and Swedish): around 800 copies distributed

• Brochure and poster of the project: 100 copies distributed • Final report on the protection methods of farm and production animals • Events/demonstrations arranged: 11 • Evening sessions, farm visits, stakeholder meetings and consultation visits: 9

• Participants in the events: 440 people

• 18 predator fence applications were received from Southwest Finland in 2016, of which 17 were approved. Total length of fence: 26 km. Fence packages delivered to the Salo, Somero and Raasepori region: 13, total length of fences 20.9 km. In general, the SusiAita project can be considered a successful example of a pilot project that tackles local problems. We hope that the SusiAita project inspires many other parties to set up local projects on wolves and other large carnivores. This would increase collaboration and constructive discussion among stakeholders, which in turn would guarantee the vitality of rural areas.

5 4. Report 4.1 Implementation

4.1.1 Measures

This is a pilot project that develops practices on how to reconcile rural animal husbandry, landscape management and conservation of wolves. The project also distributes neutral and concrete information on the topic. The project operates in the town of Salo, but its events are open for all. Concrete measures in the project: o A part-time planner will be hired to collect existing information, prepare information sessions in collaboration with the steering committee, prepare the events, organise experts to speak in them and engage in collaboration with the stakeholders together with the members of the steering committee. o Brochures on the identified needs (content design, layout and printing) will be created and handed out. o General seminars/information sessions are arranged as necessary. Experts for the information sessions will be invited from other geographical regions to share experiences over a wider geographical area (such as the wolf-populated areas of western Southwest Finland and Satakunta) and to describe the experiences obtained in other areas (such as using livestock guardian dogs, various wolf deterrents in fences, protecting a hunting dog from wolves, behaviour of wolves in different surroundings). The experts will be compensated for travel costs and will be paid professional fees. o Site-specific consultation seminars and various small demonstrations will be held. The fees and travel costs of the external experts will be paid. • For example, using a wildlife camera for monitoring a flock of sheep (with borrowed cameras, no cameras will be purchased for the project) • Demonstration on the construction and maintenance of a wolf fence (materials will be procured at the site owner’s own expense) • Other demonstrations that will be designed in more detail in the first steering committee meeting of the project o Models that work well in other parts of Finland are investigated and shared. o Comments on and experiences of the measures, demonstrations and events will be collected from the participants and shared. If new methods that work well are developed in the project, they will be shared by the project partners even after the project has ended. o The results of the project will be presented in a final report, which will describe the successes and challenges of the project and will also contain suggestions for practical further actions.

6 4.1.2 Schedule The project period will be 1 May 2016 – 31 March 2017 (11 months). The period of activities will be from 1 May 2016 to 31 December 2016; a coordinator will be hired for that period to arrange events and other activities in the project. Below is a more detailed schedule of the operations of the project. May 1 May 2016 The project starts Collection of information, farms willing to participate in the project, partners 19 May Appointment of the members of the steering committee and first committee meeting June 9 June First seminar: predator-exclusion fences and presentation of the project 18 June Demonstration on the construction of a predator-exclusion fence at Kruusila, Salo July Preparation of the brochure on predator damage, collection of information, meetings with stakeholders, preparing the August events August 2 August Information session on other protection methods (such as livestock guardian dogs, surveillance with wildlife cameras) Borrowing two wildlife cameras for different farms to try out 9 August A demonstration on monitoring a pasture with a camera at Pertteli, Salo 23 August Information session on how to act in case of predator damage Publication and distribution of the brochure on predator damage September 6 September Second meeting of the steering committee Ordering a wolf vest for a hunting dog and trials of the vest (continues until the end of the project) 21 September Information session on how to protect hunting dogs from wolves October 4 October A joint information session by the Finnish Wildlife Agency and the project on the wolf situation in the area November An article on the project and the use of wolf vests on a hunting dog for a hunters’ magazine 7 December 7 December Concluding event on the results of the project 2017 January-March 26 January Last meeting of the steering committee Reporting the results and experiences of the project and applying for disbursements

4.1.3 Resources The project is administered by the Southwest Finland District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The District hired Antti Rinne as a part-time (50%) project coordinator to manage the project’s practical arrangements and events. The Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region helped to arrange premises at Salo Town Hall for the project events. The association also provided some of the snacks in the meetings of the steering committee. Sanna Tikander of the Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region was responsible for the project plan before the project started and for the application for disbursement at the conclusion of the project. The Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland purchased a protective vest for a dog to be tried out in the project. The vest was handed over to a hunter in Salo who was available for the project during its course. He collected experiences on the use of the protective vest, was interviewed several times and was a speaker at one of the events. The Finnish Wildlife Agency sent us two wireless wildlife cameras that were installed on animal farms. Experiences on the use of these cameras were collected over several months. The regional office of Southwest Finland also paid for some of the snacks offered in the steering committee meetings. An eight-member steering committee was set up for the project, providing a lot of help for the coordinator in his task. The committee included members of all target groups of the project. The steering committee convened three times: at the beginning of the project, halfway and after the active period had ended. Several discussions by email and telephone were held as necessary. Active discussions were held in the steering committee and each member of the committee presented their views clearly. Members of the steering committee also assisted in the project events.

4.1.4 Project events All materials from the project events, invitations to the events and video summaries of the events can be seen on the project webpage at: http://www.sll.fi/varsinais-suomi/toiminta/susiaitahanke.

8 SusiAita information session on predator-exclusion fences at Salo Town Hall on 9 June 2016 The speakers were Jörgen Hermansson from the Finnish Wildlife Agency, Leena Aarikka from the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of Southwest Finland, Lauri Leinonen from the Leinonen sheep farm, Kati Kaisajoki from Lallin lammas, Marija Wallden from the Wolf Committee of the Finnish Nature League and project coordinator Antti Rinne. The event attracted approximately 50 people. Jörgen Hermansson presented about the wolf situation in the Salo-Raasepori territory and Southwest Finland and told the audience about the Finnish Wildlife Agency’s subsidy for the procurement of predator-exclusion fences. Leena Aarikka presented on other forms of subsidies for the construction of predator-exclusion fences, with a special emphasis on the maintenance of cultural landscapes. Lauri Leinonen spoke about his experiences on predator- exclusion fences that he had had installed for nearly a decade. Kati Kaisajoki told the audience about predator damage encountered on her farm and her observations on how to prepare for predator damage. Marija Wallden gave a brief presentation on how the Nature League’s Wolf Committee can assist in the construction of a predator-exclusion fence, and Antti Rinne presented the project and different solutions for a predator-exclusion fence.

Image 1. The first event of the project attracted a large audience. Photo: Anders Fagerholm

9 Demonstration on the construction of a predator-exclusion fence at the Känkki Farm at Kruusila, Salo on 18 June 2016 The event demonstrated the structure and construction of a fence package offered by the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The farmers at Känkki described the application process for their predator-exclusion fence and gave a tour of their farm. The event coincided with the construction of predator-exclusion fences as a joint effort between Nature Protection Association Tapiola and Känkki farmers. The volunteers described their operations and observations in the construction of predator-exclusion fences. The event attracted approximately 10 people.

Image 2. Farmer Aulis Vesa of Känkki farm presents the structure of the predator-exclusion fences to the participants. Photo: Anders Fagerholm. Evening session at Kiikala with the sheep farmers of the Salo-Somero region on 18 July 2016 The purpose of the event was to get to know the sheep farmers and hear their thoughts and opinions on how to protect their livestock from wolves. The evening session was arranged in collaboration between the sheep farmers and the project. The participants included seven sheep farmers and project coordinator Antti Rinne. 10 The farmers had prepared a paper document on things to note, including pictures and maps, which they donated to the project. Sharing practical experiences and observations on protection methods is essential because it helps to determine the suitability of a given method for a given location. The spirit in the evening sessions was very positive and the participants came up with several new ideas. SusiAita information session on using livestock guardian dogs and wildlife cameras for guarding pastures at Salo Town Hall on 2 August 2016 The speakers were researchers Teet Otstavel and Antti Härkälä from the Natural Resources Institute of Finland, Tapio Rintala from Rintala sheep farm and project coordinator Antti Rinne. The event attracted approximately 30 people. Teet Otstavel lectured on the professional use of livestock guardian dogs in Finland and elsewhere in the world and also described his own experiences of breeding the dogs. Antti Härkälä told the audience how wolves move in the landscape and how wildlife cameras can be used for monitoring pastures. Tapio Rintala described his experiences of predator-exclusion fences and predator damage, and Antti Rinne spoke about means of preventing predator damage other than fences.

Image 3. Teet Otstavel describes the professional use of livestock guardian dogs. Photo: Anders Fagerholm

11 Demonstration of wildlife cameras at Tuulensuu farm at Pertteli, Salo on 9 August 2016 Antti Härkälä from the Natural Resources Institute of Finland gave guidance on the placement of a wildlife camera and other things to note when installing it. Antti Rinne described the features and properties of wildlife cameras. The Finnish Wildlife Agency donated two wildlife cameras, one of which was left at the Tuulensuu farm for trials until early October. The event attracted approximately 10 people.

Image 4. Project coordinator Antti Rinne gave an introductory speech and described the wildlife camera. Photo: Olga Klemola What to do when predator damage occurs. An information session at Salo Town Hall on 23 August 2016 The speakers were Markku Paija from Loimaa Rural Services, Jörgen Hermansson from the Finnish Wildlife Agency and project coordinator Antti Rinne. The event attracted approximately 40 people. Markku Paija described how to submit a notification on predator damage and how to apply for compensation. Jörgen Hermansson told the audience about the operations of predator contact persons and how to identify predator damage. Antti Rinne informed the audience on the estimated compensations and the statements issued by various parties on predator damage.

12 Antti Rinne also presented and handed out an information leaflet on the actions to take in case of predator damage.

Image 5. Jörgen Hermansson described the tasks and roles of contact persons for matters related to large carnivores. Photo: Antti Rinne Information session on how to protect hunting dogs from wolves at Salo Town Hall on 21 September 2016 The speakers were researcher Milla Niemi, hunter Marko Laine and project coordinator Antti Rinne. The event attracted approximately 50 people. Milla Niemi described the Protecting Hunting Dogs from Wolves project at the Natural Resources Institute Finland as well as her own experiences on protecting dogs and taking wolves into account in hunting. Marko Laine described his experiences on hunting in wolf- populated areas and the protective dog vest ordered for his dog by the project. Antti Rinne described different ways of protecting dogs, magnitudes of compensation for predator damage and predator tests for dogs. 13

Image 6. Marko Laine presented the Mithril vest ordered for his dog. Photo: Olga Klemola Large Conference on Wolves in Tampere on 24-25 September 2016 The project coordinator was invited to participate in the Large Conference on Wolves arranged by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and the Nature League. The purpose of the Conference on Wolves was to discuss matters related to wolves, think about the focus areas and methods of wolf conservation and develop new and efficient operating methods. Another goal was to develop the operations of all parties interested in wolf conservation in order to achieve better results in the conservation of wolves and other large carnivores both nationally and internationally. The conference had approximately 70 participants. The event was closed to the public and confidential. Only parties committed to wolf conservation were invited to participate. Very fruitful discussions were held among the conservationists. The project has also held discussions with other stakeholders, so the wolf conference was a good fit with the project goals of increasing discussions and interaction with stakeholders.

14 Local information session on wolves and management of the wolf population in Tenhola on 4 October 2016 The event was arranged in collaboration with the SusiAita project and the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The idea to hold the session came from the territory collaboration group of the region. The speakers were Jörgen Hermansson and Visa Eronen from the Finnish Wildlife Agency, project coordinator Antti Rinne, Antti Härkälä from the Natural Resources Institute of Finland and Olof Liberg from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The event attracted approximately 220 people. Jörgen Hermansson acted as the director of the event and gave answers to questions concerning Southwest Finland. Visa Eronen told the audience about the management of the wolf population by hunting and about the damage caused by wolves. Antti Härkälä presented the wolf sightings in the territory and how wolves move in the landscape. Antti Rinne briefly presented the SusiAita project. Olof Liberg told the audience about the ecology and behaviour of the wolves and presented historical and future perspectives on the Scandinavian wolf population. A lot of time was reserved for questions.

Image 7. Antti Härkälä described the local wolf situation. Photo: Anders Fagerholm

15 Project conclusion event in Salo on 7 December 2016 The speakers were project coordinator Antti Rinne, Minja Vikstén and Elsi Yrjänä from Turku University of Applied Sciences and Reijo Kotilainen from the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The event attracted approximately 35 people. Antti Rinne presented the results and conclusions of the project and gave instructions on small-group assignments. The small-group assignments sought to collect the audience’s opinions and ideas on the topics of the project and to encourage the stakeholders to discuss with each other. The chairpersons and presenters of the groups’ memos were steering committee members Lauri Kaivosoja, Eija Hagelberg and Jarmo Markkanen. Minja Vikstén and Elsi Yrjänä from Turku University of Applied Sciences presented their evaluation of the project and the results of the opinion poll on the project. Reijo Kotilainen gave a presentation on the prevention of predator damage in Finland, predator populations and the Finnish Wildlife Agency’s funding for preventing predator damage.

Image 8. Reijo Kotilainen giving a presentation on predator damage and preventive measures against it. Photo: Antti Rinne 16 4.1.5 Costs and funding The project is funded by the Development Programme for the Rural Areas of Mainland Finland 2014–2020 via the Leader group Ykkösakseli ry. The total budget of the project was EUR 21,816.67, of which 80% (EUR 17,453.34) was public overall funding, i.e. the subsidy granted. The proportion of private funding was 20% (EUR 4,363.33), of which EUR 3,363.33 was provided by the Southwest District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and EUR 1,000 by the Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region. The payments will be applied for as a single instalment at the end of the project, at which time the final overall costs are known.

4.2 Partners The leader of the project was the Southwest Finland District of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. The partners were the Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region and the Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland. The Association for Nature Conservation in the Salo Region funded the project with EUR 1,000 and made its experts available for the project (Sanna Tikander: project expertise, Jarmo Markkanen: wolf ecology and population in the region, the Association’s board of directors: arranging events and other support as necessary). The Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland provided expertise, networks and tools for the demonstrations in the project. The practicalities were agreed in more detail as the project progressed. The Agency procured a protective vest for dogs and two wildlife cameras to be used in the project. A written collaboration agreement was made.

4.3 Results and effects The project increased the local population’s knowledge on how to protect farm and production animals from large carnivores. The project arranged several information sessions on various topics. The sessions distributed a lot of information and offered opportunities to ask questions and have discussions. People are now more aware of the pros and cons of the different protection methods and their suitability for different types of farms, and also know where to obtain the required hardware. An important indicator is the number of predator-exclusion fences applied for from and granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency. In 2016, the Finnish Wildlife Agency received 18 predator fence applications from Southwest Finland, of which 17 were approved. The total length of the granted fence packages was 26 kilometres. Thirteen of the fence packages were granted to the operating region of the project (Salo, Somero and Raasepori), totalling 20.9 km of fence. Normally the Agency receives only a few applications each year from the whole of Southwest Finland, so the project significantly increased the

17 number of applications. Therefore, it can be concluded that awareness on how and from where the fences can be applied for and who is eligible for them has increased significantly. This can be considered as one of the major successes of the project. The adoption of other protection methods has also increased in the region. For example, many farms have purchased wildlife cameras as a result of the information provided by the project. The events arranged by the project shared up-to-date information, which enabled the local residents to stay informed of the current situation concerning wolves in the region. The local people were also provided with information on other current topics related to wolves, such as the continuation of hunting of wolves in order to manage their population, the size of the wolf population and population assessment methods in Finland, DNA assays in Southwest Finland and the trends in predator damage. This has reduced speculation and disputes in the region. Wolves have been discussed very actively in social media, and the project coordinator has participated in the discussions to provide up-to-date and fact-based information. The discussion in social media and during the events increased the interaction between stakeholders, which in turn increased understanding of each other’s opinions. The project wrote and published instructions on actions to take in case of predator damage. The instructions were distributed widely, and a separate information session was also held on the topic. Eight-hundred copies of the brochure were printed. The first 100 copies were distributed in the information session on actions to take in case of predator damage, which was also the occasion where the brochure was presented the first time. Approximately 450 copies were sent to veterinarians in the municipalities of Salo, Somero and Raasepori and the offices of rural services. Fifty copies were sent to the Finnish Wildlife Agency’s regional office in Southwest Finland. Approximately 100 copies were distributed in other events arranged by the project or other organisations in which the project coordinator was present. As a result, animal keepers know how to act in case of predator damage and where the notifications should be sent. Furthermore, there is now less uncertainty about the amount of compensation per animal and costs associated with the compensations. Thanks to the site-specific events and information sessions, the people have received face-to-face help and seen in practice how the protection methods work on different farms. The operating model used for small local projects in this project was a success, and the model will be developed further on the basis of the project evaluation and feedback received. All information sessions arranged by the project were praised and the topics were found to be useful. According to the feedback, some more time for discussion and questions would have been good, since most of the time in the events was used for the experts’ presentations. A good suggestion for further development is to have discussions in small groups at the end of each event. It would also be beneficial to hear the stakeholders separately, perhaps even before the project events are planned, to find out the needs and wishes of each stakeholder. The project coordinator acted as the advisor in matters related to the protection of farm and production animals. The coordinator received several phone calls and emails almost every week from local animal keepers who asked for advice and information on protection methods and the wolf situation in the area. 18 5. Methods for protecting farm and production animals

Table 1. A collection of protection methods suitable for different situations. Site Protection methods Large production animal farms (over 500 Electric fence wire added to existing fences, a animals) fence package from the Wildlife Agency for the most valuable animals, livestock guardian dogs

Mid-sized production animal farms (100– A fence package from the Wildlife Agency, 500 animals) livestock guardian dogs, night enclosure, alarm wires, electric fence wire added to existing fences

Small production animal farms (less than Fence package from the Wildlife Agency, livestock 100 animals, horse farms) guardian dogs, bringing animals indoors for the night, night enclosure, wildlife cameras, sound and light deterrents, alarm wires People who keep animals as a hobby (a Electric fences, wildlife cameras, bringing animals few horses, sheep, pigs, etc.) indoors for the night, night enclosure, sound and light deterrents Dog owners (hunting dogs, pets) Protective vest or collar, wolf bell, GPS collar, observing the wolves before the hunt, keeping the dog near the owner, a strong fence outdoors

5.1 Methods for protecting production animals Electric predator-exclusion fences from the Finnish Wildlife Agency The surest and most common method for protecting production animals is an electric predator- exclusion fence. Electricity is an important feature in the fence, since it causes pain to an animal trying to penetrate the fence, and as a result the animal learns to associate the fence with pain. This association discourages the animal from further attempts. Predator-exclusion fences are high enough to prevent predators from jumping over them, and the electric wiring extends low enough and is dense enough to prevent predators from digging under the fence. Free supplies for predator-exclusion fences can be applied for from the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry grants an annual sum of EUR 300,000 to the Finnish Wildlife Agency, to be used for preventing predator damage. A portion of this sum is spent in electrified predator-exclusion fences to protect production animals. A farm must be large enough to be eligible for the granting of a predator-exclusion fence. The rule of thumb is that the value of the animals protected by the fence must be higher than the value of the fence

19 itself. The fences are not granted for protecting hobby animals, an enclosure in the home yard, small numbers of animals or cultural landscapes on which a small number of animals graze. Predator-exclusion fences are granted primarily for farms located in regions that have a large wolf or bear population and in which damage has occurred to farm animals. Approximately 90% of the damage occurs on sheep farms, which is why they are primary targets for predator- exclusion fences. The remaining 10% occurs on bovine farms and occasionally on horse farms, which is why they come after sheep farms in priority. Application forms are available at the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The Agency’s contact person for matters related to the fences is game management planner Reijo Kotilainen. The applicant must make a lease agreement for the predator-exclusion fence with the regional office of the Finnish Wildlife Agency. The agreement is valid for five years, and no fees are charged for the fence. The recipient of the fence commits to erecting it by a set deadline and keeping it operational by performing necessary maintenance. The predator-exclusion fences are inspected annually by means of random spot checks. After the lease period is over, the fence becomes the lessee’s property.

Image 9. The predator-exclusion fence on a farm in Salo has four wires and two fence tapes. The fence should be labelled with warnings about a strong electric current. Photo: Antti Rinne The Finnish Wildlife Agency will deliver the fence package directly to the farm, and the package contains all the necessary supplies. The delivery includes written instructions on how to erect the fence. In addition to the free length of fence granted to the farm, the farm can 20 purchase additional lengths of fence at a competitive rate from the Finnish Wildlife Agency. This must always be agreed on a case-by-case basis with the regional game management planner. Electric predator-exclusion fences in Finland are usually 140 cm high and consist of 5 to 7 wires. The posts are made of impregnated wood with a length of 180–250 cm. They are driven into the ground by 40–100 cm, depending on their length. The posts are spaced every 5 metres on average; further apart on even ground and closer together on uneven ground. On exposed bedrock or rocky soil, the posts can be mounted on rock anchors. The electric fence energiser must be as high-performance as possible to give a strong electric shock even through the thick winter coat of a wolf or a bear. Energisers can usually deliver a shock energy of 5–6 J and a voltage of 10,000–12,000 volts. If the pasture is not in the vicinity of a mains supply, the energiser can be powered from a battery that is charged by a solar cell. Access to the pasture takes place via gates. To ensure a strong electric current, grounding must be good enough, which can be achieved by the 3 to 6 grounding rods supplied in the package or by grounding the system by other means.

Image 10. Ditch crossings must be constructed carefully. Here, auxiliary posts were used to enable the wiring to follow the contours of the ditch. In addition, a metal wire mesh was installed in the ditch. During periods of flooding, debris might accumulate at the mesh, obstructing the flow of water in the ditch. Photo: Antti Rinne The height of the lowest wire is approximately 20 cm from the ground to prevent predators from digging under the fence. The wires are spaced at 20–30 cm to prevent predators from going through the fence. Bears have a tendency to dig under a fence, so a one-metre high fence would be enough to deter bears. However, wolves and lynxes can jump over an even higher fence. Wolves have not been observed to jump over a fence higher than 130 cm, but lynxes can jump higher. This is why predator-exclusion fences in Finland are at least 140 cm 21 high. Particular care must be taken when crossing ditches, since predators usually try to locate the weakest spot in the fence that can be penetrated. Auxiliary posts must be installed to enable the wiring to follow the contours of ditches and other uneven locations to prevent the lowest wire from being too high or touching the ground. Summer is the busiest season on livestock farms, leaving practically no time for extra maintenance of fences. Many farms would have to hire an external workforce to maintain the fences. Consequently, the maintenance need of an electric predator-exclusion fence is a primary concern for livestock farmers. Since the lowest wire is only 20 cm from the ground, grass grows fairly rapidly to touch it. If too much vegetation touches the wire, too much current gets diverted to the ground. This prevents the fence from delivering a sufficient electric shock to animals trying to penetrate it. Vegetation can be removed either mechanically or by chemical means. Mechanical removal involves a trimmer, brushcutters, a tractor-mounted mower or other small machine. Chemical control uses herbicides or hot steam.

Image 11. The lowest electric wire is at a Image 12. Vegetation must be cut along a height of 15 cm and badly overgrown with sufficiently wide stripe to prevent the grass grass, but the shock energy is still from falling onto the fence wires as it grows. approximately 4 J. Photo: Antti Rinne However, dew at night causes the shock energy to fall close to zero. Photo: Antti Rinne 22 Mechanical removal is fairly time-consuming and hard work, since most of the fenced-in areas are ones that cannot be cut using drivable machines. There are very few machines that can mow vegetation below a wire 20 cm from the ground. Consequently, the most commonly used tools are trimmers or a brush cutter equipped with a brush knife. Other options are pushed sickle bar mowers and bush or verge mowers mounted on a tractor or mini wheel loader. Experience indicates that the underside of the fences must be mowed every 2 to 4 weeks, depending on the season. Vegetation grows more rapidly in early summer than in late summer. The time spent in mowing varies from 1 to 3 hours per kilometre, depending on the machine and its operator. Chemical control might have to be repeated as often as mowing, or perhaps only once in a summer, depending on the herbicide. Some herbicides are prohibited on organic farms and traditional biotopes, but excessive use of herbicides should be avoided in any location. Other means are saline solution, hot steam and sugar-containing foam. They are used in the management of urban green areas, but they could also be adapted for the purpose described above. To make maintenance easier, the route of the fence could be lined during the construction phase with plastic film used on strawberry fields to prevent the growth of weeds. An electric fence works well in the protection of beehives. A one-metre high fence is effective against bears, but the lowest wire must not be higher than 20 cm from the ground. A bear fence commonly has four wires or tapes spaced 25–30 cm apart. To be eligible for a fence granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency, a beekeeper must have over 15 hives and also be a producer eligible for agricultural subsidies. The same leasing rules apply for the fences as for protecting production animals. Other types of electric predator-exclusion fences If an animal keeper does not meet the Finnish Wildlife Agency’s eligibility criteria for predator- exclusion fences or is otherwise unable to obtain the fence package, they can build the fence at their own expense. The project asked Hankkija Oy to calculate the costs for two types of fence, including all supplies. Supplies are available from other agricultural retailers as well, but Table 1 only presents the calculations of a single retailer for one kilometre of electric fence with supplies and the energiser. Fence type 2 contains a calculation for both a 140 cm high wire mesh for the predator-exclusion fence and a 90 cm high wire mesh for sheep. The price of the predator-exclusion wire mesh and other supplies are from Hankkija Oy, but the price of the wire mesh for sheep was taken from Kellfri Oy’s website. The sums are tentative, and the calculations can be modified as necessary. Fence type 1 contains sturdy wooden posts in the corners and also interspersed with regular posts to make the fence more robust. The regular posts are made of plastic and can be pushed into the ground manually. The height of the fence is 140 cm. The fence has six wires spaced 20 cm apart and a clearly visible fence tape at the top. Plastic posts are easier to relocate as necessary, which makes this type of fence suitable for pastures that change periodically. Many animal keepers have expressed wishes for such an easily relocatable but sufficiently sturdy type of fence. The wires are tightened between the wooden posts in the corners, which prevents excessive strain on the plastic posts on straight stretches. Table 2. Cost calculations for two types of a predator-exclusion fence. Prices (including VAT) from Hankkija Oy.

Type 1 pcs EUR Type 2 pcs EUR Galvanized fence wire 1 km 6 600 Predator-exclusion wire mesh 140 cm, 100 m 10 1,600 Fence tape WB40 4 140 Hot-dipped wire mesh for sheep 92 m 11 759 Wooden post 60x1800 25 77.5 Galvanized fence wire 1,000 m 2 200 Electric fence energiser Corral N500 1 200 Wooden post 60x1800 200 620 Grounding rod 3 27 Electric fence energiser Corral N5000 1 200 Plastic post 136 cm 180 540 Grounding rod 3 27 Tape insulator 20 pcs 2 24 Ring insulator 100 pcs 4 60 Ring insulator 100 pcs 2 30 Gate insulator, sturdy 4 pcs 1 6 Gate insulator, sturdy 4 pcs 2 12 Insulating handle Corral strong 2 4 Gate handle for fence tape 1 1.5 Grounding cable 10 m 1 9 Insulating handle Corral strong 6 12 Hasp 2 10 Grounding cable 10 m 1 9 TOTAL EUR 1,673 Total with wire mesh for sheep EUR 1,895 Total with a predator-exclusion wire mesh EUR 2,736

Fence type 2 is constructed out of fence wire mesh and two electric wires. The cheaper type is made out of 90 cm high wire mesh for sheep, above which two electric wires are installed at 20–30 cm intervals, making the fence approximately 140 cm high. All posts are made of impregnated wood, since the wire mesh for sheep must be made taut enough. In addition, the mesh must be installed at ground level, or even more preferably, a few centimetres below the surface. This way, vegetation can become entangled with the mesh, making the mesh very sturdy. If the bottom of the mesh is installed a few centimetres below the surface, predators cannot dig under it, and the entanglement with vegetation is even more efficient. If the fence is constructed using a 140 cm high predator-exclusion mesh, the price will increase somewhat. In this case, one or two electric wires can be used, depending on the need. In addition to the mesh, it is possible to use longer insulators and install two wires at a height of 120 cm and 140 cm outside the pasture. This gives an electric shock if a predator puts its paws against the mesh to get leverage. Alternatively, one wire can be installed low down, 20 cm from the ground, and the other wire installed above the mesh. Night enclosures and bringing the animals indoors for the night A night enclosure means a fenced area into which animals are brought for the night to be protected from predators. The enclosure could be a covered free-range area with a smaller fenced yard or simply a small area enclosed with an electric fence. Erecting a fence around a night enclosure is much more affordable than fencing in an entire pasture, but the biggest challenge in night enclosures is hygiene. Insufficient hygiene increases parasite infections and the risk of diseases. A night enclosure should be well-littered or its location should be changed frequently enough due to the high grazing pressure. Another problem in night enclosures is

24 that unless special feeding is provided for, feeding stops for the night, which slows down the daily growth of the animals. Due to the large number of daylight hours in Finland during the summer, animals graze around the clock. In practice, night enclosures are suitable for hobby farms and small production animal farms. Animals may be moved indoors for the night during the grazing season if the building is large enough. Indoor shelters on Finnish sheep farms are usually designed to have enough room for ewes and their lambs, but as the lambs grow during the grazing season, the entire flock might not fit indoors for the night. At the end of autumn, when a significant portion of lambs have been sent off for slaughter, the remaining flock will again fit in the shelter. It is important also to feed the animals indoors to ensure their growth. Transferring animals indoors for the night is labour-intensive, but in practice, it is the surest way to protect the animals from large carnivores that prey at dusk. This method is best suited for hobbyist farms and small production animal farms, but might also suit mid-sized production animal farms, depending on the location and characteristics of their pastures. Livestock guardian dogs An increasing number of animal farms have started to use large livestock guardian dogs to protect their animals. Livestock guardian dogs are effective protectors against all threats, from unknown people to large carnivores. The dogs live continuously among the animals they protect, indoors or outdoors, and they have a very thick and dense fur coat that protects them from all kinds of weather. There are dozens of breeds, such as the Caucasian Shepherd Dog, Pyrenean Mastiff, Akbash, Maremma Sheepdog and Anatolian Shepherd Dog. The appearance and behaviour of the breeds vary, but the key factor is the personality of the individual dog. The success of a livestock guardian dog depends greatly on the breeder’s ability to select and train a suitable individual dog for the task. The dog protects the animals imprinted on when it was a puppy. Therefore, the puppy’s first year is critical for training, because during that time the puppy learns how to behave with the animals it should protect. The development into an efficient working dog might take some time, but when the training is successful, a livestock guardian dog is one of the most efficient means of protecting the animals. The most important traits in livestock guardian dogs are alertness, reliability and protectiveness. They must monitor the flock continuously, eliminate external threats and not hurt the animals they protect. The dogs protect the animals by remaining alert in their immediate vicinity and reacting to potential threats. The reaction is usually barking and approaching the threat, but rarely leads to a physical confrontation. To protect the animals efficiently, there should usually be more than one livestock guardian dog. In threatening situations, the dogs usually work better as a team in which each individual has a specific role.

25

Image 13. A Maremma-Abruzzese Sheepdog guarding its flock of sheep. Photo: Wikipedia Due to the high population density and dispersed pastures in Finland, the dogs cannot be kept free when the sheep graze on large pastures. In practice, the pastures must be surrounded with sufficiently sturdy fences to keep the dogs from getting through them. However, the fences do not have to be sturdy electric fences – lighter fences are also acceptable. While the dogs are used as a substitute for expensive predator-exclusion fences, research indicates that the best protection is obtained by a combination of electric fences and livestock guardian dogs. Large farms might have several pastures, which would necessitate a large number of dogs. If the dogs have been procured as working dogs to protect production animals, the costs of their procurement and care are tax-deductible. Wildlife cameras Wildlife cameras can be used for monitoring pastures and alerting the animal keepers. The idea is that a wireless wildlife camera installed near the pasture takes a picture when a predator goes by and sends it to the animal keeper’s mobile phone. The received picture enables the animal keeper to take action before the predator has time to inflict damage on the animals in the pasture. Wolves can roam practically anywhere. However, the features of the terrain often affect the paths wolves take. Awareness of this fact helps with placing the wildlife camera in an area where wolves are most likely to roam. Examples of paths commonly taken by wolves are roads in forests and on fields, vehicle tracks, footpaths and paths made by game animals. Other features that guide the wolves’ routes are edges of forests and ditches, perimeters of bodies of water and human dwellings. Wolves generally seek to avoid human dwellings, but in densely

26 populated areas, they cannot avoid taking a route that leads them near houses. Wolves often cross fields along the edge of a forest, ditch or stream. The properties of cameras vary a lot, but the most important feature in the monitoring of a pasture is a wireless transmission of pictures over the internet as an email or as a photo message to a mobile phone. Transmission over the internet is much cheaper, and a phone can be configured to sound an alarm when an email arrives. Pictures transmitted by wildlife cameras over a 2G network take less than a minute to arrive by email. The time is shorter if the camera uses 3G. Some cameras can also send videos that show the animals better, but videos take a longer time to send by email due to the larger file size. Wireless wildlife cameras also require a mobile subscription, the price of which varies from three to six euros. The price range of wireless wildlife cameras varies from EUR 180 to EUR 400, approximately.

Image 14. A wildlife camera should be pointed obliquely towards the presumed predator path. Here, an old tractor trail runs behind the tree, and the pasture is flanked by a grass field and a ditch. Antti Härkälä from the Natural Resources Institute of Finland is adjusting the angle of the camera. Photo: Antti Rinne Installing a wildlife camera always requires permission from the landowner. The camera should be installed about 5–10 metres away from the presumed route and pointed at it obliquely. The range of the camera’s motion detector can reach up to 20 metres. When the 27 camera is pointed obliquely towards the route, the motion detector can detect the approaching predator earlier and the camera can take several photos of the animal walking by. The camera is mounted on a tree or on a pole pushed into the ground. The camera should not be mounted on thin trees or pointed towards tall grass or the branches of nearby trees, since they might activate the motion detector as they sway in the wind. This causes unnecessary photos to be sent by email. In addition, the motion detector might also activate needlessly in hot locations into which the sun can shine directly during the summer. Animals react to wildlife cameras differently. Some do not care at all, others become interested and yet others are frightened by them. During darkness, wildlife cameras use an infrared flash or a black infrared flash. An infrared flash emits a dim red light in the dark, which might frighten some animals. A black infrared flash is completely invisible, so no animal can see it. The cameras also make a faint click when they take a picture, which also might frighten some animals. Some animals, on the other hand, might become interested in the camera and come closer to investigate it.

Image 15. A raccoon dog on a night-time walk. Photo: SusiAita project Using wildlife cameras to monitor every part of a pasture is impossible. Wildlife cameras only take a picture in one direction, so covering even a small pasture would require several cameras. It is difficult to predict the predators’ paths, and interpreting them is always case- specific. For example, predicting the paths near pastures surrounded by forest is much more difficult than near pastures that are flanked by a forest on one side only and are otherwise surrounded by fields. There are also many other creatures that move in a rural landscape than 28 just predators. Foxes, brown hares, deer, dogs and people move about a lot and might trigger unnecessary photos and night-time alarms. Wildlife cameras might be suitable for people who keep animals as a hobby, when the pastures are small. The cameras can give an advance warning of predators moving near the pasture. This information can then be used to prepare for the threat of predators better and to carry out deterring actions. The cameras can also provide information on other creatures moving near the pasture, such as dogs on the loose or people. This way, the animal keepers can obtain observations on wolves and their behaviour by themselves, and can also get assistance on interpreting the behaviour. If predator damage occurs, pictures taken by a wildlife camera can help in the investigation. For example, we know a case in which a non- wireless wildlife camera took photos of wolves observing a sheep pasture on the very night the wolves killed sheep on the pasture. Since the camera was not wireless, it could not transmit the images, so they could only be viewed after the damage had taken place.

Image 16. A fox sniffing the ground next to a sheep pasture. Photo: SusiAita project Sound, odour and light deterrents Odour repellents act as a temporary measure when predators have been observed near the pasture. An example of an odour repellent are rags soaked in kerosene, perfume or urine and hung on the fence wires or posts. However, the odour evaporates from the rags in a few days or weeks, after which they must be re-soaked. Light repellents come in many different shapes and sizes. One of them is

29 Solar Nite Eyes, also known as ‘devil’s eyes’, which was presented in the information sessions. The importer in Finland is Trafino Oy, and the price of a single unit is EUR 25–30. Devil’s eyes is a light deterrent designed to frighten predators with two blinking red LEDs. The device gets charged by a solar cell during the day and activates automatically at nightfall. The lights only shine forwards, so the device does not disturb the animals in the pasture when pointed away from it. The device can be attached to a fence post with screws or the built-in magnet. Thanks to its low price and simplicity, devil’s eyes is an excellent option for all animal farms. Depending on the size of the pasture, at least one device per side should be used, preferably about every 30 metres. There are many light repellents, and some can be connected to a motion detector.

Image 17. Antti Rinne presents ‘devil’s eyes’. Photo: Olga Klemola Sound repellents can be radios, sirens, gas-powered sound cannons or blank firearm cartridges. Placed near a pasture, a radio switched on by a timer prevents predator damage efficiently. The radio should be tuned to a channel that broadcasts a lot of talk. This method is used a lot in Lapland to prevent damage to reindeer. Gas-powered sound cannons or sirens equipped with a motion detector often require permission from a Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment or the Finnish Wildlife Agency. They repel predators efficiently, but the loud noise they make also affects other animals and people. Blank firearm cartridges can also be used to repel predators that are observed. The problem with the methods above is that the predators become accustomed to the stimuli over time. The Finnish Wildlife Agency has procured deterrents powered by compressed air that can be used in exceptional cases. They cause some pain to predators, which learn to associate the location with the sensation of pain. Pennant lines / Fladry A pennant line has red pennants spaced approximately 50 cm apart. The pennants may be plastic or fabric, and their size is around 10*50 cm. A pennant line is installed at the withers 30 height of predators, and the pennants should almost reach the ground. The pennants can be self-made or purchased from a store. Rautia, for example, sells pennant line that has shorter pennants for approx. EUR 13.00 / 25 m. A pennant line acts as a temporary repellent against predators. The pennants flap in the wind, which frightens the predators. However, research shows that the predators become accustomed to the pennants in four to six weeks. Nevertheless, a pennant line is a good method for controlling a sudden predator threat. The pennants can also be dipped in kerosene or another odorous substance, which increases their effect. Alarm wires The fences can be equipped with an alarm wire that alarms the owner if a creature is trying to penetrate the fence. There can be more than one alarm wire. The alarm system requires a central processing unit that also acts as the fence energiser. Alarm wires are not as sensitive to interference as regular fence wires, the voltage of which falls rapidly as growing grass starts to touch them. A challenge with this method is false alarms triggered by factors other than predators. Central units for alarm systems can be purchased in Finland for example from Aita & Hälytys Oy; the company can also provide a free product demonstration on the farm. The 8,500 volts generated by the unit is sufficient for predator-exclusion fences. The price of the unit is EUR 2,000–3,000.

5.2 Means of protecting dogs from large carnivores Protective vests and collars Protective equipment for dogs, such as vests and collars, protect the dog from bites and cuts. There are many types of protective equipment for many purposes. The protection offered by the equipment is usually based on a deterring effect, physical protection or both. The deterring effect can be produced, for example, by electric shock or foul-tasting liquids. Physical protection is usually provided my means of metal spikes or strong fabrics like Kevlar. The collars are often made of stiff kevlar or plastic and might contain metal spikes (for example Dogtech Neck). The spikes prevent the wolf from biting the dog’s neck and the stiffness of the collar resists the force of the bite. The collar also offers good protection against lynxes who might scratch the dog’s neck. However, since the collar is stiff, it impairs the mobility of the dog’s head. The spikes might also become entangled in vegetation or rocks. The price range of protective collars is EUR 60–100. Most of the protective vests for dogs are made of kevlar-like fabric. The fabric is extremely tough, and teeth cannot penetrate it. The thickness and number of layers in the fabric vary a lot, which also directly affects the stiffness of the vest. If there are several layers and the fabric is stiff, the protective vest will also be extremely stiff. Many dog owners shun such stiff vests, since they restrict the dog’s mobility. An excessively stiff vest restricts the speed and agility of 31 a dog, which impairs its ability to escape from a predator. On the other hand, a stiff vest offers better protection than a soft and pliable vest; wolves often try to bite a dog in the neck, back or the rear in order to paralyse the dog. At least one vest model (Dogtech Protector Pro) contains provisions for attaching iron spikes on the back, which give excellent protection against bites on the back. However, the spikes might impair the movement of the dog in thick bushes or cramped caverns. Small and pliable protective vests (such as Mithril) are designed for lynx and wild boar hunts, where the dog must be able to move fast but still be protected against cuts from claws and tusks. A vest like this might also protect the dog from a wolf attack if the wolf cannot seize the dog properly and the dog can escape. The prices of Kevlar vests are between EUR 200–600.

Image 18. Marko Laine presented the Mithril vest at an event arranged by the project. Photo: Olga Klemola Protective vests that have a deterring effect often contain a device that gives electric shocks or are equipped with pockets that are loaded with a foul-tasting substance. Electric vests deliver a strong electric shock to the predator as it bites, causing it to stop the attack. The vest can deliver several shocks in a row, without transmitting the shock to the dog. Electric vests are manufactured by at least the Swedish manufacturer Wolf Proof. The price of such a vest is 32 approximately EUR 900. Vests that contain foul-tasting substances are under development in Finland. The problem at the moment is that the liquid capsules tend to break too easily, but these types of vests also have potential if they can be successfully developed. New vests are continuously being developed, and as they become more common, their prices will probably fall to a more reasonable range. Other challenges posed by protective vests include packing of snow under the vest and an increase in the dog’s body temperature due to the insulating effect of the vest. Most of the vests float, even though they add weight. This might have an effect on crossing bodies of water. Sweden is a pioneer in protective vests, and the Swedes have also carried out a lot of testing on the vests. The results have been good, and the development goes on. Tests and experiences indicate that the dogs become accustomed to the vests in a few days.

Image 19. The Mithril vest also protects the dog’s belly, neck and chest well. The shape of the chest part prevents the accumulation of snow under the vest. Photo: Olga Klemola Wolf bell A wolf bell is a brass bell to be mounted on the dog’s collar. A wolf bell jangles loudly, which is thought to repel wolves. The jangle can be heard from far away, which gives the wolves time to move away. The bell might help hound breeds in particular, since they make a noise anyway when chasing the prey, so the sound of the bell does not interfere with the hunt. The bells are available in Finland from at least the association Suomen susi ry. The University of Helsinki also provides wolf bells for testing purposes and collects feedback to determine how well the bells work: https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/54809/lomake.html There is no research on the effect of the bell’s jangles on the dog’s hearing. Most of the dogs do not seem to mind the jangle, but work normally. However, some owners feel it disturbs the

33 dog, in which case the bell should not be used. There is no guarantee that the bell is effective – in fact, some dogs in Sweden were attacked in spite of the bell. Nevertheless, dogs with a bell have experienced relatively fewer attacks than dogs without one. Wolf bells have been used for a long time at least in North America and Russia.

Image 20. A wolf bell is a brass bell hung on a dog’s collar. Photo: Antti Rinne Snow might clog up the bell in the winter. It might be possible to prevent clogging by spraying silicone spray into the bell or covering the bell with thin gauze. A wolf bell might also have a reverse effect on wolf behaviour. The wolves might eventually learn that a bell signifies an approaching dog, and would start chasing the dog. There are no clear indications of this actually happening, however, although wolves have killed a few dogs that had a bell. Finding out how a dog reacts to a wolf Predator reaction tests are arranged for dogs in Finland, enabling dog owners to see how their dog reacts to different large carnivores. One of the companies arranging these tests is Petotestit (http://www.petotestit.com/). The test consists of stuffed large carnivores (wolf, lynx and bear) mounted on a moving platform and genuine predator smells. When the owner knows the character of his/her dog and how it reacts to large carnivores, the owner can identify potential dangers in advance. For example, if a dog displays obvious interest towards a predator instead of running away, extra care is needed with the dog in areas known to have a large population of predators. A dog could also be trained not to become interested in large carnivores or to run to its master when it encounters a predator. The Swedes are experimenting with this approach, but we do

34 not know the results yet. The training is challenging, but if it succeeds, it will certainly be useful.

6. Experiences collected by the project on the methods for protecting farm and production animals Regional structure of Southwest Finland and prevention of predator damage The regional structure of Southwest Finland is characterised by its high population density by Finnish standards. Fields and forests are interspersed with urban and sub-urban areas. The rapid change in the structure of farms over the last few decades has lead to a fragmentation of land on modern farms. The land forms in individual fields might be highly variable, and a single farm might have several fields dozens of kilometres apart from each other. Southwest Finland is also known for its traditional biotopes and managed landscapes that are tended by grazing. Professional production animal farms might have hundreds of hectares of fields in crop and grazing rotation, traditional biotopes and managed landscapes, necessitating dozens of kilometres of predator-exclusion fence. Smaller farms and hobbyists face similar challenges, albeit on a smaller scale.

Image 21. A cultural landscape in Southwest Finland, managed by grazing. Photo: Antti Rinne The current predator-exclusion fences offered by the Finnish Wildlife Agency or other methods of protection cannot be considered a satisfactory method in all regions in Finland. In some 35 regions, such as Southwest Finland in particular, the current protection methods become too expensive as a result of the fragmented nature of pastures and their highly variable land forms. This, however, only applies to some of the farms, while the methods are well-suited for others. Consequently, the prevention of predator damage should pay more attention to the special characteristics of different regions. Electric predator-exclusion fences We collected a lot of experiences on electric predator-exclusion fences from several different farms. We have received several suggestions for further development, with some standing out in particular. Most of the comments concern the fenceposts, number of wires and labour intensity of mowing the underside of the fences. The posts must be long enough to be pushed into the ground by 60–100 cm. If the length of subsurface post is less, frost heave will lift the post, potentially causing the fence to lean. A suitable post length is 200–250 cm. The post must also be impregnated deeply enough in order for the it to withstand the environmental conditions for a long time. Replacing the posts is very cumbersome, which is why their quality is critical. The design of the fence could also be altered by having sturdier posts (120–140 mm) at the corners and narrower (~60 mm) along the sides. The wires exert the greatest force on the cornerposts, but less on the straight runs, on which the poles simply have to keep the wires at the correct height above the ground surface. There should be 6–7 wires to create an effective fence. Many farmers now install a sixth wire at their own expense on the five-wire fences offered by the Finnish Wildlife Agency. On the other hand, there are hardly any reports on animals being able to penetrate a five-wire fence, but too sparsely spaced wires are thought to be a worse option than more densely spaced ones. With five wires, the wires are approximately 30 cm apart, except for the lowest wire, which is 20 cm from the ground. A suitable wire interval is considered to be 20–25 cm at the bottom and 25–30 cm higher up. The wires in the fence package offered by the Finnish Wildlife Agency are now made of stranded steel wire. Some people consider this to be a poorer option than 2–3 mm solid steel wire, since solid wire does not cut skin as stranded wire does. Some farms have experienced cuts inflicted by stranded wire on animals, which is why stranded wire is an unattractive option for them. The fence packages should contain a sufficient number of extension connectors and insulators, since, if the fence has to cross ditches, the current packages run out of supplies very quickly. The fences should have two energisers, one for the two lowest wires and one for the rest of the wires. This way, the voltage will remain higher at the most critical part of the fence in spite of grass and moisture. The voltage in the upper wires should alternate between positive and negative so that an animal trying to jump over the fence will get an electric shock. If an animal does not touch the ground when jumping, and all wires have the same voltage sign, no electric shock is delivered. Predator-exclusion fences are not needed in the winter, since the production animals are kept indoors. However, electric fences should nevertheless remain energised for the winter, 36 because predators might try to access the pasture during the winter as well. If the fences are not energised, the predators will learn that the fences are harmless. Instead, the predators should learn that the pastures are off-limits at all times. Snow causes problems during the winter, since it covers the wires and acts as an insulator, insulating the animal from the ground, which prevents the animal from getting an electric shock as it touches the wires. Ploughing snow away from below and around the fences is extremely difficult, but if a fence is built far enough from a ditch, the space between the fence and ditch can be accessed with a tractor. The placement of fences on fields is discussed in more detail below. The insulating effect of snow might be countered by a two-energiser system. Even if the lowest wires were below the surface of snow, the shock delivery power of the wires above the snow surface would still be normal. The second-lowest wire is approximately 40–50 cm from the ground, which is above the height of snow in most winters in Southwest Finland. If the depth of snow increases during the winter, the fence wires can be connected to the energiser in a different configuration, so that the wires above the snow are always connected to one of the energisers. The fence tape should also be suitable for winter use, i.e. one that contains both the positive and negative conductor in the same tape.

Image 22. The lowest wire has been lifted in one of the posts to prevent the wire from contacting the ground and snow. Photo: Antti Rinne The order and delivery system of fence packages ordered from the Finnish Wildlife Agency should be revised to make it smoother. The farms should receive the fences early enough in spring to allow the fence to be erected before the animals are transferred to the pastures. One 37 option would be to process the applications at certain times of the year and imposing a deadline date for the submission of applications to the regional office. In this case, the company supplying the fences could deliver a larger amount of fence supplies at a time, and would not necessarily need a large warehouse. Another option would be to change the supplier to one that always has sufficient storage for deliveries. Development ideas for deliveries will be described in more detail in association with the small-group memos. Financial support should be more easily available for other types of predator-exclusion fences. These other types of electrified fences might also be more affordable than the ones currently granted by the Finnish Wildlife Agency. In addition, “upgrade supplies” should be available for old fences. For example, adding two or three electric wires to an old fence made of wire mesh for sheep would turn it into a more effective predator-exclusion fence. This is why the posts of new wire mesh fences should be a little longer, to leave room for installing the wires above the mesh. It has been observed in regions that have a large white-tailed deer or European roe deer population that running deer often collide with the fences, injuring either themselves or the fences. Therefore, the fence tapes in the fence packages should be as wide and visible as possible to allow the deer to see the fences and not collide with them. Alternatively, the fences should have an extra round of high-visibility fence tape to improve their visibility. Wildlife cameras as a solution for monitoring pastures The project offered two wireless wildlife cameras for trial on animal farms. The cameras were Burrel S10 HD+SMS and Uovision UM 565. Both cameras had 2G network functionality and an infrared flash. One of the cameras remained in a single location from August to December, and the other camera’s location was changed in October. Experiences were obtained from two farms that kept animals (horses, sheep and pigs) as a hobby, and one larger farm that had about two hundred sheep. The experiences were mostly positive, and the benefits of protecting farm animals by means of wildlife cameras were found sufficient enough for the farms to purchase a camera of their own. The biggest benefits stated were ease of use, real-time transmission of information, low price and the help the cameras offer for interpreting the behaviour of the animals kept. When a wildlife camera is installed correctly in a good location and has good batteries, it does not need maintenance for months. The pictures transmitted by the cameras inform the owners about all animals, people and other disturbing factors that pass near the pastures. A picture received on a mobile phone enables the owner to take immediate action against threats. Several applications and services offer help in the installation of the cameras and transmission of pictures. One of the farmers who participated in the experiment decided to use the Sensegram service for installing the camera and transmitting the images, and found it very useful. However, the location of the wildlife camera is critical, since if it is not along the paths of the predators, the predators cannot be photographed. A landowner’s permission is always needed

38 for installing the camera on the terrain, which means that very small farms have limited opportunities for placing the cameras well. The required number of cameras depends on the number of farm and production animals and the size of the pasture. One camera can only observe one potential path. For example, several cameras are needed if the pasture is surrounded by forest or flanked by forest on many sides. Predicting the paths is always guesswork, but the uncertainty can be reduced by investigating animal tracks or making other observations in advance. The biggest weaknesses of wildlife cameras were considered to be the triggering of unnecessary images and the narrow area a single camera can monitor. Wolves are often present in regions with a large game population, which means that many other animals than just predators might cross the field of view of the camera, triggering unnecessary pictures. The project region has a large population of white-tailed deer that might trigger several photos per day. In addition, hares and raccoon dogs often move along the same paths. An infrared flash might frighten the extremely cautious wolves, since the flash emits a pulse of dim red light when a picture is taken. A black infrared flash would be a better option, since it is completely invisible. Of course, if an infrared flash frightens the predators away, the effect is nevertheless desirable. Protective vest for a dog The Finnish Wildlife Agency, Southwest Finland ordered for the project a protective vest for a hunting dog. The vest was ordered from Sweden, since the product development of these vests is much more advanced in Sweden than in Finland. The vest selected was Mithril, which was originally developed for wild boar hunts. The selection of this particular vest was based on the experiences of several hunters, discouraging the project from ordering a stiff vest that would hamper a dog’s movements. The vest is worn by a large Karelian Bear Dog that moves very rapidly and searches for game in a large area. The vest is made of kevlar fabrics called Vectran and Twaron, which are soft but extremely tough, allowing the dog to move as naturally as possible. To ensure a proper fit, each Mithril vest is tailor-made for the dog. The protective vest was found to slow down the dog’s movements just a little, but the effect was not significant. The best features of the vest were found to be its flexibility and pliability. The design of the vest is excellent, as it prevents the accumulation of an excessive amount of snow under the vest. The vest offers good protection for the parts of a dog’s body a wolf is most likely to attack. The dog for which the Mithril vest was ordered is also used for hunting wild bear and lynx. Lynxes in particular might scratch a dog’s chest or belly, but this vest also protects those parts very well. The vest also offers protection against the tusks of wild boars, which is important now that wild boars are increasingly hunted as their population is growing.

39

Image 23. The Mithril vest fits snugly on the Karelian Bear Dog but is not too tight even when the dog is sitting. Photo: Olga Klemola

One of the most important ways a dog can defend itself against wolves is to run away, so a stiff vest might slow down the dog too much. On the other hand, a stiff vest offers better protection against the bite force of a wolf than a pliable vest. A pliable vest was selected in this particular case, since the dog is fairly large and is quick in its motions. We hope that, in the event of a wolf managing to catch the dog, the vest will give just enough time for the owner to come to the site to rescue his/her dog. Each dog owner knows their dog best and thus is the best person to determine what kind of vest is best suited for that particular dog. Downsides of the Mithril vest were its fairly high price (EUR 480–600) and the fact that it has to be ordered directly from Sweden. However, the contact person of the company, Joni Roponen, has a Finnish background and speaks fluent Finnish. Wolf bell The association Suomen susi ry donated four wolf bells which were given to dog owners. One of the bells has been frequently used on a dachshund and the experiences are positive. No negative effects were observed in when chasing deer or roe deer, and the dog has not reacted to the clanging of the bell at all. Earlier experiences indicate that moose run quickly away when they hear the bell, so using the bell with dogs that stop the prey might make the

40 hunt more difficult. It has also been noted that snow can clog up the bell. One of the bells was used on a German Pointer in a pheasant hunt, and no negative effects on the behaviour of the dog or the quarry or were observed. Other observations on the prevention of predator damage Mowing the areas under the fences is very labour-intensive, and should be carried out along a wide enough strip due to the grounding effect of grass. If the fence is located on the edge of a pasture right next to the edge of a ditch, it is difficult to mow the grass on the side of the ditch. By locating the fence further away from the ditch, say four metres towards the centre of the pasture, the ditch side of the fence can be mowed mechanically by a tractor, for example. Alternatively, the old fences could be kept at the very edge of the pasture, and new predator- exclusion fences could be constructed closer to the centre of the pasture. This way, the animals could be allowed to graze between the fences during daylight hours. The project asked the Agency for Rural Affairs about the effect of the location of the fences to agricultural subsidies, since the method above would make mowing much easier. The Agency stated that the location of the fences has no effect on the subsidies if both sides of the pasture remain in agricultural use and the crops are harvested appropriately. Thus, the space between the fence and ditch can be mowed for example with a mower, but the grass must be collected as animal feed. The area can also be used for keeping animals between the fence and ditch at times. Subsidy is desired for mowing the underside of the fences, since it is extra work for animal keepers in addition to the normal maintenance of the fences. The subsidy could, for example, be a form of collaboration between conservationists and animal keepers so that conservationists would set up a joint mowing effort similar to the joint effort for erecting a predator-exclusion fence. Another useful means of subsidy would be to develop new methods for mowing the grass growing under the fence. The suitability and costs of the new methods should be investigated to improve the maintenance of the fences. Joint efforts to erect predator-exclusion fences Nature conservation associations, game management associations and private individuals have arranged joint efforts to erect electric predator-exclusion fences to help animal keepers. In most cases, the farmers have received the free fence package from the Finnish Wildlife Agency, but the erection of the fence nevertheless requires a lot of work. The participants work voluntarily and without pay, and the farmer is only requested to provide food and tools for the workers. A Facebook group titled Petoaitatalkoot has been set up to provide information about these joint efforts. The group brings volunteers and animal farmers together, making it easy to set up a joint effort for a fence. The farmers who have requested such volunteer work mostly have very positive experiences of it. The farmers act as the directors of the work and decide who does what. For example, many farmers prefer to install the fenceposts by themselves and ask the volunteers to install the insulators and wiring. The farmer should clear the fence route as well as possible in advance to enable rapid erection of the fence. Most of the volunteer workers come to the farm from far away, so working hours should not be wasted. The farmer should also familiarise 41 himself/herself with the structure and erection of the fence in advance in order to direct the volunteer workers in their tasks. Not all volunteers are experienced fence builders, so direction might be needed.

7. Small working groups At the conclusion event of the project, the participants were divided into three small groups and each group was given an assignment on a different topic. The purpose was to encourage the various stakeholders to have a meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas. Each group consisted of 10 members and had 15 minutes to discuss their topic. Each topic had a chairperson who wrote the main points of the discussion down and stimulated the discussion if necessary. When all topics had been processed, the chairpersons presented their notes to the public. The topics and summaries of the notes are presented below.

Image 24. The audience was divided into groups that discussed different topics related to wolves. Photo: Antti Rinne Developing the collaboration between stakeholders (chairperson Eija Hagelberg) The discussions clearly indicated that even though the discussion between the stakeholders is extremely polarised at times, all parties hope for constructive and civil discussion. While social media provides an easily accessible forum for discussion, the participants wished that they

42 could meet face-to-face. Discussions in social media get often sidetracked, become uncivil and many comments are misunderstood. The face-to-face meetings should be arranged by a suitable organisation that would invite people from all stakeholder groups to discuss matters related to wolves. The discussions should have chairpersons that would ensure that the discussion keeps on topic and remains civil. The meetings also revealed that people are very hungry for information. People want to ask experts about wolves and matters related to them. The replies people want are experiences and fact-based information. Information is needed for example on wolf behaviour and ecology and how to identify wolf tracks. People are also eager to hear about experiences on predator- exclusion fences and other methods of preventing predator damage. Organisations associated with wolves, such as the Natural Resources Institute of Finland, the Finnish Wildlife Agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other associations should communicate much more openly. The opportunities provided by social media as an informal channel for sharing information and sightings were also discussed. Social media was considered to be a good method for rapid dissemination of information, and a good example was a local wolf-related discussion group in the Salo, Somero and Raasepori area. To ensure that the groups work as desired, the groups should have neutral moderators who practise a consistent moderation policy. The territory collaboration group plays an important role in fulfilling these needs, and the collaboration groups are expected to carry out concrete actions. Since old attitudes are so entrenched, people desire a novel outlook that is based on an increasing body of information. The discussion currently repeats the same old topics and phrases, and it is not considered be promoting change in any way. People want the discussion and actions to adopt a more solution-oriented approach that would seek to change things instead of delivering empty promises and talk. Here an understanding of the history of wolf conservation, wolf hunting and the coexistence of wolves and humans plays an important role in the prevention of the same mistakes that were made in the past. In order to be effective in changing attitudes, the disseminated information must be based on facts, be open to all and be constantly updated. Methods for protecting farm and production animals (chairperson Lauri Kaivosoja) This group discussed how the current protection methods should be developed further and also brainstormed new protection methods. Perhaps the most important protection method are electric fences for which the Finnish Wildlife Agency can provide supplies for free. The fences are considered to be a suitable for some types of locations, but they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Electric fences pose particular challenges for large animal farms which would require up to 10–20 kilometres of predator-exclusion fence. On the other hand, small animal farms are not eligible for free fences. Erecting and especially maintaining the fences would consume an inordinate large amount of resources on large farms. New ideas and methods for fence maintenance are also needed. The underside of the fences must be mowed at 2–4 weeks intervals. At present, the best tool 43 for the job is a trimmer or brushcutter, but they are slow. Using more herbicides is undesirable, and not even possible on organic farms. The farmers hope for some sort of assistance in the erection and maintenance of the fences. The most important actions before erecting the fence are preliminary work and preparing the ground in the path of the fence before the fenceposts and wires are installed. Large trees, bushes and boulders must be cleared from the route in order to be able to push the fenceposts deep enough and make them straight. Since the lowest wire is only 20 cm from the ground, the ground between the posts must be level enough so that distance of the wire from the ground remains the same throughout the run. When ordering the fences, the site must be described well enough so that the supplies to be included in the package can be selected correctly. Farmers feel that the deliveries of the fence packages take too long, and also desire that the supplies be delivered early enough in spring. Other protection methods were discussed, but their usefulness was considered limited. Wolves might become accustomed to some of the methods, and methods that try to scare the wolves away are not thought to work well enough. Modern technology, such as wildlife cameras, should be used more efficiently in the monitoring of pastures. Documented information on how the protection methods work in practice would be very necessary. It should also be possible to eliminate wolves if they cause damage or an immediate and persistent threat to production animals. Compensation paid for predator damage is considered to work when production animals are concerned, although the compensation does not cover indirect costs arising from the killed animals. Hobby animals, animals used in competitions and hunting dogs pose problems, since people are emotionally attached to them and have invested time and money in their rearing and training. Although the compensation paid for a hunting dog is fairly high, dog owners do not wish to risk the life of their dear companion by going hunting in a wolf-populated area. In spite of the compensations, damage caused by wolves is considered a major threat and reduces the appeal of sheep farming especially, since unlike in singular damage caused by a lynx, wolves might kill dozens of sheep in one go. Verifying information on predators and developing the sharing of observations (chairperson Jarmo Markkanen) There are many opinions on the estimated population of large carnivores, especially wolves, and many people distrust the estimates. The majority are also unaware of what the population estimates are based on. However, people are aware of the role the predator contact persons play in the creation of the estimates, and widely wish for even more predator contact persons in the network. At present, almost all of these contact persons are hunters, but conservationists and other local people interested in nature would also like to become predator contact persons. Predator contact persons should be provided with more training on the ecology and behaviour of large carnivores in order to have more reliable means of verifying the sightings. However, the network operates on a voluntary basis, which is seen as a problem due to the fuel costs and 44 time spent. A compensation system should be created to keep the network of predator contact persons as comprehensive as possible and one that encourages people to have their observations confirmed. The participants wished for a real-time online service in which the locals could post and verify sightings as needed. The observations need not necessarily be verified ones, since loose dogs and other animals can also cause damage to farm and production animals. The primary purpose would be to enable people to prepare against threats, irrespective of the cause. This kind of a service would make people feel that animal keepers are taken care of and would reduce their sometimes persistent stress from the threat of predator damage. Some areas use social media, such as Facebook, as such a service, but a dedicated online service with a map would also be good. Many people would like to have immediately available information on the movements of predators. For example, it would be great if they could contact a person belonging to a game management or nature conservation association who would have up-to- date information on the movements of predators in the area.

8. Feedback on the project Collecting feedback from the public at the concluding event of the project A feedback questionnaire was handed out during the project’s conclusion event on 7 December 2016. The questionnaire contained seven questions on the different areas of the project with a ranking scale of 1–5 in each. There were also two open-ended questions that asked about the positive sides of the project and aspects that need further development. The feedback indicates that people were generally satisfied with the project, and the overall grade given to the project was 3.6 / 5. The comments indicate that the biggest problem area was communications, which was also noticed by the steering committee during the project. The feedback also indicates that people would have liked to hear more information and experiences on the animal protection methods. The people were most satisfied with the events arranged by the project and the distribution of information on how to report damage and observations. The project received special praise for not taking a stand on wolf policy or the number of wolves. As a result, the project could concentrate on concrete methods of preventing predator damage.

45 What grade would you give to the events arranged by the project? Increasing and encouraging collaboration between stakeholders Collecting and presenting experience on animal protection methods Provision of information on wolf ecology and behaviour Provision of information on where to report sightings/ damage and how to apply for compensation Provision of information on protection methods of farm and production animals Overall success of the project

Figure 25. Results of the feedback query handed out in the conclusion event. Each item was graded on a scale of 1 to 5 and the overall results were averaged. Below are some examples of answers received to the open-ended question that asked the respondents to list positive aspects of the project:

• “Dialogue between animal farmers, hunters, inhabitants and conservationists who live in the wolf territory.” • “Increased awareness, collaboration and unfounded fears. We have seen the goals of the project and the goals of the parties behind the project. We have observed that discussion about wolves always ends up as a discussion of wolf policy.” • “Elimination of wolves has been practically banned as a method of protection.” • “It is good that this matter is discussed.” • “The presentations by the Finnish Wildlife Agency were really competent.” • Some examples of the answers received to the open-ended question on aspects that need further development: • ”There was less local development/provision of information than I hoped.” • ”Provision of information is challenging. Finding a channel that would reach everyone is probably impossible.” • ”There were problems in the provision of correct information.” • “The old attitudes must be got rid of. This also applies to experts, hunters and wolf conservationists.”

46 Other feedback Turku University of Applied Sciences (TUAS) was requested to evaluate the project to gain a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the results and impact of the project. The evaluation was carried out by TUAS’s Resource-efficient Business research team and students Minja Vikstén and Elsi Yrjänä. The evaluation report will be completed by end of January. The project coordinator acted as the advisor in matters related to the protection of farm and production animals and also provided information about wolves in the area. The coordinator received a lot of phone calls and emails on the topic. Feedback on these contacts was very positive without exception, and the pieces of advice provided by the project were praised even on public social media channels. The project was only criticised by the owners of very large farms, since it is very difficult for these farms to find cost-effective methods for protecting production animals. Every method presented in the project would be too expensive for these farms, which frustrated the farmers. The criticism of the methods presented was based on costs and the amount of resources consumed. On the other hand, there are currently no methods that are free and do not require any resources to be effective. Most of the negative criticism seemed to stem from frustration over wolf policy, which also had an effect on the project’s operations. The project tried to respond to the feedback as efficiently as possible as the project proceeded, and the topics of the events were often chosen based on the feedback. Video summaries of the events attracted a lot of views and the feedback on them was positive. By 31 December 2016, the video summaries had attracted a total of 1,158 views. A video summary of the conclusion event had not been published by that date, so the figure does not include its views.

9. Provision of information The main information channels of the project were its website, municipal rural services, producers’ associations, emails to the people who gave their email address in the events and local Facebook groups. All events were advertised on the project’s website at http://www.sll.fi/varsinais-suomi/toiminta/susiaitahanke. Email distribution lists were created based on lists of interested participants collected in the events. The distribution lists enabled the project to send information directly to individuals. Bulletins were also sent to various producers’ associations who then distributed them to their members. The municipal rural services were a channel through which bulletins could be sent directly to all registered farms, which was a very effective way of reaching the local animal keepers. There are many Facebook groups associated with the project’s operating area, and some of these groups are about wolves and other large carnivores. These groups were used actively in the dissemination of information about the project, and discussion in them was lively. The events arranged by the project were also included in several different event calendars. The project

47 also set up a homepage on the website of the development project for rural mainland Finland https://www.maaseutu.fi/fi/kaytannon-oivalluksia/hankkeet/Sivut/SusiAita.aspx. Stories about the project were published at least in the following newspapers and magazines: Ase ja Erä 7/2016, Auranmaan viikkolehti 14 June 2016, Etelä-Uusimaa 14 June 2016, Helsingin sanomat 2 October 2016, Luonnon kirjo 2/2016, Länsi-Uusimaa 6 October 2016, Maaseudun tulevaisuus 28 August 2016, Maatilan Pellervo, Eläin-liite October 2016, Perniönseudun lehti 6 October 2016, Riistan vuoksi November 2016, Salon seudun sanomat 11 May 2016, 6 June 2016; Salon seudun sanomat 11 June 2016, 11 June 2016, 3 October 2016, 17 November 2016, 1 December 2016, 8 December 2016, 21 December 2016; Turun sanomat 11 May 2016, 23 July 2016, 22 September 2016; Maaseuturahasto Varsinais- Suomessa – Tukea yrityksille ja yhteisöille 2016, The project coordinator wrote an article about the project and methods of protecting hunting dogs for issue 6/2016 of the hunters’ magazine Metsästäjä. News about the project was broadcast on TV and radio as follows: Lounais-Suomen uutiset 16 June 2016, Radio Auran Aallot 17 May 2016, Radio Melodia 17 May 2016, Yle Radio Suomi 7 October 2016, YLE Turku 16 June 2016 The project was also mentioned on at least the following websites: http://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9338024 https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/10/05/experter-ger-svar-pa-atta-vanliga-fragor-om-vargar http://www.ykkosakseli.fi/susiaita-hanke-suojaa-elaimia-susilta/ https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/12/07/mangden-vargstangsel-i-egentliga-finland-okat-kraftigt http://riista.fi/laumanvartijoita-ja-oppia-petoaidanrakentamiseen-youtube-videolla/ http://riista.fi/paikallinen-infotilaisuus-susista-tenholassa/ http://www.taajamasusi.com/yhdistyksen-tiedotteet/1029-hyvaa-kannanhoitoa-alueella- vaiihmisten-siedatysta-susiin http://www.sss.fi/2016/06/miten-suojata-koti-ja-tuotantoelaimet-susilta-salon- kaupungintalollasusi-info/ http://www.luontoliitto.fi/susiryhma/luonto-liiton-lausunto-susiasetukseen-metsastysvuosille- 2016201318 http://www.ammattilehti.fi/uutiset.html?66643 http://tapiolary.com/?page_id=1561#_ftn5

48 Bulletins published by the project were distributed widely in social media on different pages and groups. The members of the steering committee also distributed a lot of bulletins through their own networks. The SusiAita project was also mentioned on the European Commission website as an example of a project that resolves conflicts associated with large carnivores. The EU forum for the development of coexistence of humans and large carnivores collects proven operating models from the Member States, develops the coexistence and presents this information on its website. The fact that the SusiAita project was presented on this website indicates that our operating model is both novel and functional, and should be developed further and spread to other regions as well. The website of the forum and the presentation of our project can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/case_studies.htm.

10. Suggestions for further measures A lot of information and experience on different methods of protection of farm and production animals from large carnivores was distributed during the project. However, people need more information and details on the experiences obtained with these methods, so information sessions should be held at regular intervals in the future. Many stakeholders have expressed their wish for discussion events that would bring all the stakeholders together to discuss and exchange ideas on large carnivores. Wolves trigger a lot of opinions and discussion, but people also desire information and discussion on other large carnivores. There is a particular desire for information on the behaviour and ecology of large carnivores, and an opportunity to ask questions about fear, for example. Arranging an event would require the resources of an organisation, for example of municipalities in wolf-populated areas. The municipalities do not represent a single stakeholder, and as regional organisations, they would be parties suitable for arranging the events. At present, the territory collaboration groups act as the organisation that draws all stakeholders together, but the groups are not allocated sufficient resources to arrange events. A territory collaboration group usually has only one or two representatives of each stakeholder group, so there is little possibility for a wide discussion that reaches the locals. The Finnish Wildlife Agency also arranges some events of this kind, but since it is the sole organiser, its resources are not sufficient. Methods for protecting farm and production animals should be developed and tested more comprehensively in different conditions. There is a particular need for testing various types of electric fences and fence maintenance tools. Mowing the undersides of electric fences is extremely resource-intensive, which is why new tools are needed for the purpose. However, this would require a lot of resources, which is why a separate project should be set up. The number of fences granted increases each year throughout Finland, which also increases the workload of animal keepers. Resources should be allocated more effectively, which also

49 means that the fences should be redesigned to have a less resource-intensive structure that nevertheless does not impair their efficiency. The presence of large carnivores should not increase the workload of primary producers too much, and this matter warrants urgent discussion in areas where the populations of large carnivores are large. Several new ideas about this were conceived during the project, and they should be tested in such areas to improve the vitality of rural areas. Proper calculations of the costs of each protection method should be made. The costs could collected into a table that would display, for example, the purchase price, fence erection and maintenance costs, and costs of livestock guardian dogs. This would enable animal keepers to compare the methods better. Unfortunately, this project did not have enough resources for calculating the costs.

50