About Wolves & More

Understanding the complexity of stakeholder perspectives on the return of the grey wolf (Canis lupus)

Milos van Leest December, 2019 MSc Thesis SDC-80430

About Wolves & More

Understanding the complexity of stakeholder perspectives on the return of the wolf

The south-west Veluwe, The Netherlands

Written by: Milos van Leest MSc student Development and Rural Innovation Wageningen University & Research Registration number: 860216507020 December, 2019 Contact: [email protected] Supervised by: Robert Fletcher – Sociology of Development and Change (SDC) Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Abstract (English)

Whether people’s responses are positive, negative or both, reintroducing wolves (Canis lupus) into countries like the Netherlands ostensibly goes hand-in-hand with great controversy. In times of dividing public opinions and perspectives about the return of the wolf, local stakeholders seem to be the actors expected to adapt most to this new, somehow complex reality. This thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of how returning wolves are viewed by local stakeholders and explores what reasons might explain these perspectives. A case study amongst fauna and nature managers, shepherds and other key informants was conducted at the south-west Veluwe, a semi-natural region in central Netherlands during a two-month period. Based on theoretical consideration that include the study of human-wildlife relations and conflict, wildlife value orientations and political animal subjects, this thesis focussed on the wider context of human-wolf relationships. The findings show that the stakeholders maintained pluralistic views that symbolise a divide between more rural and urban lifestyles, livelihoods and connected norms, values and beliefs. With the absence of a concrete negative human-wolf relation as such, disagreement about nature conservation management, political disputes, and the strong connection to the region emphasises that disputes are not about wolves per se. Therefore, the findings suggest that the term human-wolf conflict is out of place and that this should instead be considered a disagreement between stakeholders about how to fit the wolf in the larger context of their lives and work. The wolf seemingly is merely a political subject that reveals a human versus human relation that encompasses socioeconomic, sociocultural and socio-political reasoning. These insights highlight the importance to study human-wolf relations or conflict in the context of wider societal challenges that local stakeholders have to deal with. Consequently, this thesis pinpoints the integration of local doubts, worries and management visions about the wolf in the development of adequate policies in the Netherlands and Europe.

Key words: human-wildlife relations, wildlife value orientations, political animal subject, human- wildlife conflict

Abstract (Nederlands)

Of de reacties van mensen nu positief, negatief of allebei zijn, de terugkeer van wolven (Canis lupus) in landen zoals Nederland gaat hand in hand met heftige controverse. In tijden van verdeelde publieke opinies en zienswijzen over de terugkeer van de wolf, lijken de plaatselijke belanghebbenden en directe betrokkenen degenen te zijn die zich het meest moeten aanpassen aan deze, hoe je het ook bekijkt, complexe realiteit. Deze scriptie hoopt bij te dragen aan het begrijpen van hoe de directbetrokkenen de terugkeer van de wolf bekijken en onderzoekt welke redenen ten grondslag liggen aan hun kijk op de zaak. Gedurende twee maanden is er een casusonderzoek uitgevoerd onder fauna en natuurbeheerders, herders en andere belangrijke betrokkenen in de Zuidwestelijke Veluwe; een semi-natuurlijke regio in midden Nederland. Gebaseerd op de theoretische overweging waarin is meegenomen de studie van de relatie en conflicten tussen mens en natuur, de beoordeling van de waarde van fauna en de rol van de politiek als het om dieren gaat, richt deze scriptie zich primair op de bredere context van de relatie tussen mens en wolf. De uitkomsten van dit onderzoek laten zien dat de betrokkenen verschillende zienswijzen hebben, dat als symbool geldt voor de uiteenlopende levensstijlen van het platteland enerzijds en die in de steden anderzijds, levensonderhoud en de daaraan verbonden normen, waarden en meningen. Het ontbreken van werkelijke concrete voorbeelden van een negatieve mens-wolf relatie, onenigheid over natuurbehoud, politieke discussies en de sterke verbondenheid met de regio, doen vermoeden dat de discussies niet per definitie over de wolf gaan. Daarom suggereren de bevindingen dat de term “mens- wolf conflict” niet op z'n plaats is en dit meer gezien moet worden als een meningsverschil tussen belanghebbenden over hoe de wolf geïntegreerd kan worden binnen de context van hun bestaan en werk. Het lijkt er meer op dat de wolf een politiek onderwerp is geworden dat de tegenstellingen tussen mensen aan het licht brengt, waarin sociaaleconomische, sociaal culturele en sociaal politieke overwegingen meespelen. Deze inzichten benadrukken het belang van onderzoek naar de relatie en conflicten tussen mens en wolf in het bredere kader van sociale uitdagingen waarvoor plaatselijke betrokkenen zich voor zien geplaatst. Als gevolg hiervan duidt deze scriptie de integratie van plaatselijke twijfels, angsten en visies hoe om te gaan met de wolf bij het ontwikkelen van adequaat beleid in Nederland en Europa.

Acknowledgments

Finally, the lengthy and often challenging process of writing this thesis has come to an end. This thesis would not have been accomplished with the help and involvement of others. Therefore, I want to bring my gratitude and sincere appreciation to the stakeholders and key informants for their participation and contribution to this study project. Their willingness and openness to provide insight in their perspectives towards the return of the wolf, their profession and lives have been fundamental for this thesis. Not only seen from the perspective of delivering a thesis as such, moreover they contributed to the development of my personal, more nuanced viewpoint about the complex situation of returning wolves in relation to wider societal challenges. I sincerely hope this thesis contributes to a better understanding of each other’s viewpoints and lifeworld’s. Furthermore, I want to sincerely thank my thesis supervisor Robert Fletcher for his long-term support and patience during this project. Even though I shifted between thesis topics over the past 1.5 year, yet every time you supported me in the decision I made. Moreover, I want to bring special thanks and gratitude to Herman Peppelenbos for his support, council and analytical input he provided in the development of this thesis. Without his support, this thesis would have been more of a challenge to deliver. He made me believe I could manage this, sometimes dreadfully challenging thesis project. Additionally, I want to show my utmost gratitude and respect to my mother that supported me with her unconditional patience, love and care (both mentally and practically) during the last months of this thesis. Additionally, I want to sincerely thank my father for helping me with finalizing this thesis project. His contribution to the translation of the abstract and conclusion from English to Dutch is of great value to me. In memory of Co van Kampen, my beloved uncle who passed away during the proposal phase of this study. Even in his final moments he believed in my capabilities and knowledge to finish this project. He was always more positive about me than I was about myself. He encouraged me to push through and not to give up. His deep love for the living environment has always inspired me to stay curious and to respect life. It is a real pity that he is not able to experience the fact I finished this very challenging project; I know he would have been proud. Hence, his positive and helpful engagement and encouragement in his last days helped me to be persistent to reach the end of this thesis project.

Table of contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 The Return of the wolf in western Europe and the Netherlands 1 1.2 A controversial comeback 1 1.3 Problem description 2 1.4 Research aim and research questions 2 1.5 Relevance of the study 3 1.6 Background 3 1.6.1 The complexity of human-wolf relations 3 1.6.2 Existing perspectives in the Netherlands 3 1.7 The case study 4 1.8 Outline of the thesis 6 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework. 7 2.1 Understanding the relation between humans and wolves 7 2.1.1 An introduction to the study of Human-wildlife relations (HWR). 7 2.2.2 Wildlife Value Orientations (WVO) 8 2.3 The factors that shape viewpoints and how viewpoints reflect wildlife values 10 2.4 Political Ecology and the wolf: Understanding Human-Wildlife Conflict 12 2.5 Political Ecology and the wolf: Coexistence and Cohabitation 14 2.6 Summary of theories and concepts 15 Chapter 3: Methodology 16 3.1 Research design and methodology 16 3.2 Study sample, interviews and data analysis 16 3.3 Ethics and personality as researcher 17 Chapter 4: Findings 18 4.1 Stakeholder perspectives 18 4.1.1 Wolven in Nederland 18 4.1.2 The sheep herder of Platform Nowolves Benelux 19 4.1.3 National Park de Hoge Veluwe. 22 4.1.4 The municipal councillor 25 4.1.5 The Municipal Forest Council 26 4.1.6 The fauna managers 29 4.1.7 The shepherds 32 4.2 Analysis of stakeholder perspectives 33 4.2.1 Top down policies and interference 33

4.2.2 Risk and worries 34 4.2.3 Wolf and nature management 34 4.3 Summary 35 Chapter 5: Discussion 36 5.1 Duality in perspectives 36 5.1.1 Protecting the landscape and local values 36 5.2 Intruder, friend & victim, or manageable object? 37 5.3 Wildlife value orientations 38 5.3.1 Pluralistic value orientations 38 5.4 WVO and HDW: strengths and limitations 38 5.5 The wolf as a symbol of divide 39 5.5.1 Neglecting local doubts and worries 39 5.5.2 Entering the domain of the socio-political 39 Chapter 6: Main conclusion 43 6.1 Conclusion of this research (English) 43 6.2 Policy recommendations 44 6.3 Conclusie (Nederlands) 44 6.4 Aanbevelingen omtrent beleid 45 References 46 Appendices 51 Appendix 1: List of data sources used for this thesis 51 Appendix 2: Interview guide/semi structured interview 52

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 The Return of the wolf in western Europe and the Netherlands Due to heavy persecution in previous centuries, the wolf became extinct in many parts of Europe, especially western Europe saw a total disappearance of the species (Groot Bruinderink, 2012; Lopes- Fernandes, 2016; Trouwhorst, 2010). Since the early nineties, the wolf made a comeback in Germany and France from where it started to appear in the Netherlands. In 2011, the first wolf since 1880 was observed in the central-eastern province of Gelderland in the Netherlands. Since then, more reports of ‘lone’ wolves appeared in the news, until in 2018 a female wolf recolonized the northern part of the Veluwe (Wur.nl, 2019; Wolven in Nederland, 2019), the largest semi-forested area in the Netherlands (Danklof, 2018; Boonman-Berson, 2019). At the 18th of February 2019, the Dutch media headlines suggested the official return of the European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus). After 140 years of absence, the Netherlands is home again to one of the largest top predators of Europe. The latest data suggests there are now seven wolves roaming the Veluwe (see figure 1: wolf monitoring in Gelderland and Veluwe). The wolf is ‘recolonizing’ the European continent at a fast rate (Trouwhorst, 2010; Ronnenberg et al, 2017; Groot Bruinderink, 2012; Interprovinciaal Wolvenplan, 2019; Drenthen, 2016;). Due to intensive conservation policies, directed and imposed by the European Union (Groot Bruinderink, 2012; Trouwhorst, 2010), the wolf seems to thrive well. Yet, the relationship of humans towards wolves is one of great controversy in contemporary Europe and is shaped by opposing perspectives, believes and attitudes that shapes the public debate (Politico, 2018). 1.2 A controversial comeback Parallel to the fast-growing wolf population, one of the oldest human-wildlife conflicts in Europe re- emerged (Ottolini, 2018; Lopes-Fernandes, 2016). As a result of livestock depredation, competition for game species and the perceived threat to human safety (Ottolini, 2018; Trouwhorst, 2010) the wolf seems to contest human tolerance once again. The return of the wolf, in several cases, appears to be fuel for conflicting debates, tense discussions and even political gain (Politico, 2018; The Guardian, 2019). For example, in France politicians are rallying to defend shepherds and speak about the wolf as a major threat that should be eliminated (Politico, 2018). The 400 wolves living in France killed more than 10,000 sheep costing over 3.2 million in compensation (Politico, 2018). Some opt for bypassing EU regulations that forbid to kill the wolf, while farmers believe wolves are numerous enough for Brussels to allow lethal control (Politico, 2018). The Guardian (2019) wrote about the intensified discussions between German farmers and environmentalists; ‘the issue of how to deal with wolves is pitting farmers who want to protect their livestock against environmentalists who prioritise the protection of vulnerable species’. In 2017, wolf predation on livestock in Germany increased with 55 percent killing, injuring or missing 1,667 sheep and goats (Deutsche Welle, 2019). For many farmers the intensive conservations measures are considered ‘green ideology’ designed and opposed by the Brussel based urban elite (Politico, 2018; Ottolini, 2018). Before the wolf officially settled in the Netherlands, the same discussion appeared in the Dutch news. Sheep farmers were worried about the defencelessness of their livestock (Omroep-Gelderland, 2018). In 2018, 166 sheep did not survive the attacks of wolves (Nu.nl, WUR.nl), leading to a debate within the Dutch Christian Democratic Party (CDA) about changing EU law regarding wolf hunting. The director of National Park De Hoge Veluwe supported the idea of culling wolf populations in The Netherlands (Hartman, 2018). His fear was related to the possible disappearance of the mouflon (Ovis orientalis) sheep, an introduced wild sheep species from Corsica that is vulnerable for wolf predation (Van Voorst tot Voorst, 2019). Furthermore, discussions regarding the return of the wolf are increasingly politicised and battled in the media, where pro-wolf and anti-wolf sentiments are shared and tend to polarize subsequently. On a European level, much effort is done to limit the effects of depredation, mediate between actors and provision of compensation, however little effect is achieved as we consider

1 About Wolves and More, December 2019 the growing opposition against the wolf in Germany, France and Spain (Eklund et al, 2017). This ancient conflict seems to be tenacious, lasting and irreversible in a period of a growing European wolf population. 1.3 Problem description In line with Germany, France and Spain, the return of the wolf in the Netherlands has stirred debates on several societal levels. The media presented different opinions and viewpoints towards the wolf and provincial governments composed a wolf-management plan, to give direction to science-based wolf- governance. The question is, however, whether a science-based approach is feasible. Moreover, national and local debates surrounding the wolf, often become polarized discussions between pro- and anti-wolf groups. Some welcome the wolf with open arms, and some say the Netherlands is too populated to accommodate them. Most affected are the people who have to share space with the wolf. Those local stakeholders probably never encountered a top predator like the wolf in their living space. Bath (1998) writes that wolf management tends to be more ‘socio-political than biological in nature’ and can therefore be seen as relationship that needs an understanding of perceptions and views about wolves. However, there is a lack of understanding of the existing perspectives of local stakeholders about the return of the wolf at the Veluwe, the region that currently hosts several wolves, and the reasons behind these viewpoints. 1.4 Research aim and research questions The aim of this thesis is to investigate how the return of the wolf is viewed by local stakeholders and explore what reasons could explain these viewpoints. Stakeholder perspectives and the reasons influencing them in relation to their value orientations towards wildlife will be explored. For better insight in these perspectives, a case study has been conducted in the semi-natural area of the South-West Veluwe where the wolf is currently present and shares space with different stakeholders (BIJ12, 2019). This investigation aims to develop a deeper understanding of the different viewpoints, beliefs and attitudes local stakeholders have towards the wolf. The insights generated can potentially contribute to effective and well-mediated (local) bottom-up wolf-policy development. As studies have shown, human-wolf interactions are most often a conflict of interest between multiple actors and stakeholders (Ottolini, 2018; Margulis 2018). This is revealed in the way these actors and stakeholders are positioned in society. Existing literature describes how a clear pattern of attitudes and beliefs exists that shapes human-wolf relationships and certain behavioural patterns (Manfredo, 2009; Lopes-Fernandes, 2016). However, most studies investigating these dynamics are designed in a quantitative way, meaning that measured outcomes say something at a societal level but measure only a limited set of variables. Some researchers (Manfredo, 2009; Pooley et al, 2017) argue that there is a need for finding patterns and differences on a local level to understand deeper underlying, less observable attitudes, viewpoints, differences and patterns regarding human-predator (wolf) relationships. These insights can give a more complete understanding of the phenomena. As a result, these novel insights can contribute to understanding coexistence between humans and wolves in densely populated, peri-rural regions in western Europe while taking into account local perspectives on the development of effective human-wolf relationships. Based on the problem statement and the aim of the research the following general research question is formulated; GRQ: What viewpoints about the return of the wolf exist among local stakeholders who live and/or work within- and in the periphery of the Veluwe area? To get an answer on this question, specific research questions are formulated below. SRQ1: Who are the different stakeholders and what is/are their viewpoint(s) about the (return of) wolf?

2 About Wolves and More, December 2019

SRQ2: What reasons might explain why different people occupy different positions/perspectives towards the return of the wolf?

1.5 Relevance of the study The choice for this research topic has to do with the fact that a knowledge gap appeared in scientific studies about local stakeholder perspectives. Hence, plenty is documented about the biological approach to the wolf and about how to cope with the animals from the perspective of experts. As far as I reviewed the literature, an in-depth case study about local perspectives and believes in a shared human-wolf habitat has not been conducted yet. This study can provide a basis for a better understanding of perceived human-wolf relations. The social relevance of this study is granted by the generation of new insights on how to deal with apparent societal unease about an apex-predator roaming freely in peri-rural landscapes like the Veluwe. Most studies are related to the negative interaction between farmers, hunters and wolves; hence little is known about the deeper lying reasons of other stakeholders (De Goede, 2019). Furthermore, there is little knowledge about the interactions between several human actors that have to share space with the wolf. 1.6 Background Before I will introduce the theoretical consideration of this study in chapter 2, this subchapter will explore the contested relationship between humans and wolves. From there onwards I will introduce several existing perspectives within Dutch society. This sub-chapter also includes a description of the case study. 1.6.1 The complexity of human-wolf relations The wolf is one of the most admired, hated, and controversial carnivores the (western) world has ever seen and was from the very beginning a species that established a close relationship with humans (Lopes- Fernandes, 2016; Lopez, 1978). There is a vast base of literature available that describe the ancient and contemporary human-wolf relationship and interaction. Especially in Western European history the species is considered a notorious livestock predator and a cause of economic loss (De Rijk, 1986). However, according Lopes-Fernandes (2016), the way the species appeared in literature is ambiguous and expresses a diversity of views and experiences. She discovered that rural populations in Portugal possessed well developed ecological knowledge regarding the wolf. More than half of the studied references signal the wolf’s local occurrence, ecological characteristics, persecution, or uses (Lopes- Fernandes, 2016). Nevertheless, most descriptions are intertwined with specific beliefs and imaginary facets of the species (Lopez, 1978). Those beliefs and imaginary facets are full of symbolism as being an inspiration for freedom, and/or a scapegoat for all the misfortunes and difficulties of rural life, while in many cases the wolf is considered a symbol of evil (Lopes-Fernandes, 2016). Some people argue that the wolf personifies the struggle with the unknown or untamed “wild” and therefore illustrates a much broader relationship between people and nature (Drenthe, 2016; Bath, 2009). Hence, Lopes-Fernandes (2016) argues that a human-wolf relationship is one that underpins the inability of people to control the predatory power of the wolf with as result the species can be considered an enemy (Lopes-Fernandes, 2016). On the contrary, the assumption about the wolf are diverse and incoherent and can be traced back to the past. 1.6.2 Existing perspectives in the Netherlands The current discussions within western Europe are mainly about human safety and livestock predation (Drenthen, 2016; Trouwhorst, 2010). People are afraid for their safety while being in nature, or for the safety of their pets. In general, farmers tend to be more sceptical about the return of the wolf (Drenthen, 2016). Trouwhorst (2010) argues that this perspective is measured in places where the wolf was absent for multiple generations. The result is that rural people are cautious and doubtful about welcoming the

3 About Wolves and More, December 2019 wolf. In the Netherlands, the existing viewpoints are in line with other western European countries and entail human and pet safety concerns and livestock predation risks (Trouwhorst, 2010). Trouwhorst (2010) further explains that, in the Netherlands, sheep are kept in poorly protected patches of land, behind low fences, or in patches of land without the protection by guardian dogs. For wolves, these measures are no obstacle to predate sheep (Trouwhorst, 2010). Members of the Dutch parliament have therefore opened the discussion with the Government (De Monitor, 2019; De Stentor, 2018). They want them to provide proper protection measures. Others discussed the option to close the door and keep wolves out of the country. Their opinion is that wolves are no longer native and should be treated as an exotic and invasive species. Interestingly, Trouwhorst (2010) wrote that; ‘Either way, the very least that is expected from the Dutch authorities by the international and EU species protection rules reviewed above, is to make way and let the animals themselves decide whether or not to put down roots in the Netherlands’. This is a general perspective of the European Union in line with their own legislation. Most Europeans understand wilderness as ‘pristine and untouched’ nature (Drenthen, 2016). It is believed that wilderness does not exist anymore in Europe and the Netherlands. Some academics believe that the resurgence of the wolf is therefore challenging these views provoking highly emotionally responses and consequently triggering societal debates about the relation between humans and nature (Drenthen, 2016). Within society, people maintain different perspectives about the return of the wolf (Drenthe, 2016; Jacobs, 2014). Their viewpoints can differ from being protectionist in favour of the wolf to being traditional in their believes that wolves are not fitting in highly developed and populated countries such as the Netherlands. However, the fact is that the wolf has returned to The Netherlands and consequently needs to be protected and managed accordingly, prescribed by the Convention of Bern, the EU Habitat Directive, Natura2000 and Dutch legislation for the protection of endangered species (Interprovinciaal Wolvenplan, 2019; Trouwhorst, 2010). This has consequences for people living and working in and around the areas that the wolf spontaneously recolonised. Those consequences are ranging from adopting livestock protection practices, the potential threat for domesticated animals such as dogs, to the potential of wild prey changing behaviour and competition for hunting game. Nevertheless, the consequences are encompassing the domains of agriculture, forestry, hunting, tourism and politics influencing people’s opinions, perspectives and viewpoints about the return of the wolf and its subsequent management (Surth et al, 2018). 1.7 The case study To investigate the perspectives and reasons for these perspectives, a case study has been carried out in the municipality of Ede (see map figure 1; Wolvenmonitoring WUR). The municipality is situated in the central eastern province of Gelderland in the Netherlands. The northern and eastern parts of the municipality are part of the Veluwe, the largest terrestrial natural area of the Netherlands and one of the largest of north-western Europe (Boonman-Berson et al, 2018; Danklof, 2018). The Veluwe is geographically formed by icecaps in the second last ice age and has, as a consequence of drift sand, a moraine structure (Duijvenvoorde, 2005). Due to the sandy structure of the soil, intensive agricultural production was challenging. In the late middle ages, the region became deforested due to timber harvesting for the iron industries and growing numbers of sheep farmers that graze the heath fields (Duijvenvoorde, 2005). As a consequence of that, the sandy soils started to drift or turned into heath fields threatening to turn the region into a dessert and barren landscape (Drenthen, 2014). Livestock practices in those days were at the basis of livelihoods for people in and around the Veluwe and was considered an important economic activity for the region between the 15th and 19th century until the textile industries outcompeted wool production (Drenthen, 2014). Parallel to animal husbandry and timber harvesting, the Veluwe was an important region for hunting (De Rijk, 1986). The desire to hunt led to a sharp decrease in numbers of wild animals such as wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). On top of that, wolves roamed the Netherlands until the late

4 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Figure 1: Wolfmonitoring and distribution in NL (source: WUR, 2019)

19th century and were considered a competitor for shepherds and hunters (De Rijk, 1986). In 1780, the last documented wolf living at the Veluwe was killed by local hunters (De Rijk, 1985). In the 19th century and early 20th century, the Veluwe underwent a makeover as a result of the introduction of the Scottish Pine (Pinus Sylvestris), which had to battle the drift sands and produce timber for the mining industries in Limburg (Drenthen, 2014). Simultaneously, the region was fenced, and wild ungulates were reintroduced for the purpose of hunting. Over the last hundred years, forest cover increased from 30 to 70 percent and numbers of ungulates are impressive enough that allows intensive lethal control. The transition of the Veluwe due to intensive management, as well as other natural areas in the Netherlands towards mixed forest, half open landscapes with (reintroduced) wildlife turned the region into a suitable habitat for the wolf (Groot-Bruinderink et al, 2012). And so, it happened

Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Wolfmonitoring and distribution in NL (source: WUR, 2019)

Figure 2: Map of the municipality of Ede including villages and wolf habitat. (source: Gemeenteatlas.nl, 2018 edit by Van Leest) that a part of the municipality of Ede is now included in a wolf habitat (Wageningen Environmental Research and BIJ12, 2019).

5 About Wolves and More, December 2019 The municipality of Ede shares its natural areas with different owners and nature organisations (Van Iersel, 2013). The town of Ede is home of 65 thousand people and its northern and eastern borders are overlapping with the natural areas of the Veluwe. In figure 2, a detailed map of the municipality of Ede indicates the structure of the region including villages and wolf habitat (Source: Gemeenteatlas.nl, 2018). The western and northern parts are rural areas with several villages (Harskamp, Otterlo, Wekerom, Lunteren, Ederveen, Bennekom and de Klomp). The municipal headquarters is the town of Ede. All villages, including Ede, are situated within the periphery of the south-west Veluwe and therefore overlapping with the habitats of several species of wildlife (e.g. wild boar Sus scrofa, red deer Cervus elaphus, roe deer Capreolus capreolus, fallow deer Dama dama, and the wolf Canus lupus). The research has been conducted within this area were stakeholders are living and/or working. 1.8 Outline of the thesis This thesis consists of six chapters. In the first chapter I have introduced the topic of research and included the problem statement, research aim and research questions. From here onwards I provided background information about the complex relationship people had, and still have with the wolf. Subsequently, an introduction to the study region, the Veluwe area, is provided. Chapter two presents the theoretical framework based on the study of human-wildlife relations, wildlife value orientations, political ecology and the discussion about human-wildlife conflict. In chapter three I will elaborate on the methods used to conduct this case study. The methodology includes the study design, the study sample, field data collection and ethical considerations. Chapter four will present the findings of the field study. chapter five will provide an analysis of the findings from where I will explain how the findings relate to the wider discussion about the nature of human-wildlife conflict. The final and concluding chapter tries to answer the research questions and provides a reflection on the relevance of this study while presenting possibilities for future research including policy recommendations.

Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2: Map of the municipality of Ede including villages and wolf habitat. (source: Gemeenteatlas.nl, 2018 edit by Van Leest)

6 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Chapter 2: Theoretical framework.

2.1 Understanding the relation between humans and wolves 2.1.1 An introduction to the study of Human-wildlife relations (HWR). Human-wildlife relationships are shaped by a blend of different factors (Ottolini, 2018; Danklof, 2018; Manfredo, 2009). HWR can be negative, but also positive depending on a mixture of factors that includes norms, values, emotions, culture, economics, politics, believes, religion and the (natural) landscape (Manfredo, 2009; Lopes-Fernandes et al, 2016; Jacobs, 2014; Ottolini, 2018). To understand how humans relate to wildlife, the study of human dimensions of wildlife came into being (Manfredo, 2009; Hendee and Schoenfeld, 1973). The human-dimensions approach evolved in the mid-20th century due to the growth of the North American tradition of wildlife management, and the parallel development of anthropology and geography together with the growing cross-cultural, multidisciplinary interest in understanding human-wildlife relationships (Manfredo, 2009). Manfredo (2009) stated that; “the US government, researchers and managers were among the first to recognize the growing demand for integration of social sciences in wildlife studies due to the so called “people problems”. US citizens were portrayed, as Michael Manfredo (2009) described, as “lacking knowledge to contribute to visionary conservation efforts”. The same Michael Manfredo (2009) defined four different themes to frame his effort to explore theoretical ideas in relation to the human dimensions of wildlife (HDW) that tries to understand human- wildlife relations:

● Firstly, the HDW encompasses social psychological theories to study those relations and how research guided by those theories can improve conservations practices (Manfredo, 2009). More recently, the theories started to include cognitive-based research that tries to capture emotions, attitudes, values, norms and value orientations (Manfredo, 2009; Jacobs, 2014). This approach focuses primarily on how humans evaluate and reflect on their surrounding world, including wildlife (Manfredo, 2009). Accordingly, ‘the Responses are analysed and presented in a way that characterizes a population of interest or explores a hypothesized relationship’ as Manfredo (2009) stated in his book Who cares about wildlife? Even though this approach plays a central role in HDW, there is more to recognize that is important to get a deeper understanding of human-wildlife relationships that are ‘beyond the cognitive aspects of human evaluation’ (Manfredo, 2009). ● The second theme is about the growing interest in the biological and evolutionary basis of thought after being absent for half a century due to the association of evolutionary theory with racial superiority (Manfredo, 2009). The comeback has to do with the recognition of more general, biological similarities between different peoples around the globe in regard to responses to wildlife. One of the reasons is the recurring tendency of humans to anthropomorphize wildlife, meaning: assigning human characteristics to wildlife (Manfredo, 2009). ● The third theme is encompassing a strong indication for the genetic basis that evokes certain behaviour towards wild animals. Manfredo (2009) calls this behavioural response; upbringing and environmental opportunity in relation to, for example hunting. ● The final theme is the importance of emotions and moods, called human affect, which is recognized as a vital component of understanding fundamental and inherited responses to wildlife and our experiences while having an encounter with wild animals (Manfredo, 2009; Jacobs, 2014). All the themes combined evoke certain behaviour towards animals, whether positive, negative or neutral, and can influence how a relation towards wildlife is formed. A specific formation of behaviour and attitudes towards wildlife can be theoretically defined in terms of conflict, coexistence and or cohabitation. To understand the complexity of these relationships, while including the aforementioned

7 About Wolves and More, December 2019 themes, the recognition for an interdisciplinary approach is growing and are theories developed that help to contribute to the understanding of stakeholder interests and perspectives (Manfredo, 2009; Teel, 2005). One of the theories explores general value orientations of people, based on ideology, norms and values (Manfredo, 2009). This literature asserts that value orientations can predict how people will respond to wildlife. 2.2.2 Wildlife Value Orientations (WVO) A major theoretical approach used in studying peoples’ values in relation to ideology and norms are Wildlife Value Orientations (WVO) (Manfredo, Teel, & Henry, 2009; Teel & Manfredo, 2009). Before starting to explain the theory about Wildlife Value Orientation (WVO), a general explanation of the concept of value orientations is relevant. In a broader sense, value orientations are a ‘reflection of the social ideology of a cultural group’ (Schwartz, 2006) and are closely related to norms that influence normative viewpoints of social groups (Schwartz, 2006). The theory is based on the value-attitude- behaviour model (Homer & Kahle, 1988). Chase (2013) provided the following explanation for Homer & Kahls (1988) model; individual behaviour is guided by a series of interrelated cognitions arranged in a hierarchical fashion. Moreover, values are broad and long-lasting beliefs and at the basis of the hierarchy and consequently influence the formation of attitudes (Chase, 2013) and form slowly over many experiences (Manfedo, 2009) Combining norms and values of social or cultural groups says something about their value orientation towards, for example, wildlife. Manfredo (2009) explains that; “values direct humans’ behaviour and attitudes and there is a consistency between behaviour of people and their basic values”. The basic values people possess are prone to be static, meaning they are not likely to change within one lifetime (Manfredo, 2009; Teel, 2005; Chase, 2013; Schwartz, 2006). Therefore, a likeability exists that people who view wildlife and humans to be equal and therefore have the same rights as humans, will maintain this value within a lifetime (Jacobs, 2007; Manfredo, 2009). Rokeach and Schwartz (2006) assert that values function as desired end states and modes of conduct. Schwartz (2006) clustered different values in order to create certain general value orientations such as a mutualist orientation towards wildlife, or more traditional orientation named domination (Utilitarian). These orientations are rooted in Schwartz’s (2006) value typology concept and contain a set of value dimensions. The dimensions described are respectively named:

● openness to change; ● self-transcendence “Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos” (Maslow, 1971, p. 269); ● conservation; ● self-enhancement. These dimensions are at the basis of Wildlife Value Orientations theory as such. Within the four dimensions a set of 10 value types are included and structured accordingly. These 10 value types include; universalism, benevolence, conformity/tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulations and self-direction. Michael Manfredo (2005, 2007, 2009, 2014), Tara Teel (2005), and Loren Chase (2013) integrated the previously mentioned 4 value dimensions and the 10 value types into a data measurement table (wildlife value orientations and their respective belief dimensions) by integrating them (based on Schwartz’s 2006 study) into basic belief dimensions to be used for measuring WVO’s. Table 1 shows an adapted version of how to study value orientation as such.

8 About Wolves and More, December 2019

Table 1: Value orientations and basic belief dimensions (Manfredo & Vaske et al: Edit by Van Leest)

Value Orientations Basic belief dimension Interview items (examples) (see figure 3) Utilitarian ⮚ Appropriate use beliefs  ⮚ The needs of humans should take priority over (Domination) wildlife protection. ⮚ Hunting beliefs  ⮚ Wolves should be managed actively by lethal control (culling)

Mutualism ⮚ Social affiliation beliefs  ⮚ Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans. ⮚ Caring beliefs  ⮚ I care about animals as much as I do other people.

Pluralist* Mixed beliefs: positive scoring at both Na. belief dimensions Distanced* Mixed beliefs: negative scoring at both Na. belief dimensions *are not included in the Confirmatory factor and reliability analyses for value orientations and basic belief dimensions, depending on survey outcomes interviewees can be categorised both as dominant and mutualist. Same for Distanced is possible. Manfredo (2009) argues that, based on Schwartz’s theory (2006), ‘people’s attitudes and behaviours towards wildlife are rooted in values’. Hence, Schwartz’s theory suggests that people with strong conservation and self-enhancement values have a stronger likelihood to maintain a utilitarian and domination view towards wildlife. The opposite suggests that people who maintain values such as openness to change and self-transcendence are more likely to uphold mutualistic perspectives. To conclude, stakeholder characteristics based on their WVO are asserted to contribute to the better understanding of the characteristics of diverse audiences (Chase, 2013). Having explained the general theory and concepts of values and value orientations, a more in-depth explanation of the different typologies and dimension related to WVO will be given. In the aforementioned section, different, but general wildlife value orientations towards wildlife exist: a dominant/traditionalist (utilitarian) wildlife value orientation and a mutualistic wildlife value orientation (Teel, 2005; Manfredo, 2017). Next to general, however opposing orientations one can include a pluralistic and distanced orientation (Teel, 2005). Domination values can be connected to the idea that wildlife serves human needs and use and prioritize human welfare over wildlife welfare (Manfredo, 2009). Utilitarian oriented people tend to accept actions that result or could harm wildlife, whereas mutualist orientated people can be tied to the idea that ‘human activity should be limited for the sake of wildlife protection’ (Manfredo, 2017) and view wildlife as being capable of relationships of trust with humans, having rights like humans, and being part of an extended family (Dayer, Stinchfield & Manfredo, 2007). People who have a pluralistic orientation share both general (utilitarian and mutualism) orientations in their values towards wildlife depending on specific conditions. For example, shepherds can value the existence of deer to be positive and are not likely to bring harm to them, however they can maintain protective values towards their livestock in relation to the wolf and are willing to take lethal measures. Having explained the four typologies of Wildlife Value Orientations, the following section will explain the shift of value orientations caused by societal macro factors, as it is important to understand what forces changed Wildlife Value Orientations as such since they potentially have changed values at an individual micro-level (Manfredo, 2009). Wildlife Value Orientation (see figure 3) within a given society is not completely static and changes gradually over time. This is measured by several cross-country studies done over the past 30 years (Manfredo, 2009; Teel; 2007, 2005; Jacobs, 2007). In the second half of the 20th century, a shift from traditional dominant orientation towards mutualistic orientations appeared in the United States, and in addition in the Netherlands the same shift was observed (Jacobs, 2007, 2014; Manfredo, 2009, 2017). This shift has been studied by Teel et al (2005) and Manfredo (2005, 2009, 2017) in the US. They 9 About Wolves and More, December 2019 concluded that currently a majority of US citizens predominantly maintain a mutualistic orientation towards wildlife. Reason for a shift in value orientations can be explained by societal cultural changes in the same period (Manfredo, 2017). Due to a shift from a materialist and industrialised society towards a modernist society people started to be disconnected from wildlife (Manfredo, 2017, Inglehart, 1997, 2005, 2016). This resulted in the tendency to see wildlife in egalitarian ways (anthropomorphize). The factors (sociocultural) influencing this shift can be traced back to urbanisation, higher educational level and income increase (Jacobs, 2007, Manfredo, 2017). In the Netherlands, a mutualistic orientation fits the highly urbanized situation people are living in. This is confirmed by Jacobs (2007, 2014) who has studied wildlife value orientation in the Netherlands. One can assume that people who live in cities and urbanized areas tend to be mutualistic towards the wolf, meaning they are more likely to accept the new top predator within our borders (Jacobs, 2007, 2014). Other factors that influence WVO’s are related to gender and age and a higher percentage of females value wildlife as being mutual while older men tend to uphold dominant values (Vaske et al, 2011).

Figure 3: Wildlife value orientations in the west (Tara Teel, 2005; adapted by Milos van Leest)

2.3 The factors that shape viewpoints and how viewpoints reflect wildlife values For this study the identification of potential reasons that shape the different viewpoints of human- wildlife relations can be important. These reasons can help to explain how different viewpoints came into being and what they tell us about the way’s humans interact with the presence of the wolf and wildlife in general. Wildlife Value Orientations (WVO) can be a helpful tool to understand values and viewpoints. WVO tell much about the ideology of the group to which people ‘belong’ and feel connected to (Manfredo, 2009). However, do WVO always reflect the way people shape relationships with wildlife? Important factors that influence HWR exist at macro level and reflect the social, political and economic environment. Within social factors, religion, culture and societal groups can play an important role in shaping a person’s viewpoint and underlying values (Manfredo, 2009). For example, in Christian religious groups a Judeo-Christian set of norms and values have influenced the way these groups envision and consequently behave in their relationship with nature, wildlife and predators (Manfredo, 2009). The different ideological orientations can for example partially explain the already existing viewpoints in society currently expressed in media. However, ideology is only a single factor influencing WVO. Sociocultural factors can explain the influence of habits, tradition and beliefs have on viewpoints of different groups of people in society. Socio-political factors describe the difference between groups of people relating to their political beliefs, social class and political ideology (Cambridge online dictionary,

10 About Wolves and More, December 2019 2019). For example, the rise of populist parties in Europe (e.g. Brexit vote, AfD, Victor Orban, FvD) shows a phenomena of cultural backlash that embodies the struggle of those left behind and come to resist to protect their cultural identity and values (Manfredo, 2017; Inglehart, 2016; Decker et al, 2016). Manfredo (2017) found evidence that cultural backlash and the protection of values in relation to hunting influences the trust in wildlife protection agencies in the US. The divide between rural and urban people, between traditionalist and secularist, between utilitarian and mutualists is increasingly exposed in societal debates about environmental protection (Manfredo, 2017). Another example is the growing tension between farmers and environmentalists in Germany and France, linked to the increasing predation rates of wolves on livestock. Many farmers have a feeling that the return and strict protection of the wolf is an ideological project of urban dwellers that lack any connection with rural reality (The guardian 2019; the BBC, 2019; the Bild, 2019). The clash between ideologies and realities indicate that sociocultural and political factors play an important role in how viewpoints came to be and influence human-wildlife relations. Personal factors go beyond wildlife value orientations. They are about values, emotions, affect, attitudes and behaviour at a personal level and local setting (Manfredo, 2009). They are related to cognitive factors explained by Manfredo (2009, 2014). Those personal and local factors are indeed influenced and formed by external forces explained before. However, the expression is not measured on a personal and/or local level. Cognitive factors are something immaterial that relate to circumstances or influences that can contribute to values and behaviour (Manfredo, 2009). In literature it is explained that cognitive factors influence behaviour and the development of ideology (Manfredo, 2009). Ideologies are also formed by sociocultural, socio-political and economic factors and lead to the development of certain value orientations (Manfredo, 2017, 2009; Jacobs, 2014, 2007; Dickman, 2010). As mentioned earlier, having a certain value orientation can influence the attitudes and behaviour towards wildlife. The attitudes and behaviours towards wildlife, that are formed by those factors, shape different approaches and human-wildlife relations on how to deal with for example negative or positive interactions (Frank, 2016). From literature one can assume these factors influence the viewpoints of people. There is strong evidence that emotions especially play an important role in creating and maintain values and subsequently value orientations and behaviour towards the wolf (Manfredo, 2009; Jacobs, 2014). As it appears now, people’s relationship with wildlife is complex and not heterogenic. Personal and local level factors are to be studied in the assumption that they explain the formation of viewpoints and human-wildlife relations. As Frank (2016) argues that; expressing negative or positive evaluations towards predators [the wolf] determines if a relationship is considered being of conflict or coexistence. Drenthen (2016) investigated how Dutch people positioned themselves towards the wolf. He claims the existence of three different overall perspectives; 1) the wolf as an intruder, 2) the wolf as an innocent victim and friend, 3) the wolf as a ‘manageable object’. As Drenthen further explains that; “people who see the wolf as an intruder experience a breach in their comfortable separation between wilderness and manmade landscapes resulting in more hostile attitudes towards the animal. People who see the wolf as an innocent victim and friend tend to deny the predatory nature and potential conflicts the animal can evoke”. The people who see the wolf from the perspective of ‘wolf management’ tend to emphasize on control over the very nature of the animal with the absence of tolerance (Drenthen, 2016). The wolf should be guided on the terms of management goals excluding the fact the wolf is a predator. The perspectives outlined by Drenthen (2016) shed light at the value orientations of the Dutch population regarding the wolf and give insight in the different categories of perspectives as such that could be measured in the field. I expected similar perspectives in my research, and I have used them to find patterns and correlation with WVO’s and HWR’s. Drenthen (2016) gave more explanation about the nature of the different perspectives that are found in the Netherlands, stating: ‘the different views on whether or not people should welcome the wolf and share living space with them, is deeply intertwined with different notions of environmental identity and views on the human-nature relationship’. Consequently, he explains that landscape changes in the Netherlands ultimately are formed via political decisions rather than spontaneous processes. The wolf seems to contest this idea of control over nature 11 About Wolves and More, December 2019 creating an environment of confusion amongst people. The three perspectives of Drenthen (2016) are revealing the confusion of people of how to respond to the return of the wolf. Before I’ll introduce the often neglected political-economic issues that could be at play in studying human-wildlife relations in the following sub-chapter, I will provide a summary of the concepts, explained within the previous discussion about human dimensions of wildlife. Table 2 is a compilation of existing perspectives, related attitudes, basic values, Wildlife Value Orientations and human-wildlife relations. The table presents an assumed combination and correlations between the different theories. These assumed correlations are not fixed and can be different in other cases. During the case study I assume the different categorisations including correlations are to be found based on the available studies done in the Netherlands, Europe, and the United States (Jacobs, 2007, 2014; Vaske, 2011; Manfredo, 2009, 2014). However, I have left open whether this is the case. The table does not include the reasons that might have shaped perspectives, attitudes, behaviour, values, value orientations and human-wildlife relations. These factors will be investigated through literature study, interviews and content analysis.

Perspectives Attitude and Basic value WVO HWR Behaviour outcome 1) Intruder Hostility Demonizing Utilitarian Conflicting

2) Victim and friend Naivety Romanticizing Mutualist Cohabiting/coexisting

3) Manageable Controlling, Normalizing Pluralist/distanced Coexisting/cohabiting object domestication

Table 2: Wolf perspectives in the Netherlands in relation to WVO and HWR (Drenthen, 2016; Teel, 2005)

2.4 Political Ecology and the wolf: Understanding Human-Wildlife Conflict Within the previously explained literature about the study of human dimension of wildlife (HDW), little effort is done to include the political dimension of the relation between humans and wolves. Political ecology can help to understand how the political and economic domains influences this social environmental dispute (Little, 2007). The wolf has become a central figure in several ongoing conflicts between different actors within different European regions. In most cases these conflicts are rooted in complex socio-political and economic systems (Margulies, 2018; Ottolini, 2018; Little, 2007). To understand how a conflict can be interpreted I will use political ecology as an additional guiding framework. Political ecology is the study of the interface between human societies and the natural environment (Tetreault, 2019; Little, 2007). A single definition of political ecology is not entirely consistent due to changes within this approach over time. Hence, political ecology is a fusion between political economy, that studies the structural power relations within human societies and the economy, and the relation to the biophysical environment. Political ecology can potentially give a different perspective on human-wolf (wildlife) relations than the study of HDW. According to Little (2007), Political ecology tries to understand ‘different dimensions of socio- environmental realities’ that are at play around the globe. Those realities are often related to an environmental crisis, for example the current climate change debate on a global level. On a local level environmental crisis have emerged as well. One can think of recurring droughts, nitrogen deposition, floods, rising sea levels, pollution and loss of biodiversity and many more. However, a socio- environmental challenge can also relate to the impact large carnivores such as the wolf can create to a local population (Margulies, 2018). A straightforward way would be the wolf predating on livestock and causing conflict between people and the wolf. Hence, studies on this issue raised the question whether it is as straightforward as it appears to be (Margulies, 2018; Ottolini, 2018;). Little (2007) argues that often a conflict between people and predators is a conflict about social struggles, resource distribution and loss of (rural) lifestyle. This is confirmed by Isabeau Ottolini (2018) who did a study about living

12 About Wolves and More, December 2019 with wolves in Redes National Park in Northern Spain. She concluded that the human-wolf conflict is an issue of communication and framing and goes beyond the simple conceptualisation of wolves predating on livestock. Ottolini (2018) argues that HWC (in this case human-wolf conflict in Redes NP in northern Spain) can be seen as a many-headed monster encompassing aspects such as the rural-urban dichotomy; changes in the ways of life; the role of politics; the economic struggles of the livestock sector; and the role of the media (Ottolini, 2018). An increasingly growing body of academics are critical about the absence of studies addressing the wider economic and regional forces that shape human-wildlife interactions (Hobsen, 2007; Srinivasan, 2016; Margulies, 2018). Hobsen (2007) was the first to address the need to see animals as political subjects while only a handful of studies continued to account on this subject (Margulies, 2018; Srinivasan, 2016). From here several academics propose a new field of research that is called ‘political animal geography’ that ‘aims to overcome the serious lacuna of adequate accountings of politics within animal geography on the one hand, and the persistent lack of attention in political geography to animals as actors, rather objects only to be acted upon’ (Margulies, 2018; following Srinivasan, 2016). Margulies (2018) argues that political animal geography and the findings of a multi species study done in Bandipur National Park in India can be relevant for similar cases of human-wildlife conflict around the globe. They refer to places with similar densities of animals (domestic) situated near protected areas (Margulies, 2018). The theory suggests that there is a need to not only look to social injustice as such that surround human-wildlife conflict, but to take into account perspectives of agencies active in wildlife and nature conservation (Margulies, 2018). By doing so, Margulies (2018) believes this could lead to a better understanding of how wildlife conflict is embedded in structures of power, economy and global forces. Hereby, he is supported by a growing number of academics that study human-wildlife relations. In the following section I will elaborate on the contested and discursive framing of human-wildlife conflict. Within the study of human-wildlife relations (HWR) a profound number of studies are done to try to understand the causes of wildlife conflicts (Margulies, 2018). Madden (2004) defines a human-wildlife conflict as follows: “HWC occurs when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people”. Human-wildlife conflict is a broadly used term in biodiversity conservation to research at places were the needs of humans or wildlife are out of balance. Often this type of research analysis socioeconomic variables in combination with social perspectives while applying statistical analysis (Manfredo, 2018, Jacobs, 2016). Often, the conclusions based on these results suggest that larger carnivores compete with similar resources in overlapping spaces creating conflict. Moreover, as Madden (2004) stated nicely; “conflicts can increase when people feel that the needs of animals are given priority over their needs”. Despite a common agreement on this type of research, a growing number of academics believe sources of long lasting HWC are more complex than a conflict over resource use alone. (Margulies, 2018; following Manfredo & Dayer, 2004; Treves et al., 2006).

Human-wildlife conflict is often a conflict of interests between human actors surrounding a non-human actor. According Peterson et al (2010), the problem with framing a conflict as humans vs wildlife is the absence of proof that animals are simultaneously aware of their own goals, human goals and seeking to undermine human goal-seeking capacity (Peterson et al, 2010). Redpath et al (2015: 224) goes further and argues that “in the majority of cases human-wildlife conflicts are between conservation and other human interests”. The following quote from Margulies (2018) illustrates that wildlife conflict can be considered a human conflict. “While the term human-wildlife conflict is suggestive of direct contestations between humans and wildlife, the vast majority of what is referred to as HWC in the literature are examples how animals become enrolled in conflicts between different human actors or groups. (Margulies,

13 About Wolves and More, December 2019 2018:155. Following: Norgrove & Hulme, 2006; Adams and Hutton, 2007; Dickman, 2010; Peterson et al., 2010; Collard, 2012; Mariki et al., 2015; Jampel, 2016; Pooley et al., 2017). Furthermore, Margulies (2018) argues that in many cases wildlife conflict is a human vs. human conflict, and hence that the defenders of conservation goals “should stop hiding behind wildlife”. He further believes that political ecology contributes to the illumination of wildlife becoming symbols of oppression by the state and altering conflicts between several actors into conflict between wildlife and people. Often this happens when the goal of the state (or other institutions) are to protect these conservation goals (Margulies, 2018). Therefore, a reformulation of HWC will look like this; the definition of conflict is not straightforward but generally unites around ‘’expressed disagreement among people who see incompatible goals and potential interference in achieving these goals’’ (Pearce & Littlejohn 1997; Peterson et al. 2002). Based on the afore established theoretical angle to understand HWC, we can explore whether, and to what extent the case study reveals a situation of conflict between stakeholders, and/or a conflict between stakeholders and other local, regional or national actors (e.g. the government, nature organisation etc.). A political ecological approach pays closer attention to individuals and communities harmed by conservation practices and takes this as central unit of analysis. Even though Margulies (2018) and Srinivasan & Kasturirangan (2017) believe in the need to include animal geography in political ecological studies to address the agency of non-human lives (e.g. wolves, tigers, brown-bears, but also domesticated animals etc.) on HWC. They believe that the ‘anthropocentric’ focus of political ecology on conservation could lead to the scapegoating of conservation initiatives as well the non-human actor involved (Margulies, 2018; Srinivasan & Kasturirangan, 2017). For this study I will use a political ecology perspective as a lens to look through and leave open the outcome as such. Due to the scope of this thesis, I will not include political animal geography as a framework to make sense of the findings. I will rather use it to explain a new emerging field of understanding wildlife conflict more holistically and to address, following Margulies (2018), that we need to be careful not to entrench or evoke a HWC by only pointing towards conservation goals as promoters of harm to local needs. Hence, Margulies (2018) emphasizes on “the importance of the inclusion of agencies of power (e.g. the role of politics, conservation, and land-owners/managers) in the study of human-wildlife conflicts”.

2.5 Political Ecology and the wolf: Coexistence and Cohabitation The study of human dimension of wildlife (HDW) often focuses on the human-wolf conflict, a negative connotation. However, the relationship can also be described by coexistence or cohabitation. These interactions are described below. Coexistence entails behaviour of existing together, which could refer to a peaceful coexistence or to coexisting while remaining rivals or adversaries (Frank, 2016). Coexistence takes place when the interests of humans and wildlife are both satisfied, or when a compromise is negotiated to allow the existence of both humans and wildlife (Frank, 2016). Frank (2016) conceptually frames coexistence as ‘synonyms to describe a range of attitudes and behaviours towards wildlife’ and ‘coexistence is a state or a set of behaviours reflecting tolerance attitudes’. These attitudes and behaviours are, as explained in the section about WVO, a result of values based on sociocultural-economic and political factors. Consequently, these factors and values play a role in the way coexistence is shaped in a certain place. Drenthen (2016) argues that within Europe, the resurgence of large predators and other wild animals can be contributed to successes in coexistence between humans and wildlife. Especially considering the human shaped and dominated landscapes we created over the last centuries. It seems that Europeans have managed to coexist with species that only recently are not hunted towards extinction (Drenthen, 2016). One of the most successful stories is that of the wolf, while taking into account the controversy the animal has in terms of coexisting. Cohabitation describes the state or fact of living or existing at the same time or in the same place (Oxfortonlinedictionairy, 2019). Boonman-Berson et al (2016) writes about cohabitations as the spatial interactions between humans and 14 About Wolves and More, December 2019 wildlife in a certain place and how interactions shape the landscape. Within this theory, the belief exists that humans and wild animals should live peacefully together. In the case of wild ungulates these peaceful relations can be established straightforwardly. 2.6 Summary of theories and concepts The theories explained in this chapter entails three main concepts; 1. The relationship between humans and wildlife explained by HDW and wildlife value orientations. 2. The factors shaping perspective and wildlife value orientations (socio-political, -cultural, - economical) 3. Political ecology approach to studying human-wildlife conflict

[What have I contributed?] Having explored the theory of human dimensions of wildlife and the related wildlife value orientations, but also the shaping of human-wildlife relationships and the existing viewpoints in relation to humans and the wolf, the next step was to investigate the orientation of the stakeholders by this case study by capturing their viewpoints regarding the return of the wolf. As earlier explained in chapter 1, the locality in this case is the south-west Veluwe area which has a specific set of features (landscape, cultural history, identity, management style, norms and values, ideology and emotional response). By leaving open what the outcome of this study would be, this study can contribute to another way of addressing wildlife conflict as such by considering peoples varying views and concerns surrounding the return of the wolf. .

15 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1 Research design and methodology The design of this case study is qualitative and explorative in nature and includes ethnographic features. I used an interview guide with semi-structured interviews as the main data collection method (appendix 2; Interview guide). To compliment the study, I collected data via the use of participant observation during my visits to a public debate and a wolf symposium. At these places I had informal conversations about the topics addressed at these occasions. The idea was to develop ethnological understanding of the different stakeholders that have to share space with the wolf and how their current viewpoints/perspectives are in relation to the return of the wolf. The data collection time spanned 6 weeks in total. I conducted the interviews mainly at the homes of the selected stakeholders. I participated a hunting tenant who invited me to join feeding sites for wild boar (Sus scrofa) hunting. Moreover, I conducted an interview with the shepherd of the Edese schaapskudde (Local sheep flock) in the field at the Edese heathland. Furthermore, before interviewing members of the municipal forest council I participated in a members meeting at the 18th of June 2019, in order to get in contact with potential interviewees (stakeholders). Besides carrying out interviews, I visited a public debate in the town of Ermelo about the return of the wolf to get an impression about the issues at play between several actors. Several weeks later I was invited for a wolf symposium at Van Hall, a University of Applied sciences in Velp, the Netherlands. Here, I had another opportunity to observe the perspective of Wolven in Nederland. The units of analysis are local stakeholders living in- and work around the Veluwe part of municipal Ede. There are several groups of stakeholders that were interviewed during the six weeks of fieldwork. The first group of interviewees were the fauna managers of the municipality. This included the municipal fauna manager and one of the hunting tenants. The second group were several (four) members of the forest council. Due to my visit to the public debate I was able to get in contact with the operational manager of National Park de Hoge Veluwe and the Nowolves platform initiator. With both stakeholders I was able to have a depth interview of around 1.5-2 hours. Via desk research I came in contact with the fauna manager of nature reserve Planken Wambuis, a place within the municipality of Ede and managed by Natuurmonumenten. Subsequently, he introduced me to the shepherd who is partially under contract for grazing management of the heathland. I interviewed the shepherd while he was at work at the Edese heide (heathland). 3.2 Study sample, interviews and data analysis Why stakeholders only and not actors or local communities in general? Stakeholders have something at stake: stakeholders are also actors but not always part of the local communities; they can have economic and/or social interest. The instruments to be used to measure viewpoints are semi-structured interviews, participant observation, informal interviews and an extra literature review. The sampling strategy was based on snowball sampling and used convenience sampling. The sample size was based on the available stakeholders. In total I interviewed ten stakeholders with an approximate duration of 1.5 to 2 hours per interview. To get access to the research site I contacted one of my key informants that I know personally, from here I was able to get in contact with fauna managers and the forest council.

I made use of an interview guide and semi-structured interviews that included questions to reveal people’s perspectives about cutting edge issues in nature and wildlife management. Furthermore, I investigated people’s beliefs in regard to wildlife management by using WVO framework of (Vaske, 2011; Teel, 2005)). Additionally, I included several topics with open ended questions where interviewees could give elaborate responses about the return of the wolf in relation to their work or lives. I used probing as a strategy to get depth conversations about the factors (reason behind) shaping their viewpoints. This included asking interviewees to explain more about their personal and professional background in their field of expertise. I have asked specifically about the potential of lethal control of wolves in relation to other wildlife (respectively wild boar, red deer management.). This could evoke 16 About Wolves and More, December 2019 discussions about their values and vision. Important topics to be included are; lethal control, human safety, livestock predation, wolf and nature management, political decisions, EU regulations and influence, perspectives on the wolf and the potential impact for nature. I had informal conversations with stakeholders during the interviews about topics that couldn't have been foreseen beforehand. As a result, these informal conversations led to the emergence of themes and topics surrounding themes that related to broader societal debates, yet also to topics surrounding individual life experiences. The interviews were all recorded with a phone. I have transcribed all the important recordings in Microsoft Word. The transcribed interviews are analysed by deriving patterns and themes (value orientations, factors and forces shaping these, human in their relation to wildlife and wolves). I have made use of quotes in chapter 4: findings to support and highlight the rhetoric and language people use to address their answers in relations to their claims. All interviews were carried out in Dutch, consequently I needed to translate all the selected quotes and identified themes to English. Sometimes I needed to make use of websites to translate Dutch proverbs to English (if possible). All the data sources (recordings, notes, and transcriptions) are double stored on a cloud and a hard disc to avoid loss of valuable data.

3.3 Ethics and personality as researcher All, except for one interviewee, were informed about the use of a record device before the interview started. The person that was not informed beforehand was contacted afterwards to ask for permission to use his/her recording. The reason for not asking before the interview started had to do with the fact we were doing a field visit at the same time. Interesting data was shared and therefore I decided to record the entire field trip without consent. With other stakeholders I asked for permission to use their names in the report. Since one of the participants did not agreed on using his/her name, I decided to make all the stakeholders anonymous. Their names cannot be observed in the document. Consequently, I gave every stakeholder a label to be referred to in the report. The labels, including additional information such as date, profession and data collection method can be found in appendix 1: list of data sources for this thesis. Furthermore, this thesis can only be published after the municipality agrees on the content. This has to do with privacy regulations regarding policy alignment of governmental press output. Important for doing research is to understand my own personality and role as a researcher. Due to my background, the lens through which I need to engage with this topic could be blurred and prejudiced. Since I grew up in the region, being born and raised in Ede, my view on local realities and culture could have had similarities with the people I interviewed. This can be a positive outset, since it helped me to engage with topics that could be ethically challenging (example of hunting etc.) as well to understand local dynamics and difference in relation to wider societal variances. This could also be a negative outset, when I personally do not agree with one’s perspective. Before starting this thesis, I could consider myself a pro-wolf person in terms of my believe that wolves need a chance to live in the Netherlands. However, due to my experiences with predators (brown bears Ursus arctos and wolves Canis lupus) and the study of wildlife conflict in Bulgaria and encounters with bears in Romania, my view already became more nuanced. These experiences and encounters made me more aware of the human affect and the worries and frustrations of people that need to live with large predators. Because of that, I was able to engage with more opposing lifeworld’s and beliefs in regard to my own.

17 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Chapter 4: Findings

4.1 Stakeholder perspectives The interviewed stakeholders were selected based on their connection with the case study region, the potential involvement in wolf management, and the possibility of wolves affecting their daily lives or profession. Their professions ranged from fauna/forest managers of different organisations involved in management of the several public and private nature areas in the municipality of Ede, to ecologists, hunters, a jurist, shepherds and a professor. They all have, to a certain degree, knowledge and experience about cutting edge issues surrounding Dutch nature conservation that includes having an opinion about the return of the wolf and the potential consequences that that might bring. They primarily explained their perspectives based on their professional background, but also shed light on their personal perspective. Within this chapter every stakeholder or organisation has its own subchapter that starts with a description of the stakeholder(s) per organisation before I will present the interview findings. I tried to tell the story from the perspective of the stakeholder in question, meaning there is not a clear structure as such, but encompasses their perspective on nature management, the wolf, wolf management etc. 4.1.1 Wolven in Nederland1 About 10 years ago, the platform ‘wolven in Nederland’ was formed by a consortium of several national, nature related organisations in order to ‘prepare the Dutch public’ for the return of the wolf (Wolven in Nederland, 2019). Their vision is ‘to strive for a conflict-free coexistence with wolves’ (wolven in Nederland, 2019) and to be ‘committed in creating support for the wolf. We do this by distinguishing myths and fairy tales from truth; by providing information, for example about how farmers can protect their livestock’. In the past years, Wolven in Nederland was the main public influencer and knowledge provider to prepare the public for the return of the wolf. They work in collaboration with Wageningen University for the analysis of DNA samples for the identification of the different individual wolves living in the Netherlands, as well to identify the type of predator that killed or injured livestock. “Het probleem ligt niet bij de wolf, maar bij de schapensector”

“The wolf does not own the problem, the shepherdry does” – O.2. Anonymous, wolf symposium, Velp (19-6-2019) The central question they try to answer is; “is the wolf welcome in the Netherlands?” (O.2. wolven symposium, 2019). They believe there is place for several wolf packs in the Netherlands. Wolven in Nederland are also trying to predict how the wolf would behave in a densely populated area like the Netherlands, however they are aware of the lack of knowledge about this issue due to the adaptive nature of the wolf O.2.. Furthermore, they believe the habitat range within the Netherlands is more or less half the size of the Netherlands, respectively the province of Groningen, Friesland, Overijssel, Gelderland, Brabant and Limburg as most suitable places (wolven symposium, Velp, 2019). They came to this conclusion based on data produced by ‘habitat preference modelling’ and studies done in Germany. They also believe the responsibility of protection against wolf predation lies primarily with the livestock keeper. They reason that farmers can protect their animals using electric fencing and the introduction of guardian dogs. When these measures do not work, farmers can get compensation for the inflicted damage if they report the damage within 24 hours to Bij12, the Dutch institute for livestock damage compensation. The organisation is also involved in public debates, symposiums, lectures and the media (local and national television). I participated in two public events where a representative of Wolven in Nederland and the ‘zoogdiervereniging’ presented their perspective. At one of these occasions a representative went in debate O.1. with platform Nowolves representative and the head of operations of

1 A representative of Wolven in Nederland was not interviewed for this study. However, I visited a public debate and symposium about the wolf from where I did participant observation. 18 About Wolves and More, December 2019 National Park De Hoge Veluwe. During this debate the public was allowed to ask questions to the representatives of the different important stakeholders. 4.1.2 The sheep herder of Platform Nowolves Benelux Platform Nowolves Benelux is a civil initiative and recently an influential player in steering public debates about the wolf o.1, i.1. The interviewee is a shepherd and a key player in the establishment of this public/online platform. The initiative came to be due to the growing unrest among livestock breeders about the ‘biased’ framing of the wolf in Dutch media by Wolven in Nederland o.1. His role is to steer the debate towards a more ‘fact based’, as he described their role, understanding of the return of the wolf in Europe and the Netherlands. They target specifically the general public, politicians and policy developers i.1. By doing so they hope to create more awareness of the ‘potential threats’ the wolf can bring to livestock and to people living in the Netherlands o.1, i.1. They actively follow the developments in Germany and France in order to be aware of the latest news about the negative consequences the wolf inflicts in neighbouring countries o.1, i.1. Furthermore, they want to protest against the, in their opinion, romanticized view ‘pro-wolf people’ and general public ventilates on social media and the news o.1, i.1. “De reden dat we dit opgepakt hebben is vanwege, in onze ogen, de onjuiste berichtgeving door wolven in Nederland. We leven in een dichtbevolkt land en er zullen confrontaties gaan komen. Dus het is niet de vraag of die er gaan komen maar wanneer. En daar moeten we gewoon realistisch over zijn. En dat is gewoon een eerlijk beeld. Klaar”

“The reason that we have picked this up is because, in our eyes, incorrect reporting by wolves in the Netherlands. We live in a densely populated country and there will be confrontations. So, the question is not whether they will come, but when. And we just must be realistic about that. And that's just an honest picture. Nothing more to say.” – i.1 (11-6-2019) Platform Nowolves maintains a no-wolf perspective i.1, o.1. Meaning that the wolf is not welcome in the Netherlands. The co-founder of Nowolves explains he is not specifically against the wolf as a species as such, but he believes the wolf is not suitable for human and livestock dominated landscapes in western Europe. Moreover, he does not support the idea that fencing and guardian dogs will fully protect his, or other herds of sheep, cattle, goats etc. His reasoning is that the wolf is highly adaptive towards human behaviour and smart enough in finding possibilities to predate on livestock i.1. He gave the example of France where wolves started to attack livestock during daytime after the introduction of well protected night corrals for sheep. His opinion is that (rural) people never lived peacefully with predators in the past, so he thinks the same applies for recent times while referring to other European countries that struggle with the emerging wolf populations. “we never have been able to live peacefully with the wolf, why can we now?” i.1. He also believes that livestock keepers are not against the wolf itself but questions the idea the wolf is controllable without the possibility to intervene. ”Ik denk dat geen een dierenhouder iets tegen de wolf op zichzelf heeft, alleen het is oncontroleerbaar en heel moeilijk beheersbaar weten we uit het buitenland.”

“I don't think any livestock keeper has something against the wolf in itself, but from abroad [Germany, France and Spain] we know the wolf is uncontrollable and difficult to manage” – i.1 (11-6-2019) For him it all relates to the danger that wolves will bring when the population will grow; “yes, that’s what it’s all about, that’s the whole story” he believes that wolf management is a very delicate issue in terms of the practical implementation of it. “in Norway for example, the hunt on wolves is done on ski’s and by helicopter and cost weeks to accomplish”i.1. He further explains that it is very challenging to control wolf population since they are hard to trace, shoot or capture. He finds it frustrating that

19 About Wolves and More, December 2019 ecologists think that there can’t be to many wolves for reasons that wolves have large territories and will not be with many since they control each other by competitive behaviour. But he argues that a vast base of historical documentation showed that wolves were problematic and killed much livestock. He refers to the fact that between the 14th and 19th century local governments organised large wolf hunts were thousands of people participated in order to counter battle so called ‘wolf plagues’. He connects historical data with lessons learned from other countries that currently struggle with wolf management; “I think we can learn from foreign countries and predict what will happen if we take into account wildlife and farm animal densities [which are high in the Netherlands] in the rural in combination with how the wolf adjust to new circumstances” Furthermore, he encountered difficulties to communicate his doubts and worries towards the ‘pro-wolf’ group. He believes this group (e.g., wolven in Nederland, some researchers of Wageningen UR and the so called ‘pro wolf people’ ) are fact-blind and ignorant for what he calls the ‘real facts’ about the consequences of allowing wolves in the Netherlands for livestock farmers, farmyard animals and humans. He believes that they ignore the facts and romanticise the positive impact for nature while enjoying public support i.1. Nowolves has a strong opinion about the rewilding initiatives, that he refers to within Europe. He argues that the ‘rewilders’, as he calls them, know that small scale shepherdry isn’t capable to cope with the wolf. He explained me that farmers that have lost over 50 percent of their animals due to wolf predation are not capable to restore their business. The abandonment of the countryside is beneficial for the rewilding project paving the way for guided safari’s i.8. “Dat de wolf een middel is om het platteland te ontvolken en te versterken de ontvolking die al gaande is.”

“The wolf is a driver to depopulate the countryside, and to strengthen the ongoing process of abandonment” i.1. (11-6-2019) He further explains to me the absence of political interest in solving this issue in the Netherlands. There is a general lack of understanding of the complexity of this problem, people just say; you should have protected your sheep by fencing’ and ‘your sheep will end-up in the slaughterhouse anyway’. For him this lack of ‘understanding’ and ‘short-sightedness’ is painful, and he felt the urge to act. Luckily, as he explained to me, local political parties are opening their eyes and are choosing for ‘sheep’ instead of ‘wolf’. He also believes that people are not aware of the collateral damage wolf attacks have on sheep flocks. He explained the issue like this; “sheep are very sensitive and vulnerable; they depend on me and are stress sensitive. When a wolf, or dog attacks my sheep it is not only the killing that has an effect, but the attack also inflicts rejection of the foetus if an ewe is pregnant. Some farmers lose 70 percent of their premature born lambs after an attack”. He also explained that collateral damage (nevenschade) is not covered by the compensation scheme and is far more harmful on the long term than a livestock kill i.1. He knows from other examples how farmers lost years of selective breeding and selection practices and hard work due to collateral damage inflicted by attacks of predators [referring to overkill by wolves]2. According to him, “it cost years for a livestock breeder to recover from an attack like that, and we already have struggles to be financially secure due to limited revenues streams” i.1. He also mentions the psychological impact livestock predation have on farmers and their families. He refers to the case that happened in autumn 2018, when three dogs jumped over the fence and killed several ewe’s and lambs. “it was a massacre, everywhere dead and wounded animals with their intestines out and sometimes eaten alive” i.1. He also mentioned the fact one of his top ewe’s died a week later due to attack related stress. For him this attack gave a feeling of failure, a failure to protect his animals.

2 Overkill stands for wolves that predate livestock by killing multiple animals in one occasion. Often this happens when a wolf enters a corral killing dozens of sheep and goats in a short period of time. 20 About Wolves and More, December 2019 “Ja…..[zucht]....het is wel gebeurd en ik weet wel dat ik daar menig traantje om gelaten heb. En dat ik eerst heel erg boos geweest ben en dat ik pas, en dat is in begin november gebeurd, en dat ik pas in april met hem gepraat heb over de afhandeling omdat ik daarvoor er echt geen behoefte aan had, en nu nog…. ja ….financieel….maar goed, financieel doet er niet toe, het is niet relevant”

“Yes… .. [sighs] .... it did happen and I know that I have shed many tears. And that I was very angry at first and that I only, and that happened in early November, and that I did not talk to him about the damage settlement until April since I really wasn’t able to do so, and still I do. And for the money? No, money does not matter, it is irrelevant in this case” – i.1. (11-6-2019). The above quote illustrates the emotional effect he experienced due to a sheep predation case caused by dogs. He also asserts a naivety of a part of the Dutch people when it is about the psychological impact of the death of farm animals. He explains that people are not aware of the idea that the rural is a place of production, where farmers are making a living. They leave their dogs unleashed and unmonitored in an area with livestock. He explains that factors that make this business a challenge are related to the Dutch intensive farming systems with a focus on high input and output and high efficiency. It drives up land prices and lowers the prices of farm products. He further explains that sheep farming is very labour intensive. “nowadays you need a minimum of 300 sheep to earn an income, while it is much more than a full-time job considering 12 hours per sheep a year”.

“ik weet niet of wij op de huidige manier nog door kunnen. Het is nog maar de vraag of wij over 10 jaar hier nog schapen houden.”

“I don't know if we can continue the way we do now. The question is whether we will still rear sheep after 10 years from now. " – i.1 (11-6-2019) He further indicates the fact that shepherdry is a passion for him and for many of his colleagues. The Dutch situation makes it harder since land prices are high and keep on increasing. So, his business is depending on small plots of land that he uses but are owned by other individuals, private owners and dairy farmers. The plots are fragmented and poorly connected and therefore the sheep need to be translocated often. He also needs to put basic electric fencing to keep the sheep within the foraging range. He argues that due to the fragmentation of grassland and a diversity of landscapes a wolf proof fence is very labour intensive to install and not proven to be effective. He then shows me examples why ‘wolf-proof’ does not exist in the way it is proposed by other parties. He rather calls it “wolf repellent” and only under good circumstances when the terrain is tree, hedge and vegetation free. He beliefs, the capacity of the wolf to adapt is incredible and if there is a lack of wild prey or the wolf population grows beyond the Veluwe area, the wolf will find a way to enter the fields. The knowledge he obtained about fencing to protect against wolf predation he acquired by inviting a Swedish colleague who helped him to investigate what is possible or not. From this person he came to understand what works and what not, based on his experience he explained why wolf proof does not exist.

To sum up, the shepherd of No wolves maintains a no wolf in the Netherlands perspective for reasons described as follows. Firstly, he mentioned the challenges related to rearing sheep. These challenges include the aspect of an increasing labour intensity of his work due to unavoidable upscaling of his farm, changing external economic environment, misunderstanding by the Dutch public about the rural as a place of production, discomfort about the political environment, ideological views about nature and on top of that the return of the wolf. As he and several of his colleagues are currently experiencing is that the wolf is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. He also argues that ‘wolf proof’ measures do not exist and only provide, temporally and in optimal conditions, a ‘wolf repellent’ effect since wolves are

21 About Wolves and More, December 2019 highly adaptive and smart opportunists. He looks further than the Netherlands only, and believes the wolf symbolises the power of the ‘pro-wolf’ group to rewild the European rural space. He believes this group of environmentalists and academics maintain disproportionate financial and institutional power to push their wolf and rewilding ideology of the rural population. With financial power he meant the fact that this group receives huge grants from the European life project, subsidies and public support from a Dutch lottery organisation. Next to that, he believes that the academic world is ‘biased’ and in favour of the wolf and he does not believe the DNA institute the WUR works with is doing an honest job. He profoundly resists this ‘group’ and their ‘ideology’, and he has started a counter movement. Not that he is against the wolf, but he is against what the wolf represents; a power used to depopulate the rural in Europe and to stimulate wolf resurgence and conservation within the Netherlands without asking if it is wise to do so.

4.1.3 National Park de Hoge Veluwe. This subchapter tells the perspective of National Park (NP) de Hoge Veluwe on the return of the wolf. The NP is one of the largest landowners within the Municipality of Ede and is owned by a foundation. The park receives approximately 600 thousand visitors a year and is considered one of the showpieces of Dutch nature and cultural heritage i.8.. Due to its significant economic, social and environmental impact of the park in the region, their perspective is of value for this study. Therefore, I interviewed the parks operational manager and additionally used published statements (Van Voorst tot Voorst, 2019; De Gelderlander, 2019; Provincie Gelderland, 2019) and news items to reveal and explain their perspective. They have an outspoken opinion and vision on the return of the wolf and nature management. Due to the unique landscape of the NP, that is partially maintained by mouflon sheep and threatened by the wolf, the park management maintains a reluctant position towards the carnivore. In early 2019, the management published a written statement about their worries of having wolves in the park and proposed the potential of lethal control (de Gelderlander, 2019; Van Voorst tot Voorst, 2019). Several months later, the park management decided to take measures in own hands and closed the park’s fauna migration corridors. The closure of the fauna corridors and passages is in their opinion for now the “only solution to protect the mouflon sheep against emerging wolves” i.8.. Furthermore, they want to stop the migration of red- and fallow deer from neighbouring areas into the park to reduce damage on tree rejuvenation. The park’s measures to close the parks fauna corridors did not go unnoticed and created turmoil amongst different other stakeholders. Especially the province and some experts are critical about the taken measures (Gedeputeerde staten Gelderland, 2019; de Gelderlander, 2019). The issues here are that the province invested millions of euros in the creation of fauna passages and corridors for the migration of animals and stated the park actions are unlawful after a jurist investigated the park’s decision. In the news they called the discussion the ‘ecopassage-oorlog’, or eco-passage war (De Gelderlander, 2019). The Province of Gelderland and the National Park made an agreement called the ‘package-deal’ which is a deal to finance the development, maintenance and opening of two ‘eco- passages’ that connects several nature areas including the National Park (Province of Gelderland, 2019). In 2012, approximately 5 million Euro’s was paid by the province for making this initiative happen (Province of Gelderland, 2019; De Gelderlander, 2019). Within the deal, the province would finance the construction of the corridors and would pay the park compensation for monitoring and usage as well the provision of man hours and cameras (Province of Gelderland, 2019). The deal would last for 5 years, with no specific end date. Another aspect of the deal is that neighbouring land managers (e.g. Natuurmonumenten) and the park would make agreements about the damage and disturbance of large ungulates (e.g. red deer, fallow deer) (Province of Gelderland, 2019). For example, Natuurmonumenten decided to have a larger population of ungulates than the park, within the deal is written that Natuurmonumenten would safeguard the park from damage and disturbance i.8 (Province of Gelderland). The NP argues that Natuurmonumenten implemented a new hunting policy that consequently pushed more red deer from ‘Deelerwoud’ (Adjacent nature reserve managed by Natuurmonumenten) into the NP while more disturbance and 22 About Wolves and More, December 2019 damage was reportedi.8. Together with the return of the wolf in a neighbouring military terrain (respectively an infantry shooting range in Harskamp, which lies within the Municipality of Ede) i.2 i.O.2, this led to the park asking the province to take measures before they would close the corridors i.8 (Province of Gelderland, 2019). These measures would include a change in law that would make lethal control of the wolf possible by the National Park to protect the mouflon i.8. The provincial government promised to provide a statement after the summer break of 2019, yet the park management decided not to await this decision and at the beginning of July they closed off the corridors by a 2-meter-high fence. Additionally, the head of operation explained to me that for several years they have asked the province to take action, but until now there was not a proper response that suited their interests i.8.. He further explained that, as a result of ‘indecisiveness’ of the Province the park management had no other option than to protect their interests by taking rigorous measures before the wolf would enter the park and endangered their interest i.8. w.2. “Wij willen niet werkeloos toezien hoe door herten de natuurlijke verjonging van onze bossen stagneert en hoe onze moeflons verdwijnen”

"We do not want to watch idly how the natural rejuvenation of our forests stagnates and how our mouflons disappear" - Director National Park de Hoge Veluwe (De Gelderlander, 2019) For them, the NP, there is much at stake if they allow the wolf into the park. He argues that, the wolf predates the mouflon very efficiently due to their lack of protective behaviour, in the end resulting in a decimation of the population. He explains that the mouflon is a wild sheep species, introduced a century ago for hunting purposes and the grazing of heathlands. Important ecological aspect of the mouflon is their diet that consists for 10 percent out of young pine trees. By eating pines, reforestation of the open heathlands is reduced and the ‘Natura2000’ protected landscapes will stay open. This is according to them a more natural approach than using heavy machinery that could contract the soil and damage vegetation. “En het grappige is over dit gesprek is dat je me nauwelijks hebt gehoord over de wolf! En daar gaat het ook niet over. Het is ook fantastisch de wolf, het lijkt mij fantastisch om er een te zien! Het is net zo fantastisch om een hert te horen burrelen als wel s ’nachts een wolf te horen janken. Maar daar gaat het hier niet over. Maar niet in Nederland, daar gaat het over!”

"And the funny thing [ironically] about this conversation is that you barely heard me about the wolf! And that's not what it's about. The wolf is a fantastic animal, it would be amazing to see one! It is just as fantastic to hear a deer roar as well to hear a wolf howl at night. But it's not about that. It’s about not having the wolf in the Netherlands!" i.8. (9-7-2019) He refers to a wide array of other topics that are surrounding the debate of the return of the wolf. For him the wolf as such is not a problem, but other issues are problematic. He believes it is problematic that outsiders meddle with their nature management vision and approach. For example, the park director received death threats after the publication of their wolf perspective in the news i.8.. He explains that for them the wolf is not the only species and subject that needs attention. Hereby he refers to ‘one issue people’ and short term thinking of wolf conservationists that only can think about the wolf. We, the park managers, need to find a balance between nature, cultural-history, archaeology and leisure ‘we have a specific and special garden to manage’. We are not striving for an individual 10 for only one species, but for a 7.5 or an 8 for all species. We do not follow the hypes and national discussion, my job is about a long-term vision of 50 to 100 years, give me the opportunity to think 50 to 100 years ahead from now. I need that possibility i.8.. Moreover, he believes that the current state of politics is focussing on short term and single-issue debates.

23 About Wolves and More, December 2019 “Ja, one issue dingen en niet het totaal willen overzien en dan ergens flink op inhakken en dan weglopen. En de politiek gaat daarin mee. En die denkt ook maar over drie jaar na. Ze denken vooral van hoe krijg ik mijn stem weer terug. Voor de rest interesseert ze het geen jota. Die zijn niet geïnteresseerd in de inhoud, en ja dat maakt het lastig”

“Yes, single issue matters but not willing to oversee the bigger picture and slashing into a single topic and walk away. And the politicians support it because they think not more than 3 years ahead in time. They mostly think about how to get my votes back, for the rest they do not care. They are not interested in the content what makes it challenging” – i.8 (9-7-2019) The actuality of this topic is real, and the park management feels unsupported by other players and the public. He explains that it is difficult to have a vision on management that collides with other prevailing ideas. He gave several examples of why this is the case. He has called the Eco passage war a ‘nature vs nature’ conflict with specifically referring to colliding management visions. “welcome to Dutch nature conservation! If you think differently about managing nature, you’ll lose your head! So be it, you get used to it” i.8. Another example is the NP’s vision about the wolf management plan; “Het wolvenplan is volledig geënt op de komst en hoe we ermee moeten leven. De vraag is niet gesteld of we het verstandig vinden dat de wolf hier gaat komen.”

“The wolf management plan is entirely based on the arrival and how we should live with the wolf. The question is not asked whether we think it is wise for us to have wolves in the first place." He argues this management plan is a typical Dutch approach by first creating a problem, and afterwards we try to reverse the consequences. He explains that they do it differently by first assessing if something, in this case the wolf, is a good idea in the first place. He further believes the wolf management plan is based on the idea we can stop managing wildlife as we do now, by hunting. He questions the idea that wolves have a real impact on biodiversity as such. “in the Netherlands we always need fauna management” and he clarifies it by the example of natural processes in Yellowstone national park that some Dutch want to recreate. “We have to see this in perspective” and he thinks people romanticize the positive effects. For the park it is important to have a certain population of (red) deer and wild boar, based on our preferences and managed by lethal control to reach a desirable balance. So, in his opinion population control of the wolf is not an option to reconsider, since it would create other problems that the park wants to avoid. The park manager believes that Dutch society became disconnected from nature and acts hypocritically and disrespectful to professionals (forest/fauna managers). People think nature is a public good! But it isn’t, it belongs to the owner, and in this case, it is ours. He thinks this resulted in the problems that we are facing now with the return of the wolf. We are wealthy enough to discuss these issues about having a wolf. Some of the ‘gurus’ as he calls some influential conservationists, do not think clearly anymore due to wealth and prosperity this country experience. He argues that the Dutch government, advised by ‘the gurus’, “wants to recreate natural processes as we see them in the Serengeti, the Amazonian forest and Siberia, but then at the size of my office”. He calls this way “doing nothing” because that’s “natural”. So, the timber industries have disappeared due to the idea of self-regulating nature. Also, the Oostvaardersplassen is a result of the idea of self-regulation. For him it is all a farce, and it all related to our perspective on nature. In the meantime, he is frustrated about the fact technical forestry is disappearing due to democratic governance of nature organisations. He believes it is not good that nature organisations ask their members about how to deal with for example nitrogen deposition and the effect it has on forests. “you ask the butcher for advice about technical forestry?”. He believes this is a ridiculous development within Dutch nature conservation. The situation with the forests is getting out of hand and is considered

24 About Wolves and More, December 2019 a serious issue. The effects of nitrogen deposition are becoming a large problem for the health of their forests. He stated the following about the impact of nitrogen deposition on forests and the disappearance of life; “Wel grappig, afgelopen weekend werd ik gebeld door iemand en die zat op het Deelerwoud en die zij; ik hoor geen vogels en geen insecten. Dat is toch bijzonder of niet? Ik werk hier nu 15 jaar en ik kwam hier en hier is een eikenbosje en dat stond volop in het blad, fantastisch. Nu 80% is doodgegaan. 100-jarige eiken. En dat binnen 15 jaar. Zo hard gaat het dus. Het is serieus dus”.

“Last weekend I received a call from somebody that visited a neighbouring forest and who said to me on the phone; I do not hear any birds or insects. That’s peculiar or not? I work here for more than 15 years and have seen a 100-year-old oak (Quercus robur) forest dying. 80 percent died within 15 years! That’s how fast it goes. Thus, it is a serious thing!” - i.8 (9-7-2019) We need to add lime/chalk substance to our soils to neutralise the acidity otherwise we will lose all the oaks. We have actively searched for a solution and we found out that adding a neutraliser is for now the only solution for the acidification and consequent poisoning of the soil. Thus, he does not believe that it is wise to ask your members about how to deal with technical aspects of nature management. To sum up, this subchapter presented the results based on the case of National Park de Hoge Veluwe. One of the major themes that emerged was that of the fauna corridor closure in July 2019. The closure is, according to the park management, a sort of ‘nature vs nature conflict’ i.9. The park manager refers to the different nature organisations and managers in the region that have different perspectives about how to manage the different terrains at the Veluwe. The park management doesn’t welcome the wolf, since there was never asked if it is desirable to have wolves in the Netherlands in the first place. However, with current policies of the province, and the different visions of neighbouring organisations, the park experienced externalities to be acted upon. For now, they wait what will happen. But there’s a possibility legal action will be taken by the Province in response to the corridor closure. The national park believes in their approach of “fact based management” and doesn’t care about how ‘others’ think about it. He refers to nature organisations that influence the public instead of following the facts and numbers. He also gave some nuancing comments; ‘our vision is our truth, their vision is their truth, as long as their truth doesn’t intervene with ours’. The discussion about the wolf is, according the NP, a discussion about governmental, political, societal and local interference or meddling with their vision and operational management. He states that this has to do with for example, the fact that society became disconnected from nature and that ‘gurus’ decide that we need to create ‘Yellowstone’ nature in an office room. He believes that nature in the Netherlands needs continuous management, implemented and carried out by ‘professionals’ and not steered by ‘public opinion’. Therefore, he thinks it is not wise to have wolves, and for sure not in the NP. The protection of the mouflon has priority and needs balanced management while including all other natural, cultural-historical and recreational elements. 4.1.4 The municipal councillor This subchapter is based on a received written statement from the municipal councillor responsible for economic, agricultural and nature affairs, the following perspective emerged. The municipality must comply to the ‘wet natuurbescherming’ that states the wolf is a ‘native’ and ‘endangered species’. Consequently, the municipality has the obligation to follow the provincial wolf management plan. For now, the municipality does not see any reason to start developing their own municipal wolf management plan.

25 About Wolves and More, December 2019 “Ede sluit zich aan bij dit plan en ziet vooralsnog - gezien de aantallen die nu op de Veluwe gesignaleerd zijn - geen aanleiding tot het opstellen van een eigen gemeentelijk wolvenplan.”

“Ede agrees with this plan [interprovincial wolf plan] and for the time being sees - in view of the numbers [of wolves] that have now been reported in the Veluwe - no reason to draw up its own municipal wolf plan. " – w.1 (12-6-2019). Henceforth, the municipality mentioned the differences in the ways the wolf is locally managed within Europe. This means that the different EU member states can draw upon their own way of management suitable to their own conditions as long as it complies with the habitat directive. The municipality has formulated their own perspective partially based on the proposed management policy of National Park De Hoge Veluwe. “Zoals de gemeente er nu tegenaan kijkt, zal ook in enige mate van getalsmatig beheer bespreekbaar moeten zijn op het moment dat de wolvenpopulatie daartoe aanleiding geeft.”

"As the municipality looks at it now, some degree of population control needs to be discussed at the moment the wolf population gives a reason for this to happen." – w.1.(12-6-2019). In this case, the municipality is in favour of population control if wolf numbers keep on increasing. They did not mention a strategy of controlling growing wolf populations. However, if they base their statement on the statements of the National Park, lethal control would be the main population control mechanism. In February 2019, the municipality published a biodiversity programme (Programma Biodiversiteit, 2019) for the protection of several vulnerable species (e.g. birds, lizards, plants etc.). One of the key elements of this program is to maintain a diverse landscape that supports the 5th most biodiverse places in the Netherlands (Programma Biodiversiteit, 2019). A factor to keep all the elements in shape is the municipality’s attempts to find a balance between natural development and manmade interventions through ‘active management’. One of the manmade interventions is to reduce the effects of nitrogen deposition and consequent acidification of the municipal forests and heathlands. Same as National Park de Hoge Veluwe, the municipality experiences problems with the acidification of soils that lead to dying trees, and grasses that overgrow the heathlands (e.g. Edese heide). This subchapter is, compared with other subchapters (4.1.2 & 4.1.3) rather short, this has to do with the busy agenda of the municipal councillor and that I focussed on interviewing the municipal fauna managers instead. The findings can be reviewed in subchapter; 4.1.6 Fauna managers.

4.1.5 The Municipal Forest Council Since 2010, the municipality of Ede established the ‘forest management support-group’. This support- group is a so called ‘burger initiatief’ (civil initiative) established by the municipal council in order to give inhabitants a voice in local forest management by contributing to the development of a municipal forest management plan for the time period 2010-2022. The municipality of Ede is the owner of approximately 2.500 ha of forest and therefore considered the largest municipal forest owner in the Netherlands. From the support-group the forest council evolved. The forest council is a group of inhabitants with a background in ecology, biology, agriculture and business that give solicited or unsolicited advice to the members of the town-council related to the management of public owned forests and nature. For this research I interviewed four members of the council, because of their connection with the region and their professional background. The interviewees are respectively two ecologists, a jurist and a professor. Their opinion encompasses a mixture of personal and professional perspectives about the wolf and the wolf in the Netherlands. I will explain the four different perspectives separately.

26 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Both members of the council with a background in ecology believe that a top predator like the wolf is an animal that originally belongs to the Netherlands. “the wolf is a magnificent animal, but it is a predator that you do not want to encounter. They are stronger than we are” i.3 and “it is good for Dutch nature to have a top predator” i.6. Furthermore, some believe the wolf will influence the natural ecosystems at the Veluwe. “we will get closer to a natural system and I think that’s good for the Netherlands” i.6. The jurist also believes the wolf is enriching Dutch nature; “the fact the wolf is in the Netherlands tells us something about our ecology” i.4. The professor is more reluctant about the return of the wolf and has called it “not a bad idea to have wolves” i.5, and immediately shared his doubts about wolf management and the way the government is threatening this subject. All members that I interviewed have shared their vision about the future for the wolf in the Netherlands. For example, one of the interviewees questions if the wolf will be tolerated, from her perspective the Dutch public needs to be educated about the wolf, however she is afraid this won’t happen easily. The reason for intolerance, as she explains, has to do with the fact ecology and policy development aren’t easy to combine and have a relation with the state of Dutch nature in general. She explained the problem with ecology in relation to policies as following; “Ecologie is verschrikkelijk ingewikkeld. Daar kan het beleid heel lastig mee omgaan. Omdat je geen exacte maten kunt geven, Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de wolf. Hoe groot is de actieradius van de wolf? Niemand kan het zeggen. Hij loopt minstens een paar kilometer per dag. Maar wil de wolf dat? Dat weet je niet! Dat zijn ongewisse zaken die je niet kunt incalculeren. Maar moet je het dan die wolf onmogelijk maken om een bepaald gebied over te steken of niet? Dat hangt allemaal samen en is verschrikkelijk lastig om dat in beleid te vertalen.”

“Ecology is dreadfully complicated. Policy developers cannot handle this easily. Because you cannot give exact dimensions, that’s for example the case when you think about wolf ecology. How large is the action radius of the wolf? Nobody exactly knows. He walks at least a few kilometres a day. But does the wolf want that? You do not know! These are uncertain things that you cannot consider. But should you make it impossible for that wolf to cross a certain area or not? That is all related and is terribly difficult to translate into policy.” i.3 (27-6- 2019) She believes, as an ecologist, that our understanding of ecology is limited and that makes policies not in favour of ecological responsible behaviour. She experienced that in the Netherlands the economy is in favour of ecology. She is backed up by two other members of the council yet explained in another fashion. She also expressed her idea about the future for the wolf in the Netherlands; “Als er echt wat meer wolven komen, en zeker als er ook maar één keer een ongeluk mee gebeurt dan heb je de poppen aan het dansen. Ik zie het somber in, ik denk dat er sociaal gezien geen ruimte is voor de wolf.”

“When more wolves will settle, and one accident happens [wolf attacks people or dogs] can create serious societal problems! I'm not optimistic, I think socially seen there is no space for the wolf” - i.3 (27-6-2019) She reasoned the Netherlands is ‘simply to overcrowded, […..] we all fight for space’i.3. and it’s important that wolves have a perspective for living in this country without inflicting danger to people. She hopes people can tolerate and coexist with the predator; however, she isn’t positive about that to happen. She used the Dutch saying; ‘wat de boer niet kent dat vreet hij niet’3 that she applies to a part of the Dutch population for how they think about ‘new’ developments such as the emergence of the wolf.

3 Direct translation: what the farmer does not know, he does not eat. In Dutch this refers to people being sceptical about novelty, innovation and changes. They tend to see new developments more sceptical and try to preserve what is currently there. 27 About Wolves and More, December 2019 The other stakeholder with a background in ecology mention the ‘destruction of the Greater Ecological Network, in Dutch called ‘Natuurnetwerk Nederland, the former ‘Ecologische Hoofdstructuur’4 (EHS) and the change in environmental policies by a ‘lousy’ secretary of state in 2012. This change basically means ‘you do not have to take into account flora in the development of new construction and infrastructure projects’. He further explains that before 2012, a construction project developer needed to include nature and actively search for a solution when flora and fauna were threatened to be compromised. Since 2010, Henk Bleker, the former secretary of state imposed sudden and drastic changes in environmental protection legislation and installed an austerity package that would impose a 70 percent funding cutback for nature organisations (Buijs, 2014). He further explained that luckily, due to strict environmental policies imposed by the EU we [the Netherlands] still have some nature in the Netherlands. He argues that the success of the wolf has nothing to do with the Netherlands, but with Germany and Poland, “their policies helped” he explained. “The EU has pressured member states to develop nature policies. If the EU did not do this the Netherlands wouldn’t have had nature policies. Habitat directives have made it possible. It functions in a way to put pressure on governments. They [the EU] have more vision for the future than us” i.6. About the relation with the Dutch government and policies regarding the wolf, he explained to me that currently the wolf is not included in national fauna policies, designated for local governments to implement. He argues that the government should have thought about how to deal with the wolf in the different, Dutch based Natura2000 areas. Yet, this did not happen. “The government lacks a long-term vision and it has to do with money.” He believes Municipalities do not have enough money since financial means are limited and to be used for more urgent social issues (for example for youth protection5). Furthermore, he reasons that there is significant difference in the implementation of environmental legislations by provinces due to the strength of the Agri-lobby. The efficacy of this agricultural lobby differs per province, depending on the size of the sector. Another member of the council also points out a lack of policies regarding the wolf and fauna management in general. He believes the Netherlands needs “centralized policies, not via the province, and for sure not via municipalities”. His reasoning is the problem with all the different political parties that maintain a different agenda. Every province, and every municipality has other representatives with different perspectives and different ideas about (wolf or fauna) management. When I asked why this is a problem, he told me this; “Why? Because wolves don’t care about our borders” i.5. His reasoning is rooted in the question about “what is nature” and the endless discussions related to what is natural. He refers to “the disaster of the Oostvaardersplassen” and, according to him, structural mismanagement of large ungulates. The government kept on postponing a decision about what to do with the Oostvaardersplassen, ‘report after report was produced, but animals kept on dying’. “In Nederland proberen we de natuur te beheren, en de mensen die dat doen zijn nogal verschillend. Ik vind de Oostvaardersplassen echt een heel mooi voorbeeld van hoe iets kan en iets ontzettend fout kan lopen. En hoe het helemaal niet zou moeten gaan en er een gebrek aan beleid is. Wat verantwoord is.”

In the Netherlands we try to manage nature, and the people who do that are quite different in their approach. I think the Oostvaardersplassen example is a very good example of how something is managed and tremendously went wrong. This is a good example of how it should not go and reveals a lack of good policy about what is responsible. " i.5 (28-6-2019)

4 ‘Natuurnetwerk Nederland’ or former EHS is a network of nature reserves, natural areas and forests. This network was one of the primary environmental policies of the nineties and the 21st century. The idea was that as many places with ecological value could be connected in order to preserve and protect flora and fauna. This network also could function for the migration of small and larger wildlife. 5 In 2015, the Dutch government shifted the responsibility from centralized youth protection agencies towards the municipalities. This shift went hand-in-hand by funding cutbacks for youth protection. As a result, several municipalities lacked the needed financial means to satisfy the growing need for youth care as such and started in some cases to shift these means from nature protection towards your protection 28 About Wolves and More, December 2019 He thinks the problem with the Oostvaarderplassen has to do with all the different opinions of different ‘believers’6, as he calls a certain group of conservationists. This group believes nature is considered ‘free nature’ meaning no intervention is needed because it is not natural. When intervention is opted, the process is blocked by the ‘believers’ who consider intervening is something ‘unnatural’. He sees it like this; “there are too many opinions, nature organisations are too cocky!” i.5. Continuously, the process of policy development stagnates, so he believes that wolf and fauna management is all about politics, the place where it eventually halts. He further explains that at the same time “you have a problem with the fanatics, the people that oppose threats to fauna managers, and to my colleagues because of their work with animals. Their cars are burned and houses damaged, they even received death threats!”. i.5 With fanatics he meant activist people that believe wildlife and animals have equal rights, a small percentage uses violence to reach their goals. In box 1 an explanation of the ‘Oostvaardersplassen’ case is presented. He believes that free nature does not exist in the Netherlands. “When you fence an area and put large grazers in it you cannot call in ‘free’”. He argues that animals are dying of hunger. He pledges for better population control starting with consistent policy development and implementation. However, he doubts if policies will be carried out since a share of the Dutch populations does not agree on lethal control of wildlife. And, these groups are actively threatening with violence, or even applying it. He calls it a form of terrorism; “At the provincial-hall [Provincial hall in Lelystad] people placed a bomb because they did not agree with the Oostvaarderplassen policy! People go far to reach their goals!” The same applies for managing the wolf. He believes in the future there is a need to control wolf populations. Though, in a humane way, but actively managed with a clearly defined goal. In his opinion “You do not shoot to kill, but you shoot to manage!”. So, he explained me that you sometimes just need to kill an animal, otherwise you get the Oostvaardersplassen. This is for him the case with wolves and other wildlife that need population control, however he thinks this is context depending. He believes in birth control, his background in animal fertility made him believe that birth control can be applied in the case of large grazers. Hence, it should always be combined with proper research in how it will affect behaviour of animals. He explains that in some cases the quality of life of animals will increase, and in some cases not. But again, he has difficulties with the people that believe birth control is not natural and lethal control as well. So, the problem will stack up for the next year and more animals die of hunger. To conclude, the stakeholders of the forest council had one thing in common, namely the absence of proper coherent nature policies in the Netherlands. Even though they explained their perspective from their point of reference, they overlap in criticising the government for inconsistency in wildlife management. This is slightly different in the case of the wolf; they differ in their perspective in terms of management and policy development but are benevolent towards the wolf. Benevolence also means good management. For one member this means potential lethal control, for another that farmers should take measures. But all believe the government is failing in nature protection and believe it is time for renewed and good functioning policies guided by strong leadership. 4.1.6 The fauna managers The fauna managers that I interviewed worked for different organisation within the municipality of Ede. For privacy reasons I did not use their names. The Municipal fauna manager (MFM) I interviewed the fauna manager and law enforcer employed by the municipality. He oversees all fauna related work within the municipality. This means he oversees the yearly hunt on wild boar, red deer and roe deer, but also oversees the hunting tenants that carry out the actual implementation of lethal numerical control. Every year a certain number of animals, based on the overall population size can be

6 ‘believers’ refers to people from the larger cities in the west (e.g. Amsterdam as example), living in houses at channels (grachtengordels) in Amsterdam. 29 About Wolves and More, December 2019 culled for management purposes, though under a strict regulatory framework and supervision by the fauna managers. As a law enforcer his job is to protect wildlife from human inflicted disturbance, violence and other offenses but also the other way around, to protect people from wildlife when it is needed. He is the main contact person inhabitants must approach if there are issues with wildlife. This could mean the handling of traffic incidents, wildlife inflicted damage, and assessing potential predation cases. The following describes his perspective about the wolf. Ja! Het geeft weer een extra dimensie in mijn werk. Vooral om te kijken wat het doet met alle populaties. Wat voor reactie het gaat geven. En dat is wel heel leuk.

Yes! It gives an extra dimension to my work. Specially to see what it does with all wildlife populations. How does wildlife respond to the wolf? And that is very nice. – i.2. (25-6-19) In terms of wolf management, the MFM, commissioned by the municipality, a protocol is developed to deal with wolves. When there is a suspicion of a wolf predation case, he will inform the right authorities that will investigate the case and, if needed, arrange settlements with the victim. The municipality anticipated on the return of the wolf and commissioned the MFM to go to Germany to follow a ‘wolf’ training and course. The training included understanding how the wolf lives and how German fauna managers envision and carry out wolf management. Furthermore, they visited livestock breeders to see what measures they took to protect against predation. For the municipality it is important to have prior knowledge in how landowners can take precautionary measures against wolf inflicted damage. The MFM explains that changes that may appear when the wolf settles are; changing visibility and predictability of wild ungulates. For example, red deer that changes behaviour due to the presence of large carnivores. Deer will form larger herds; more eyes means better protection against the wolf. These changes will influence the capacity of fauna managers to predict behaviour and locate wildlife. Furthermore, recreationists will have a smaller chance to spot wildlife at places they normally visit. This could result in people going of track in search for wildlife, the risk of disturbance can lead to more incidents with people, traffic and it can cause health problems with roe deer. He explains that we, the fauna managers, in this case need to prevent people from actively searching for wolves. That’s a priority. We are afraid it would disturb the (wolf) pack and that it would start to move more frequently, risking getting in contact with civilians, recreationists and farmers. “The risk of wolf disturbance could lead to a change in prey choice, instead of predating on indigenous wildlife, wolves may turn to livestock instead”. As a result of that, fauna managers would have to give fines to people that violate the rules that apply in the forests. In future, he expects more wolf packs to settle at the Veluwe. The question is whether the wolf will stick to the Veluwe only as a place to hunt. He thinks the wolf will use rural areas as hunting grounds as well. This could also mean more incidents with traffic since the rural areas have much more roads the wolves would have to cross. He also mentioned the increased risk of poaching or illegal killing of wolves. In Germany there is the suspicion it happens, but there is no demonstrable evidence. He explains that poaching on wildlife is a thing we have to deal with; however we do not have hard facts, numbers or knowledge about who is involved. We know they use all sorts of weaponry, guns, rifles, crossbows, use of silencers, light and heavy calibre weapons. He also gave his vision on measures that need to be taken by livestock breeders and shepherds. He is in favour of wolf proof fencing but has some doubts about the effectiveness of fencing. He argues that wolves are good learners and will try multiple ways to enter a place. He also believes that livestock breeders have a business risk they must cope with, so for him it is logical that the state subsidizes the measures that have to be taken and compensates livestock predation. This is important since we, the Netherlands, wants to have wolves. The state and province must act accordingly. He also believes that

30 About Wolves and More, December 2019 the Dutch are somehow spoiled after 150 years of wolf absence. “We did not have any predation and therefore we are a bit spoiled” The Municipal hunting tenant (MHT) Another person that I interviewed is a hunting tenant who contributes to the management of wild boar in the municipal nature areas. The hunting tenant invited me to join him to the field while I interviewed him and we had informal conversations about his work as a hunter, wildlife management and the wolf. The field work entailed putting maize bait at all the feedings sides of the municipal hunting spots. As he explained to me the wild boar hunting season was about to start and therefore, they wanted to make the boar accustomed to the sites, this would make hunting less of a challenge for the coming season. During the trip he explained his perspective on the wolf, wolf management and his idea about the effects the wolf can have on hunting, nature and wild ungulates.

“Het gaat om de balans en dat moeten we voor de wolf ook verzinnen. Het is toch een beetje tuinieren op een postzegel wat we hier in Nederland doen. Ik wil als cultuurhistorisch landschapsliefhebber ook graag mooie heide zien met schapen er op. Dat is het vaak, ik denk dat je gewoon een gulde middenweg moet vinden. Ja, natuurlijk, ruimte voor wolven. Qua vreten kunnen we wel 10 duizend wolven lopen, maar niet wenselijk. Niet handig.”

“It's about balance and that's what we have to come up with for the wolf. It is a bit of gardening on a post stamp what we do here in the Netherlands. As a cultural-historical landscape lover, I also want to see beautiful heathland with sheep. Often it is like that, I think you just have to find a balance. Yes, of course, there is space for wolves. In terms of food availability, 10 thousand wolves can roam the Netherlands, but it is not desirable and not convenient." –i.O.1 (25-6-2019). Furthermore, he explained that he personally is excited about the return of the wolf and is curious what the effect will be on the behaviour and populations numbers of prey species, and especially hunting game (e.g. wild boar, red deer, roe deer). However, he also believes that we should not underestimate the intelligence and predatory nature of the wolf and need to develop strong policies to limit the potential negative effects. “Dus ik bedoel niet dat we nu gelijk moeten afschieten, maar dat beheer al mogelijk is. [Wetgeving veranderen]. Misschien over 5 of 10 jaar of misschien al in 2 jaar, heb geen idee hoe snel zoiets gaat en waar je tegenaan loopt” Maar op een gegeven moment komen we tot een punt van ‘tot hier en niet verder’. En dan moet je gewoon afschot kunnen plegen. Maar dat afschot moet al wel wettelijk vastgelegd worden want anders zijn we te laat. Want dan komen er allerlei procedures overheen. Dus beter nu gewoon met zijn allen om de tafel.”

“So, I don't mean that we should cull right away, but that management is made possible by law. Maybe in 5 or 10 years or maybe already in 2 years, I have no idea how fast such a thing goes and what you encounter "But at some point, we reach a moment of" to here and not further. And then you just have to be able to apply lethal control. But culling must be made possible by law, because otherwise we will be too late. Because then all kinds of procedures come over it. So better sit around the table now and talk about it.” – i.O.1. (25-6-2019) “Ik denk dat je nu moet bedenken hoeveel we er maximaal willen hebben en tot die tijd eens kijken wat er gebeurt maar maken het dan wel mogelijk om afschot te realiseren. En als het zover is gaan we eens monitoren. “

31 About Wolves and More, December 2019 “I belief we should already consider the maximum number of wolves we want to have and observe until that number is reached. In the meantime, we should realise the possibility for lethal control of wolves. And when time comes, we should monitor the situation” – i.O.1. (25-6-2019) Also, the municipality agreed on the idea of the potential for lethal control in the future. Managing wolves is in that sense the same as managing wild boar and red deer they argue. Most agreed on the idea of finding a balance that suits our interests. For the municipal fauna manager wolves are welcome if the risks for traffic incidents, residents and livestock predation is low. His reasoning is built upon the experience of hunters from Sweden, were they have observed wolf behaviour of following hunters and their dogs during a hunt. The tenant also referred to YouTube videos showing a hunting dog getting attacked by wolves. The hunting dogs in Sweden wear protective vests, a type of body armour that reduce the risk of wild boar to cause lethal damage to the canine. Moreover, the video shows the dog is wearing a body camera. In this video, a dog encounters a wolf. First it appears the wolf is just curious, and it seems to end with a stand-off, however suddenly a second wolf attacks the hunting dog from behind igniting a struggle for the dog not to get killed. As the tenant explains to me briefly, the video seemed to impact him in a way he feels less comfortable being alone in the forest during wild boar hunting season. “Maar die dingen zijn zo slim omdat ze weten dat er geschoten is en dat er een beest ligt. We laten de ingewanden achter dus die vinden ze sowieso als ze een schot hebben gehoord. En dan komen ze steeds sneller na het schot. Dus als ik voorover gebukt sta om een beest te ontwijden dan ben ik benieuwd wat er dan gebeurt.”

“But those things [wolves] are very smart because they know there is a kill after somebody shot and killed an animal. We leave the organs in the forest, anyway the wolf will find it after they have heard a rifle shot. And then they appear faster and more frequent after a shot is fired. I am curious what would happen when I am busy to discard an animal I just killed?”- i.O.1. (25-6-2019)

4.1.7 The shepherds In this subchapter I will elaborate specifically on the two shepherds I interviewed. I will also introduce the differences between the two type of farmers. They also have a different opinion about the wolf and the wider discussions that surround the return of the wolf. For this study I interviewed two shepherds. The different types are based on the degree of financial dependency on sheep. The shepherd of Nowolves is financially more depending on breeding and selling sheep than his colleague. There is a need for a viable business to sustain his ‘passion for the craft’. For his business any direct and indirect losses can be considered problematic for the sustenance of the farm and consequently his livelihood. Contrary, the other shepherd, who managed the herds of the Edese Schaapskudde, is less dependent on a financially healthy business as such. There is not a production driven vision behind this type of shepherdry, the goal is landscape management with a traditional local sheep breed, in this case ‘het Veluws heide schaap’ “Wij moeten ze ‘s nachts toch opsluiten in een kraal. En als we er dan stroom op zetten is dat voor ons een kleine moeite. Het is gewoon zonde als je in de morgen bij de kraal aankomt en er liggen 30-40 gedode schapen. Als je dat voor kan zijn dan moeten ze dat wel regelen.”

“We have to lock up our sheep in a corral anyway. So, it is not a big deal to add electricity on our fences. But it would be a shame if you arrive in the morning and 30 to 40 sheep are killed over night. If they can anticipate that, they should arrange it.” - i.9 (28-8-2019)

32 About Wolves and More, December 2019 The main goal, however, is to protect this specific local breed from extinction, which was the case in 1960s when this breed almost got extinct. Due to the establishment of protection of traditional Dutch breeds partially initiated by Wageningen UR, the numbers of this specific breed are exceeding the 2000 individuals. Currently, the Veluwe region hosts nine herds for grazing management of heathlands. Some herds are sharing space with the recently established wolf pack in the northern part of the Veluwe. The association is financed by donors and subsidies and is considered a non-profit initiative. Hence, the association had to comply with regulations since this breed is protected by law. For example, the breed needs to stay a pure breed, meaning crossbreeds with more productive breeds is not allowed. “Als je nu hier met een vleesras gaat kruisen ben je het ras meteen kwijt. Beur je wel wat meer geld voor je lammeren maar dan ben je wel je ras kwijt. En dat willen ze niet, we hebben gewoon regels.”

“If we crossbreed with a productive breed, we will lose instantly this breed. You will earn more money for your lambs, but the breed is gone. And that’s not what they want, and therefore we have rules we have to comply with” – i.9 (28-8-2019) As a result, the Veluws Heide Schaap is not a productive breed in terms of meat production. The shepherds are in terms of practice different from each other and therefore have other priorities. Both shepherds maintain a different vision towards the wolf. For the one shepherd i.9 the fact of having wolves in the region is not yet a problem he argues. However, he did express his worries about the night corrals that are currently not yet well protected and up to this point him and his colleagues are poorly informed about the location of roaming wolves, and about proposed measures for corral protection. Furthermore, he explains that a kill by a wolf is not a major problem for now, however he is afraid of an overkill in one of the four outdoor corrals in his foraging area. The area that he uses to graze the sheep is remote considering the Dutch, overpopulated landscape. 4.2 Analysis of stakeholder perspectives Overall, most of the key informants are not against the wolf as such, and most seem to be excited about its return. However, they question whether the Netherlands is a suitable place for the wolf to live in. Some of the respondents think the Netherlands is too densely populated and therefore increases the likeability for confrontations between humans and wolves. They also discuss the state of nature in the Netherlands. Most often when I asked the question; “what comes to mind when you think about Dutch nature” they discuss the situation of grazer management in the Oostvaardersplassen. (See box 1: The Oostvaardersplassen). Box 1 gives a short introduction to the situation of grazers in the Oostvaardersplassen, a nature reserve in the Flevo polder. But interviewees also indicated the issue of Nitrogen deposition that is threatening the health of the forests. The return of the wolf is not only about the wolf as a species but encompasses other subjects as well. Especially the idea of the state of Dutch nature is a relevant topic. For most of the respondents, Dutch nature is considered something different than ‘other nature’, often referring to the US (Yellowstone National Park) or Russia (Siberia) associated with real wilderness. Dutch nature is designed, controlled and small they argue, and quiet often referred as “post-stamp nature”, “micro-management” or “gardening”. As a result of that, there is a need to find balance between ‘draagkracht’ (carrying capacity) and ‘draagvlak’ (public support) for decisions in nature management. 4.2.1 Top down policies and interference I can say that this study showed the existence of a revolt of some stakeholders against the continuous changing opinions and policies of the Dutch government when it comes down to nature conservation. Being against the wolf is to protest the ‘enforced’ return of the wolf and the ‘top down’ measures that need to be taken. This does not mean that being against the wolf means you are ‘hating’ and against the wolf as such, but for the anti-wolf group it means being against the wolf is to empower themselves to act against a powerful pro-wolf group and the ideology behind wolf conservation. This is mainly the

33 About Wolves and More, December 2019 case for the supporters of platform Nowolves. The people who oppose, or question if it is wise to have wolves in the Netherlands are frustrated by the latent behaviour of the Dutch government if it comes down to the development of proper, fact-based policy development. It seems that some of the stakeholders indicated they do not like the public and political meddling in the wolf discussion and in unwanted interference in their way of doing. 4.2.2 Risk and worries An important theme that came forward is the perception of risk, awareness of risk and potential fear for the wolf itself or the consequences for their work. All respondents identified different types of risk that related to their work or direct surroundings. For example, a shepherd i.1., i.9. was very aware about potential risks the wolf could bring to his sheep. Moreover, he discussed the potential risks for other livestock breeders and people. The perception of risk is often combined with fear off the consequences of living near wolves. There was, however, a significant difference between the commercial shepherd and the shepherd of the association in the acceptance of risk. They are both aware of the risks but differ in their expression of fear. For the shepherd of the association a wolf attack on an individual sheep of his herd, that could occur occasionally, was not considered a problem and a threat. However, he was more worried about the risk of an attack in a corral during the night due to the overkill it could cause. Fauna managers, which include hunters, are aware of the risks of wolves for livestock. The risk is not only direct (wolves predating on livestock or threatening humans) but also indirect. They all agree there will be indirect consequences for their work. Wildlife can potentially behave differently than before, making them harder to trace and count. Recreationists can potentially go off track in search for wildlife, harming the environments and disturbing wildlife. The hunting tenant explained his fear for wolf visits after he has killed a wild boar. He believes that wolves can identify rifle shots that for ‘them’ (the wolf) indicate the existence of a carcass. Nowolves. feared for the consequences of a lack of policies towards controlling the wolf and strongly opposes the idea of rewilding. Rewilding is threatening the very existence of farmers. For another the ‘OVP’ is an example of an experiment that went out of control due to ideological ideas of wilderness. 4.2.3 Wolf and nature management Management and control appeared to be a major theme that occurred during conversation and interviews with all stakeholders. All stakeholders are clear in their explanation of how to manage the wolf; there is a desire for a balance between human needs and the number of wolves. There is a difference between the reasons for management and control between the different interviewees. Some opt for changes in law that make it able for managers to cull the so-called problem-wolves7 and/or numerical lethal wolf population control. However, there is difference in the way management and consequent legal changes should be carried out. Most respondents, and especially those that manage wildlife think about preventive, proactive and reactive measures. With preventive is meant that livestock breeders should implement fencing strategies that are co-financed by the government. Also the idea of guardian dogs was discussed, however they expressed their concern about the danger of human-dog encounters i.2., i.7. Furthermore, lethal control should be discussed as an option for proactive and reactive management i.O.1., W.1., i.2., i.8., i.1. What is nature and how do we manage it is one of the themes that dominated several of the interviews. Overall, the stakeholders have expressed risks and fears about the wolf. Hence, the distrust in politics and the fear of weak policy design and implementations regarding wolf management is one that lies on top of that. All agreed, although in another way that expressed their own vision, that Dutch policies are lacking and insufficient for the time being. Some see politicians as opportunists mining votes of people that are worried about the wolf. “Politicians only act when there is an opportunity to mine votes” one person argues. Some see the government as a vehicle for pushing economic interests in policy

7 With problem-wolves is meant, wolves that deviate from their natural behaviour. (e.g. hybridization, Habituation, consistent damage to livestock or attacks on humans). By law it is allowed to remove a problem wolf following the interprovincial management plan (2018) 34 About Wolves and More, December 2019 development in favour of nature. Others believe The Hague (the place where the government is seated) is pushing their responsibility for proper and ethical wildlife management to their successors resulting in animal welfare challenges that continuously appear and reappear in for example the OVP case. The lack of political efficacy is for several stakeholders an issue difficult to accept. However, one stakeholder explained that the municipality has improved policies to be more nature inclusive. This has also to do with growing concern about the effects of nitrogen deposition and consequent acidification of the municipal forests.

4.3 Summary In the beginning of this chapter I have tried to give an introduction to the stakeholders that I interviewed in order to get an understanding of who they are, their significance for this study and their relation with the wolf. I can conclude that there are many different stakeholders that have to deal with the wolf now and in the future. The question about who the different stakeholders are and what is their perspective about the return of the wolf seem a non-challenging one to answer. However, what can be said is that (and this seems obvious) is that especially sheep holders, the national park, the municipality and hunters expressed their doubts and worries about the return of the wolf. Some are more curious and insecure about the future in relation to an emerging new reality, others are without a doubt against the wolf in their terrain or region, and even in the Netherlands. On the contrary, ecologists and fauna managers have, to a certain degree, expressed their excitement about the imminent return. For them the return of the wolf can be considered a ‘crown’ on the strict protection measures of the habitat directive and other (European) legislation. For some the wolf gives a new and unknown dimension in their work. Yet, they all maintain a form of insecurity about what will happen with the behaviour of other wildlife (in this case deer and wild boar), livestock predation, and threats to dog’s and for people that visit the different reserves. In the following chapter (5) I will dive deeper into the idea that the different perspectives in relation to the different stakeholders and are more than a perspective of ‘I am in favour’ or ‘I am against’ the wolf. In my research approach I tried to make the connection between the return of the wolf and the wider relation between society, humans and nature.

35 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Chapter 5: Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate how the return of the wolf is viewed by local stakeholders and what reasons could explain these perspectives. The specific research questions were: 1. Who are the different stakeholders and what is/are their viewpoint(s) about the (return of) wolf? 2. What reasons might explain why different people occupy different positions/perspectives towards the return of the wolf?

This chapter (5) will discuss the results described in chapter 4 in relation to the theoretical framework of chapter 2 and the wider literature. Firstly, I will describe the main findings and illustrate how difficult it is to label stakeholder views, as they often showed several perspectives regarding the return of the wolf (5.1). Secondly, I will compare the findings with Drenthen’s (2016) three overall perspectives (e.g. intruder, victim/friend, manageable object) and link them with wildlife value orientations (5.2 and 5.3). From here I will continue to discuss how the findings relate to the theoretical framework used (5.4). In 5.5 I will build up an argument surrounding HWC as being a conflict or disagreement about societal and landscape issues that seem to be at the centre of this study. Finally, I will discuss the strengths and limitations of the research (5.6) and will provide some suggestions for future research (5.7).

5.1 Duality in perspectives Within this thesis, ten stakeholders were interviewed that included shepherds, founder of platform Nowolves, nature and fauna managers, hunters, members of the municipal forest council with respectively two ecologists, a professor and a jurist. These stakeholders are all working or living in the municipality of Ede (local stakeholders) and had very diverse occupations and backgrounds. The perspectives of the various stakeholders that participated in this case study showed different viewpoints about the return of the wolf. Many of the stakeholders are open for the return of the wolf, while some are more doubtful or do not welcome the wolf in the Netherlands. What this case study further showed is that stakeholders who do not welcome the wolf as such are not anti-wolf per se, for example National Park De Hoge Veluwe (NP) and the Sheep herder of Platform Nowolves. They both addressed that they are not against the wolf as a specie, but do not believe the wolf should settle in the Netherlands for several reasons. For the NP the wolf directly inflicts danger to the mouflon that plays an important role in the management of the park. For the sheep herder the wolf can further deepen the challenges that surround sheepherding. For the stakeholders that believe the wolf is welcome (e.g. members of the forest council, fauna managers, the hunting tenant, the shepherd of the Edese schaapskudde) also shared their concerns regarding the return of the wolf. These concerns involve topics that surround livestock, human and pet safety, doubts about protective measures (e.g. fencing, guardian dogs etc.) and issues surrounding the complex ecology of wolves. Moreover, there is a discussion about how to manage the wolf. Most stakeholders believe there is a need for balancing out human and wolf needs, or question if a balance is possible at all. Some believe the wolf is difficult to control and question if the wolf will be tolerated in the Netherlands. That several stakeholders challenged ideas of technical (management) and social (acceptance) control of the wolf, highlights people’s doubts about coexistence. The doubts further relate to their expressed concerns about Dutch wildlife policies, lack of political efficacy and conflicts that surround national debates about ‘nature management’ that reveal a ‘nature vs nature’ conflict in the case of the so called ‘eco passage war’ or the issue with the Oostvaardersplassen (the Province of Gelderland, 2019; De Gelderlander, 2019). 5.1.1 Protecting the landscape and local values The local stakeholders show a strong sense of connection with the region, its landscape, and its natural, historical and cultural values and show the drive to protect it as it is in the current state. Likewise, there is a strong sense of belonging and appreciation of the landscape. The drive to manage and control

36 About Wolves and More, December 2019 influences that could harm (including the wolf) these local values, indicates the existence of a strong ambition to conserve this place and protect a sense of belonging and local identity. However, every stakeholder valued different elements of the same place. Shepherds believe they must maintain landscape values and protect traditional practices and local livestock breeds. They also have to battle external threats such as the wolf or economic changes. Ecologists, on the other hand, want to protect the landscape and natural values by stimulating natural processes and practices and while resisting policies in favour of economic values. Fauna managers, in their way, tried to find balance between the needs of humans and wildlife, in the end to protect the landscape and cultural heritage as well the natural systems that help to reach that goal. The NP tries to protect and maintain an area that reflects all the above. They want a high standard for all elements of the park, this encompasses a balance between nature, landscape, history, culture and tourism. The wolf threatens to destabilise this balance for the NP and Nowolves, in contrast Wolven in Nederland and to a certain degree ecologists and fauna managers believe the wolf can bring back a more ‘natural’ balance.

5.2 Intruder, friend & victim, or manageable object? What the findings show is that the stakeholders maintain different perspectives about the return of the wolf. The different viewpoints have overlap with the three overall perspectives of Drenthen’s (2016) categorisation. These three perspectives are; 1) the wolf as an intruder, 2) the wolf as an innocent victim and friend, 3) the wolf as a ‘manageable object’. For wolven in Nederland the wolf is an innocent victim and friend. The wolf is considered a victim of human discomfort and lack of (ecological) knowledge about the wolf. Expressions such as distinguishing myths and fairy tales from truth supports this perspective. The findings also suggest applying lethal control only when wolves oppose direct threats to humans (hybridization, rabies, habitualisation), but only within the boundaries of the current legal arrangements. Moreover, they believe society, and especially farmers, should adapt to living with wolves and shepherds should take protective measures. Their vision is that we should strive for a ‘conflict-free coexistence with wolves’. They prefer that society should coexist with the wolf by organising educative programs, and the introduction of prevention and compensation measures. In strong contrast, the shepherd of Nowolves considered the wolf as an intruder. Strict regulation on number of wolves is needed and lethal control must be made possible and preferably there are no wolves at all in the Netherlands. The wolf is simply too hard to control and imposes a direct threat to his livelihood. ‘That’s where it’s all about, that’s the whole story’. For National Park the Hoge Veluwe the wolf is an intruder as well as a manageable object. Lethal control must be discussed and legally made possible. The wolf is not welcome within the parks perimeter since the mouflon has priority above the wolf. ‘We do not want to watch idly how the natural rejuvenation of our forests stagnates and how our mouflons disappear’. Furthermore, ‘The wolf management plan is entirely based on the arrival and how we should live with the wolf. The question is not asked whether we think it is wise for us to have wolves in the first place.’. For the Municipality the wolf is a manageable object. If necessary, in future there is a need for population control. The wolf should be managed in a similar way as is done with wild boar and red deer populations. However, all should fit within the boundaries of the current legal framework while considering the provincial wolf management plan as a guiding principle. For Fauna managers the wolf is an animal to be managed as other fauna and can also be seen as a positive intruder and gives an overall excitement amongst the fauna managers. At the same time, they are also in favour of lethal control when needed. For the forest council, the wolf is welcome but will become a victim of weak environmental policies and could cause hostile attitudes and behaviour towards the wolf of certain groups in society due to naivety of the Dutch government and part of the Dutch population. They also believe that wolves do not necessarily fit the Netherlands. Dutch policies regarding nature have deteriorated and are based on political opportunism. For the shepherd of the Edese Schaapskudde the wolf is not seen as an intruder but more an animal to be managed. He also believes that people should also give in and adapt to the return of the wolf. 37 About Wolves and More, December 2019 5.3 Wildlife value orientations The three perspectives mentioned in 5.2, respectively the wolf as an intruder, victim & friend or manageable object, can be linked to wildlife value orientations. People who see the wolf as an intruder can be linked to having a utilitarian set of values. This includes the prioritization of human welfare over that of wildlife, and in this case the prioritization of social-cultural, economic and personal welfare over the wolf (Manfredo, 2007; Teel, 2005). The stakeholders that see the wolf as a victim and friend, can be linked to being mutualist. This is expressed in the idea that human activity should be limited for the return of the wolf (e.g. wolven in Nederland). Jacobs (2007, 2014) argued that people in the Netherlands tend to be more mutualistic for reasons of urbanisation, higher educational level and changes in society that caused a separation between humans and wildlife. 5.3.1 Pluralistic value orientations In this study most stakeholders seem to be more pluralistic as they have both mutualistic and utilitarian orientations. The stakeholders involved live in an urbanised setting (Ede), but also in close contact with the local environment and wildlife (Veluwe). This could explain the pluralistic value orientations found, including both mutualist and utilitarianist belief dimensions. This finding confirms the need for the unveiling of patterns and differences on a local level to understand human-predator (wolf) relationships (Manfredo, 2017). This pluralistic view is also seen with regard to hunting; all stakeholders do support hunting for population control but differ in the implementation and reasoning behind it. Hence, for this study the identification of wildlife value orientations contributes to explain the different perspectives found. However, this study did not show clear distinction and identification of the four wildlife value orientations to be observed by the stakeholders. What the findings do suggest is the existence of values, beliefs and attitudes that are different from mutualist oriented people living outside the case study region. Several stakeholders addressed their difficulties with city people that seem to symbolise a divide between more rural and urban lifestyles, livelihoods and connected norms, values and beliefs. Several stakeholders do not anthropomorphise wildlife and the wolf, this is in contrast with what they call ‘city people’ and ‘rewilders’, who are seemingly more mutualistic.

5.4 WVO and HDW: strengths and limitations In the previous subchapters the duality in perspectives can be clearly observed. This duality reveals the complexity of these viewpoints and challenges the ability to categorise the stakeholders into a predefined box. This is in line with Lopes-Fernandes (2016), who concluded that perspectives on the wolf described in literature are ambiguous and expressed a diversity of views and experiences. The complexity of people’s relation with wolves has contributed to the extensive number of studies done to understand this intricate relation. Whether researchers focussed on conflict, coexistence or even cohabitation did not mediate in solving or improving these relations and interactions. The study of human dimensions of wildlife contributed to understanding these relations, although often people were categorised into boxes seemingly ‘simplifying’ the multifaceted reality of wildlife relations. This has also to do with the fact that conservation-oriented goals (e.g. wildlife protection, wilderness creation, reintroduction programs) encountered challenges with the local population, the so called ‘people’s problem’ in program implementation (Manfredo, 2009). A nice illustration is how Wolven in Nederland insinuates that the wolf is not the problem, but the sheep sector as such owns the problem. Considering that the stakeholders are pluralistic to a certain degree, WVO’s overlook the embeddedness of stakeholder-wolf relations into the complex arrangement of the local setting and the relation to wider societal/global forces. The human dimensions approach on the other hand nicely addressed the factors that could be at play in divides about wildlife management, hence it takes a position from the perspective of conservation. From the perspective of HDW, taking value orientations into account contributes to an understanding of how people would react to certain conservation goals. As people’s responses are not always in line with the goals of conservation, the issue of wildlife conflict is often addressed.

38 About Wolves and More, December 2019 So, the combination of WVO and HDW helps to understand human-predator (wolf) relationships on a local level. However, this case study also showed that even with the absence of wolves creating a direct problem for any of the stakeholders as such, the existence of a conflict was in some cases there. I, therefore, argue that this ‘conflict’ better suits the Pearce & Littlejohn (1997) and Peterson et al (2002) definitions of conflict namely ‘an expressed disagreement among people who see incompatible goals and potential interference in achieving these goals’.

5.5 The wolf as a symbol of divide As I explained earlier in this discussion, I argued that it is not about a conflict between humans and wolves necessarily, but rather a divide between stakeholders that try to fit the return of the wolf into the larger contexts of their lives. As for Nowolves the return of the wolf could be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. The wolf in this case, became deeper entrenched in these discussions and appeared to take a central, somehow imaginary role as the embodiment of the divide. This is in line with what Margulies (2018) and Hobsen (2007) addressed that wildlife can take a central role in a human conflict over wider societal problems. In some cases, as we have seen with platform Nowolves, the wolf also entered the domain of politics since they belief the wolf symbolises the unfair and inequal power of the pro-wolf group (e.g. wolven in Nederland, ‘left’ oriented political parties, city people).

Within the academic world much research is done about how we could live with the wolf and how we should adapt to the return of the wolf in Western Europe (Trouwhorst, 2010; Groot Bruinderink, 2012; Wolven in Nederland, 2018). There’s much written about coexistence between humans and wolves and how to tackle related conflicts (Ronnenberga et al, 2016; Pooley et al, 20160. Several researchers believe we should act differently with more tolerance to large predators (Frank, 2016; Boonman-Berson et al, 2016). For some researchers we should tackle the problem at its source; the interaction between humans and wolves in areas dominated by humans (Cromsigt, 2019). This conclusion is based on how humans should adapt and interact with their environment. These interactions practically mean that people should apply better protective measure, however Eklund et al (2017) found limited evidence on the effectiveness to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. 5.5.1 Neglecting local doubts and worries Based on the above, the findings of this study reflect that some of the stakeholders, respectively the NP and Nowolves. argue that the question always has been that society should learn to live with the wolf in the first place. The NP and Nowolves belief that the wolf management plan is entirely based on the ‘eminent return of the wolf’ and the proposed methods to coexist with wolves rather than investigating the depth of potential negative consequences coexisting with wolves can reveal. According to these stakeholders, the question should be if we are capable of living with the wolf. A shepherd explained that the ecological and ethical reasoning behind the return of the wolf do not outweigh the problems it will cause for livestock breeders. They were never asked to give their opinion about how to live with the wolf and if they want to live with the wolf at all. This is problematic if we consider the wider academic studies that seemingly take positions in favour of wolf and carnivore conservation. Neglecting the worries and doubts of local stakeholders that are not aligning conservation goals can create an atmosphere of emotional responses and behaviour that could lead to conflict. As we have seen with platform Nowolves, their protest has entered the political domain. This in line with a political ecological perspective that tries to understand the different dimensions of socio-environmental realities, following Little (2007). Little (2007) argues that a dispute surrounding large predators is merely a conflict about social struggles, resource distribution and loss of rural lifestyles. 5.5.2 Entering the domain of the socio-political Therefore, addressing the topic about returning wolves evoked discussions and debates about other topics that some stakeholders think is related to the return of the wolf. Expressions such as ‘it’s not about wolves!’, ‘city people have no idea what nature is’, and ‘asking the butcher about technical forest

39 About Wolves and More, December 2019 management’ are indicators of this broader debate. Furthermore, these expressions reveal a form of frustration about meddling of ‘outsiders’ that have opinions about how ‘they’ (the stakeholders) should do their work. Nowolves expressed their worries about the ‘pro-wolf people’: they expressed their disappointment in how ‘city people’ misunderstand what sheep farming means. Additionally, some stakeholders feel abandoned by politicians and it seems they lost trust in politics; they [politicians] mainly think about how to get my votes back, they do not think ahead in time and they are not interested in the content or context. Another stakeholder expressed the lack of political efficacy in how the government is dealing with wildlife management; the Netherlands need centralized policies! The Oostvaardersplassen is an example of how something is managed and tremendously went wrong. The Oostvaardersplassen example is seen by many stakeholders as how governmental policy, or better said; lack of policy became a failure. This example is underlining the discussion about what is nature and how it should be managed. The governmental focus on economic development above that of nature is mentioned as another illustration of how some stakeholders are expressing their worries about politics: the government lacks a long-term vision and it has to do with money. As a result, the wolf became enrolled in a deepening divide between different actors that presents the predator as a symbol of oppression by the state (Margulies, 2018). Therefore, this study can be presented as another example of ‘how animals become enrolled in conflicts between different human actors and groups’ (Margulies, 2018). The apparent growing unease about the wolf in regions such as the Veluwe, but also at other places in Europe such as Redes National Park in Spain, or cases is southern France and Northern Germany supports Ottolini’s (2018) idea that HWC is a many-headed monster. This many- headed monster includes rural-urban dichotomy; changes in the ways of life; the role of politics; the economic struggles of the livestock sector; and the role of the media (Ottolini, 2018). As we have seen a similar situation being revealed as such, I therefore believe that potential solutions to mitigate a conflict are challenging and complicated to develop as long as the socioeconomic, political and cultural reasons are not adequately addressing. As Margulies (2018) nicely stated, ‘we should stop hiding behind wildlife’ and see human-wildlife conflict as a human dispute over structural societal changes.

5.6 Strengths and limitations I want to highlight some strengths and limitations in the conceptual framework and the analysis of the results. In chapter 4 I presented the different perspectives of the interviewed stakeholders. During the process of this study, the debate and discussion surrounding the return of the wolf evolved. At first, I wanted to investigate the reasons that lie at the basis of stakeholder perspectives. For this I started with human dimensions approach that included measuring wildlife value orientations and looking for a specific preferred human-wildlife relation, following the concepts of conflict, coexistence or cohabitation. Furthermore, I compared the findings with Drenthen’s (2016) approach to investigate people’s perspectives on the wolf. While doing the analysis of the stakeholder perspectives, I came to realise that the aforementioned concepts did not fully describe the perspectives of the stakeholders and the deeper lying reasons for having a certain perspective. First, the ambiguity in the answers show there is much overlap between answers, and that it is not easy to fit people’s perspectives and reasons into pre-defined boxes. For example, I tried to fit people into a certain WVO category (e.g. mutualist, utilitarianist, pluralist or distant) based on the framework of Teel et al (2005) of wildlife values in the west. This was, based on the set-up of my data collection, difficult to manage since the questions related to this framework did not entirely fit the aim of this study. Furthermore, I used open questions to let the stakeholders tell their stories about nature conservation, their work, the wolf and wolf management, the future regarding the wolf and their work, as well to get insight in the cutting edge themes that possible would appear while discussing the return of the wolf. This led to a much wider perspective about socio-cultural and socio-political themes currently dominating the human-wildlife debate. This wider perspective made a straight-forward analysis very complex, if not impossible. As mentioned in 5.4, both WVO and HDW have their limitations but the

40 About Wolves and More, December 2019 combination of WVO and HDW helps to understand human-predator (wolf) relationships on a local level. Secondly, I came to realise that it is not so much about where to fit people’s perspectives, but that it is important to place their perspectives into the wider context of their lives. For that reason, I had to add another layer of analysis to the results of this study and changed the sub-research question two accordingly. The themes that appeared mainly encompassed opposing views about nature conservation, management and control, politics and policies, as well as an emerging conflict between different visions and goals, which fitted better in the domain of political ecology. Hence, the human dimension approach contributed to my understanding of the study of wildlife relations and values (orientations). Yet, it also made me realise that human-wildlife relations often result in a conflict between different stakeholders.

One of the strengths of this case study lies in the narrative approach used in describing stakeholder perspectives. These narratives tell different stories that reveal several issues that are at play while considering the return of the wolf. The different backgrounds and professions of the stakeholders show that it is not easy to put people in certain predefined boxes (e.g. wildlife value orientations, Drenthen’s, 2016 three perspectives etc.). The use of an interview guide that included a semi-structured interview with open and guided questions gave me the opportunity to let people tell their story. By using probing methods, I was able to guide conversations in order to investigate deeper lying motives for maintaining a specific perspective. Due to the ambiguity of the data, I needed to investigate what people were referring to. I acquired additional information from secondary data sources and investigated online content. By inspecting the topic from different angles, this study revealed that discussion about wolves is more than a human-wolf relationship as such. By applying an analysis that identified discourse and patterns in the data I was able to explain the wider, broader and more complex situation of human- wildlife conflict. One of the first limitation of this research is that due to the complex and interesting data set that I derived from multiple sources, I was forced to make decisions in what to include and what not. This was a difficult and lengthy process and included not to further dive into other possibilities for obtaining and analysing the data. This could have led to a certain bias in how I have interpreted the different responses resulting in a certain selection bias. Another limitation of this research is that I was not able to dive deeper in peoples value orientations, believes and norms that were initially part of this study. Even though I could identify several of these themes throughout the data, it was somehow challenging to use them as clear indicators for maintaining a certain orientation. Hence, the literature and the inclusion of WVO during the interviews helped to get more understanding of people’s positions towards the wolf and the wider discussions as such. Using snowball sampling, gaining access to different stakeholders became less of a challenge. Consequently, some stakeholders were able to link me to their colleagues or associates. Some colleagues and associates were pre-informed about my call. This was to a certain degree helpful; however, it also created a form of ‘road bias’ since I got easily engaged with groups that had a form of connection with each other. For future studies, this form of bias could be reduced by doing a more elaborate pre-study on actors living and working in the region. Investigating (stakeholder analysis) the exact numbers of stakeholders involved in agriculture, forestry, nature and fauna management or other professions will be advisable. Based on the results of a stakeholder analysis other, maybe overlooked actors can be contacted for research purposes. This could lead to a more complete understanding of the different stakeholders’ perspectives as such.

5.7 Future research This study was focused on finding patterns and differences on a local level to understand human- predator (wolf) relationships. However, the results found could be merely representative for the local

41 About Wolves and More, December 2019 situation and not (fully) applicable to other areas in the Netherlands. Another study at a local level in another part of the Netherlands is recommended.

On the other hand, the inclusion of local perspectives to develop local policies is essential to create public support. So, more research on local perspectives will help to prevent polarisation or even conflicts between stakeholders.

In this study, WVO, HDW and political ecology was used to interpret the results found. However, using three perspectives made the analysis very complex. For future studies I would recommend the selection of a main theory that describes the human-wolf relationship best, with moderate support of other perspectives only.

42 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Chapter 6: Main conclusion Chapter 6 contains the conclusion of this research in two-fold, respectively in English (6.1 and 6.2) and in Dutch (6.3 and 6.4). The reason for presenting the conclusion in two languages lies in the fact that all the interviewed stakeholders are Dutch citizens. In my belief this will contribute to the betterment of communicating the findings and policy recommendation of this study to the people living in the Netherlands. Furthermore, I belief it can contribute to bridging the gap between the scientific world and that from outside by respecting the difficulties language barriers can convey. 6.1 Conclusion of this research (English) The aim of this thesis was to investigate how the return of the wolf is viewed by local stakeholders and explore what reasons could explain these viewpoints. By giving an extensive written report on each of the interviewed stakeholders I have tried to illustrate that stakeholders can differ in their viewpoints towards the wolf. What this thesis revealed is that the wolf symbolises much more than a negative or positive human-wolf relationship as such. Peoples perspectives are encompassing socio-cultural values expressed in different visions on how to protect and maintain the regional landscape and identity. Subsequently, the different visions and beliefs showed the existence of a profound disagreement in how to fit the wolf in the wider context of nature conservation. This touches upon the notion of wolf management, hunting, animal ethics, coexistence, rural-urban divide and the wider political discussion about policies. In order to fulfil the aim of this thesis I have tried to answer the general research question of this thesis; What viewpoints about the return of the wolf exist among local stakeholders who live and/or work within- and in the periphery of the Veluwe area? By investigating the reasons behind stakeholder perspectives on the return of the wolf, this thesis revealed the existence of a divide concerning how wolves would fit into the larger context of their lives and livelihoods. This divide is in most cases not a human-wolf conflict as such, but rather a disagreement, and in some cases a conflict, between different people with different occupations and views about how society and landscapes should be organised. It is important to highlight that the findings suggest that it is less about people’s attitudes about wolves as such and much more how they see their lives fitting into a broader social landscape and the future. I identified several key stakeholders and informants that have, based on their profession, specifically something at stake since the wolf returned to the Veluwe. They have provided new insights in a much wider discussion that surrounds the wolf and wolf-management. The different perspectives could range from seeing the wolf as an intruder, a victim or friend, or manageable object. However, there is a strong tendency to have mixed perspectives as well. There is common ground surrounding the idea that proper management is needed to avoid future conflicts. This should start with good, nationally coordinated policies. However, the design of policies and what should be included in those policies, differs per stakeholder, depending on past experiences and/or profession.

In order to understand what the different stakeholders’ perspectives mean, I formulated another research question; What reasons might explain why different people occupy different positions/perspectives towards the return of the wolf? My case study signifies that factors such as norms and values of the different stakeholders do differ at certain levels. In a wider perspective there is mainly a clash between norms and values between local people and people from outside the area. I encountered a profound rural vs. urban divide and consequently a different understanding of nature management. Also a cultural backlash (following, Manfredo, 2016) is identified: some stakeholders expressed their frustration about the meddling of outsiders with their work and experience a lack of understanding of outsiders (city people, academics, politicians) about the potential negative consequences of the wolf in the Netherlands. Summarised, the inclusion of local perspectives to develop local policies is essential to create public support and will help to prevent polarisation or even conflicts between local stakeholders.

43 About Wolves and More, December 2019 6.2 Policy recommendations This study contributed to the various academic literature available that builds on the intricate relationship of people with wolves. Based on this thesis I have formulated several recommendations for policy development. First, I would like to address the importance of the political subjectivity surrounding wolf conflict. In times of growing divides between farmers and environmentalists, and rural and urban people, building bridges should be considered the keystone of European, national and local policy makers. Avoiding the deepening of political engagement in human-wolf disputed is a key recommendation for multiple actors surrounding wolf management. By taking seriously the doubts, worries and fears of stakeholders that encounter struggles to overcome externalities related to livelihood subsistence, or in changes that challenge beliefs, values and norms, a first step towards bridging a seemingly insurmountable gap can be made. I would pledge for the establishment of a citizen council (assembly) that include not only ‘expert’ knowledge about wolves, but mainly include people that have something at stake in the discussion. Due to their (e.g. shepherds, farmers, hunters, fauna managers etc.) field experience and direct engagement with the local environment, their detailed knowledge and often nuanced and pragmatic approach can be a key element in effective conflict mediation. Resolving the challenges surrounding the return of the wolf should therefore focus on stakeholders, local people and communities that are in some cases negatively affected by conservation goals as such by not putting the wolf central in debates. For some advocacies of wolf conservation this could mean that there is a need to reconsider their motives behind wolf conservation and focus on the wider societal context. 6.3 Conclusie (Nederlands) Het doel van deze scriptie was te onderzoeken hoe de terugkeer van de wolf wordt bekeken door de plaatselijke betrokkenen en te onderzoeken welke redenen deze zienswijzen kunnen verklaren. Door middel van een uitgebreid geschreven verslag van ieder interview dat ik heb gehouden met de betrokkenen probeer ik te laten zien dat zij kunnen verschillen in zienswijzen ten opzichte van de wolf. Wat deze scriptie aan de oppervlakte brengt is dat de wolf veel meer symboliseert dan alleen een negatieve of positieve relatie tussen mens en wolf. De meningen bevatten uitingen van sociaal culturele waarden binnen verschillende zienswijzen en opvattingen over hoe regionaal landschap en identiteit behouden kunnen blijven en beheerd kunnen worden. Derhalve laten de verschillende meningen en opvattingen zien dat er een diep meningsverschil heerst over hoe de wolf kan worden ingepast binnen de bredere context van natuurbeheer. Dit omvat het beheer van de wolven, de jacht, fauna ethiek, het samenleven, het verschil tussen platteland en stedelijke omgevingen en de bredere politieke discussie over beleid. Om aan het doel van deze scriptie te voldoen heb ik geprobeerd een antwoord te geven op de algemene onderzoeksvraagstelling van deze scriptie; Welke zienswijzen inzake de terugkeer van de wolf leven er onder de betrokkenen die leven en/of werken in de periferie van het Veluwe gebied? Door de achterliggende redenen van meningen van belanghebbenden te onderzoeken ten aanzien van de terugkeer van de wolf, toont deze scriptie het bestaan aan van een verdeeldheid ten aanzien van hoe wolven ingepast kunnen worden in de bredere context van hun bestaan en het voorzien in hun levensonderhoud. In de meeste gevallen is die verdeeldheid niet per definitie een mens-wolf conflict, maar eigenlijk een verschil van mening, en in sommige gevallen een conflict, tussen diverse mensen met uiteenlopende beroepen en zienswijzen over hoe de samenleving en landschappen georganiseerd moeten worden. Het is belangrijk te benadrukken dat de bevindingen suggereren dat het minder belangrijk is wat het standpunt is van mensen ten aanzien van de wolf als zodanig, dan hoe zij zich voorstellen hoe ze hun bestaan in kunnen passen binnen een breder sociaal landschap en de toekomst. Ik heb vele belangrijke betrokkenen en informanten (deskundig op ieder zijn eigen gebied) gevonden, op basis van hun beroep of voor wie er iets op het spel staat sinds de wolf is teruggekeerd op de Veluwe. Zij geven nieuwe inzichten in de veel bredere discussie rond de wolf en het beheer ervan. De verschillende perspectieven variëren van het zien van de wolf als een indringer, een slachtoffer of vriend, of als beheersbaar object. Echter: er is ook een sterke tendens tot uiteenlopende perspectieven. Er is 44 About Wolves and More, December 2019 algemene consensus over het idee dat gepast beheer nodig is om in het heden en toekomst conflicten te reduceren en/of vermijden. Dit zou moeten beginnen bij goed, nationaal gecoördineerd beleid. Echter, het vaststellen van beleid, alsmede het vaststellen waarin allemaal voorzien moet worden, verschilt per betrokkene, afhankelijk van eerdere ervaringen en beroepsgroep. 6.4 Aanbevelingen omtrent beleid Het onderzoek draagt bij aan de verschillende beschikbare academische literatuur, dat voortbouwt op de ingewikkelde relatie tussen mensen en wolven. Met deze scriptie als uitgangspunt heb ik een aantal aanbevelingen geformuleerd voor het ontwikkelen van beleid. Als eerste wil ik graag het probleem aanstippen van de sterk aanwezige politieke subjectiviteit ten aanzien van wolf-conflicten. In tijden van groeiende tegenstellingen tussen boeren en milieuactivisten, alsmede plattelandsbevolking en stedelingen, is het bouwen van bruggen de hoeksteen voor Europese, nationale en lokale beleidmakers. Het vermijden van extremer wordend politiek engagement in de wolf-mens discussie is een belangrijke aanbeveling voor de diverse betrokkenen rondom het beheer van de wolf. Door de twijfels, angsten en vrees van betrokkenen serieus te nemen, die moeten leren leven met de veranderingen ten aanzien van hun levensonderhoud en in de veranderingen die een uitdaging vormen ten aanzien van hun visies, waarden en normen, kan een eerste stap worden genomen in de richting van het overbruggen van deze schier onoverbrugbaar lijkende kloof. Ik pleit voor de oprichting van een burgerraad, waarin niet alleen de wolven-experts zitting nemen, maar vooral ook de mensen voor wie er concreet iets op het spel staat binnen deze discussie. Vanwege de aanwezigheid van gedetailleerde en sterk ontwikkelde veld kennis van lokale betrokkenen/belanghebbenden (e.g. schapenhouders, herders, jagers, fauna managers etc.) kunnen zij vaak genuanceerder de situatie bekijken en praktische ideeën en visies op na houden. Deze nuance en kennis kan cruciaal zijn in de de-escalatie van eventuele conflicten en eventueel goed beleid bewerkstelligen. Het oplossen van de uitdagingen ten aanzien van de terugkeer van de wolf zou daarom ook primair gericht moeten zijn op de directbetrokkenen/belanghebbenden/gedupeerden, lokale bewoners en gemeenschappen die mogelijkerwijs direct getroffen worden door doelstellingen voor natuurbehoud, dit in tegenstelling tot de wolf het middelpunt maken van beleidsvorming. Voor sommige voorstanders van de terugkeer van de wolf kan dit betekenen dat zij hun motieven voor het behoud van de wolf moeten herzien. Dit kan dus ook betekenen dat de terugkeer van de wolf niet per se een goede ontwikkeling is.

45 About Wolves and More, December 2019 References

Adams, W., Hutton, J., 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Soc. 5 (2), 147–183. Bath, A.J. (1998). The Role of Human Dimensions in Wildlife Resource Research in Wildlife Management. Ursus, Vol. 10, A Selection of Papers from the Tenth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Fairbanks, Alaska, July 1995, and Mora, Sweden, September 1995 (1998), pp. 349-355. International Association for Bear Research and Management. Accessed: 29-11-2019 10:29 UTC BBC News (2019). Wolves return to Netherlands after 140 years. By Anne-Marie Bullock. Online access; https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47838162. (published online: 9- 4-19) BIJ12 (2019). Werkt voor Provincies. Faunaschade wolf in Gelderland. https://www.bij12.nl/onderwerpen/faunazaken/faunaschade-informatie-per-diersoort/wolf/ (accessed April 2019) Boonman-Berson, S., Driessen, C., Turnhout, E. (2018). Managing wild minds: From control by numbers to a multinatural approach in wild boar management in the Veluwe, the Netherlands. Wiley, TIBG Royal Geographical Society. Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T., Arts, Bas. (2014). “The man the administration and the counter- discourse”:Ananalysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy. Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 676–684, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Chase, L. (2013). Wildlife Value Orientations among diverse audiences in The American Southwest: Helping State Wildlife Agencies broaden their constituent base. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resource. Published by Colorado State University. Collard, R.C., 2012. Cougar figures, gender, and the performances of predation. Gender, Place & Culture 19 (4), 518–540. Danklof, A. (2019) Human-dog-wildlife relationships in an era of divides and conflict: is cohabitation possible? The case of human-dog-wildlife interactions in the Sysselt, the Veluwe, the Netherlands. MSc Thesis Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University, Wageningen. Dayer, A.A., Stinchfield, H. M., & Manfredo, M. J. (2007). Stories about wildlife: Developing an instrument for identifying wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12(5), 307-315 Decker, D.J., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle-Capitman, C., Schuler, K., Organ, J., 2016. Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conserv. Lett. 9 (4), 290–295. Deutche Welle (2019). German environment minister Schulze takes aim at wolves. (3-3-2019) https://www.dw.com/en/german-environment-minister-schulze-takes-aim-at-wolves/a- 47758357 (Accessed April 2019) Dickman, A. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x Drenthen, M., Keulartz, J. (2014). Old World and New World Perspectives in Environmental Philosophy. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics,

46 About Wolves and More, December 2019 volume 21. Access: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-319-07683- 6%2F1.pdf Drenthen, M. (2016). The return of the wild in the Anthropocene. Wolf resurgence in the Netherlands. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 18:3, 318-337, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2015.1111615 Duijvenvoorde, van, R. (2005). Vroeghistorische ijzerproductie in Nederland. TU Delft Eklund, A., López-Bao2 J.V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G. & Frank, J. (2017). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports, 7: 2097 DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w. Access: www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Frank, B. (2016) Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Tolerance and Coexistence: An Introductory Comment, Society & Natural Resources, 29:6, 738-743, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388 Gemeente Atlas (2018). Gemeente Ede Open Topo. Access: https://data.nlextract.nl/opentopo/400pixkm/gem/Gem-Ede-OpenTopo.jpg Gemeente Ede (2019). SAMEN STERKER MET NATUUR, Programma Biodiversiteit gemeente Ede. Afdeling Beleid, Infrastructuur en Milieu: https://ede.raadsinformatie.nl/document/7394018/1/Programma-Biodiversiteit- feb2019_DEF-21feb_DIGI_spreads_ (accessed Juli 2019) Goede, de. V. (2019). Grasping a ‘more-than-human world’: The significance of the return of the wolf for the Dutch sheep owners. MSc thesis Radbout University Nijmegen. Guardian, The. (2018). Harmless or vicious hunter? The uneasy return of Europe's wolves. Online accessed: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/26/harmless-or-vicious- hunter-the-uneasy-return-of-europes-wolves Groot Bruinderink, H.A.H. Jansman¸ M.H. Jacobs en M. Harms (2012) De komst van de wolf (Canis lupus) in Nederland. Hartholt, S. (2019) De Gelderlander: park-hoge-veluwe-schendt-door-wolfwerende-hekken- miljoenendeal-met-provincie-gelderland. (August, 2, 2019) https://www.gelderlander.nl/arnhem/park-hoge-veluwe-schendt-door-wolfwerende- hekken-miljoenendeal-met-provincie-gelderland~a4ad7068/ (accessed August, 2019) Hartman, P. (2018). CDA Gelderland: moet de wolf nog wel worden beschermd? Https://www.destentor.nl/apeldoorn/cda-gelderland-moet-de-wolf-nog-wel-worden- beschermd~ad57c225/ Published: 10-08-18, Online accesses: 6-6-19 Hendee, J. C., & Schoenfeld, C. (1973). Human dimensions in wildlife programs. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 38, 182. Hobson, K., 2007. Political animals? On animals as subjects in an enlarged political geography. Polit. Geogr. 26 (3), 250–267. Homer, P.M., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value attitude behaviour hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638-646. Iersel, van, R.F. (2013). De Bossen van de Gemeente Ede, Een onderzoek naar de historie, het bosbeheer en de burgerparticipatie. MSc thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen. Inglehart, R., 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

47 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Inglehart, R., Norris, P., 2016. Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: economic havenots and cultural backlash. In: Social Science Research Network HKS Working Paper No. RWP16- 026, Available from. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2818659 (accessed May 2019). Jacobs, M. H. (2007). Wildlife value orientations in the Netherlands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12(5), 317–329. Jacobs, M. H., Vaske J. J., Dubois, S., Fehres P. (2014) More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014. Jampel, C., 2016. Cattle-based livelihoods, changes in the taskscape, and human–bear conflict in the Ecuadorian Andes. Geoforum 69, 84–93. Kluckholn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientation in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons, & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Little, P.E. (2007). Political ecology as ethnography: a theoretical and methodological guide. Horiz. antropol. vol.3 no.se Porto Alegre 2007. University of Brasilia – Brazil. Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ, Rabinowitz A. (2010). Felid futures: crossing disciplines, borders, and generations. Pages 600–649 in Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ, editors. The biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford Madden, F. (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum Dimensions Wildl 9, 247–257. Manfredo, M.J., & Teel, T.L. (2008). Integrating concepts: Demonstration of a multilevel model for exploring the rise of mutualism value orientations in post-industrial society. In M. J. Manfredo (Ed.), Who cares about wildlife: Social science concepts for understanding human-wildlife relationships and other conservation issues (191-218). New York: Springer Press. Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L., & Henry, K. (2009). Linking society and environment: A multi-level model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 407-427. Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L., Sullivan, L., Dietsch, A.M. (2017). Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: The case of wildlife management in the United States. Biological Conservation 214 (2017) 303–311 Margulies, J.D., Karanth, K.K. (2018). The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95 (2018) 153–164. Mariki, S.B., Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T.A., 2015. Elephants over the Cliff: Explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 44, 19–30. Norgrove, L., Hulme, D., 2006. Confronting conservation at Mount Elgon Uganda. Dev. Change 37 (5), 1093–1116. Lopes-Fernandes, M., Soares, F., Frazão-Moreira, A., & Queiroz, A. I. (2016). Living with the beast: Wolves and humans through Portuguese literature. Anthrozoos, 29(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1060056 Oroschakoff, K., Livingstone, E., (2019) Politico: Wolves return to haunt EU politics; Farmers fight for right to shoot the protected, increasingly numerous predators. (January, 16, 2018) https://www.politico.eu/article/gray-wolves-return-to-haunt-eu-politics-europe-farmers/ (accessed, March 2019)

48 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Ottolini, I. (2018) Living with the wolf, a Luhmannian perspective on the human-wolf conflict in Rhedes Natural Park, Spain. MSc Thesis Strategic Communication Chair Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen. Pearce, W.B., Littlejohn S.W. (1997) Moral conflict: when social worlds collide, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Peterson, M.N., Peterson T.R., Peterson M.J., Lopez R.R., Silvy N.J. (2002) Cultural conflict and the endangered Florida Key deer. J Wildl Manage 66, 947–968. Pooley, S., M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A.J. Loveridge, D.W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, and E.J. Milner- Gulland (2016). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology Rijk, de, JH. (1986). Wolven in Nederland: een samenvatting van de historische gegevens. (online access): http://natuurtijdschriften.nl/download?type=document&docid=590894 Ronnenberga K, Habbeb B, Gräbera R, Straußa E, Siebert U, (2016). Coexistence of wolves and humans in a densely populated region (Lower Saxony, Germany) Schepper, K,. de. (2010). De Geschiedenis van de wolvenjacht in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (16e- 18e eeuw). Vakgroep Nieuwe Geschiedenis, Universiteit van Gent. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 136–182. Srinivasan, K., 2016. Towards a political animal geography? Polit. Geogr. 50, 76–78. Surth, P., Miller, C., Arnold, J. (2018) Guide; Learning to live with wolves; Questions from the domains of agriculture, hunting, tourism and politics. Published by; World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) Germany. Teel, T. L., Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional results from the research project entitled ‘‘Wildlife values in the West.’’ (Project Re. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J. & Stinchfield, H. S. (2007). The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12(5), 297– 307. Tetreault, D. (2017). Three forms of political ecology. Published by: Indiana University press. Ethics and the Environment , Vol. 22, No. 2 (Fall 2017), pp. 1-23. Online access:https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.2.01?seq=1&cid=pdfreferenc e#. Tilburg, van A.M. (2019) ‘Wolven vind ik in een landschap als Nederland eigenlijk niet passen’ https://demonitor.kro-ncrv.nl/artikelen/wolven-vind-ik-in-een-landschap-als-nederland- eigenlijk-niet-passen published: 10-02-19 Trouwhorst, A. (2010). Managing the Carnivore Comeback: International and EU Species Protection Lawand the Return of Lynx,Wolf and Bear toWestern Europe. Journal of Environmental Law. Published by Oxford University Press.Witter, D. J., & Jahn, L. R. (1998). Emergence of human dimensions in wildlife management. Transactions of the 63rd North American and Natural Resources Conference, 63, 200–214. Vaske, J.J., Jacobs, M.H., Sijtsma M.T.J. (2010). Wildlife value orientations and demographics in The Netherlands.

49 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Voorst tot Voorst, van. (2019). Persbericht: Standpunt van Het Nationale Park De Hoge Veluwe ten aanzien van de wolf. Aanwinst of verlies aan (bio)diversiteit? (Published online: 01-03- 2019) Wageningen Environmental research (2019). Second wolf settles in the Veluwe. Online access:https://www.wur.nl/en/Research-Results/Research-Institutes/Environmental- Research/show-wenr/Second-wolf-settles-in-the-Veluwe.htm. Published: 4-6-19 Wageningen UR (2019). In 2018 tot nu toe tien verschillende wolven vastgesteld in Nederland, waarvan zes wijfjes. Published online: 24-12-18 WolveninNederland (2019). Homepage wolven in Nederland. Online access: https://www.wolveninnederland.nl/

50 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Appendices Appendix 1: List of data sources used for this thesis The abbreviations of i.(number) and O.(number) and W. (number) are used in the report to refer to the specific data sources, either of interviews (i) or observations (o) or (w) written statement. Date Reference Organisatie Functie Type of data collection code 7-5-2019 O.1 Political cafe, debate about the Informal conversation + wolf observation 11-6-2019 i.1 Nowolves Woordvoerder Semi-structured interview 12-6-2019 W.1 Municipal councillor Written statement 25-6-2019 i.2 Gem. Ede Semi-structured interview Fauna-beheerder 19-6-2019 O.2 Wolven symposium Velp Observation 25-6-2019 iO.1 Hunting tenant Semi-structured interview + field participation 27-6-2019 i.3 Bosraad Ede Semi-structured interview Ecoloog 27-6-2019 i.4 Bosraad Ede Semi-structured interview 28-6-2019 i.5 Bosraad Ede Semi-structured interview

2-7-2019 i.6 Bosraad Ede Semi-structured interview Ecoloog 2-7-2019 i.7 Natuurmonumenten Semi-structured interview Fauna manager 9-7-2019 i.8 NP De Hoge Veluwe Semi-structured interview 27-8-2019 i.9 Shepherd Edese schaapskudde Semi-structure interview/ field visit

51 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Appendix 2: Interview guide/semi structured interview

Interview Guide [Members forest council] Naam : leeftijd : Beroep : opleiding : man/vrouw : Deel 1: Introductie

1. Kunt u mij wat vertellen over uw achtergrond als persoon?

2. Kunt u mij wat meer vertellen over uw werk?

3. Wat vindt u van de Nederlandse natuur?

4. Hoe zou u de natuur in de gemeente Ede omschrijven?

5. Hoe beleeft u het contact met wilde dieren die hier voorkomen?

Deel 2: Uw perspectief omtrent de terugkeer van de wolf

1. Wat komt er bij u op als u aan de wolf denkt?

2. Hoe is uw beeldvorming over de wolf gevormd?

3. Wat vindt u van de terugkeer van de wolf op de Veluwe?

4. Wat is uw perspectief op: a. Het beheer van de wolf (hekwerken, schade behandeling, ) b. De invloed die de wolf heeft op mensen c. De invloed op natuur d. Beleid vanuit de overheid e. Het maatschappelijk debat in de politiek, media etc.

5. Wat is uw visie voor de toekomst van de wolf in Nederland?

Actief beheer? Jacht? 6. Denkt u dat het mogelijk is dat mensen en wolven zouden kunnen samenleven?

52 About Wolves and More, December 2019

Factoren die uw perspectief gevormd hebben 1. Heeft u een idee hoe bepaalde beeldvorming omtrent de wolf wordt gevormd?

2. Hoe is deze bij u gevormd?

Deel 3: Waarde Oriëntaties met betrekking tot wilde dieren.

Gebruiksovertuiging 1. Vindt u dat mensen de populaties wilde dieren die in Nederland voorkomen actief moeten beheren zodat mensen daar profijt aan hebben?

2. Wat vindt u van het idee dat de behoeften van mensen voor gaan op de behoefte van wilde dieren?

3. Wat vindt u van het idee dat wilde dieren vooral nuttig zijn voor het gebruik voor menselijke behoeften?

Overtuiging omtrent de jacht 1. Wat is uw standpunt omtrent de jacht?

2. Denkt u dat de jacht op wild wreed en inhumaan is?

3. Hoe denkt u over het idee dat de jacht geen respect heeft voor de levens van dieren?

4. Bent u het er mee eens dat mensen die willen jagen de kans moeten krijgen om dat te doen?

Overtuiging omtrent sociale binding tussen mens en dier 1. Denkt u dat we zouden moeten streven naar een samenleving waar mens en wolf zonder angst naast elkaar zouden moeten leven?

53 About Wolves and More, December 2019

2. Ziet u dieren als onderdeel van een grote familie?

3. Wat denkt u van het idee dat dieren, waaronder de wolf, grofwild etc. de zelfde rechten zouden moeten krijgen als mensen?

Overtuiging omtrent de zorg voor wilde dieren 1. Geeft u net zoveel om dieren als om mensen?

2. Onderhoudt u een sterke emotionele band met dieren?

3. Waardeert u het gevoel van gezelschap dat u krijgt in de omgang met dieren?

Tot slot:

Heeft u nog een vraag of gedachte die u wilt delen?

54 About Wolves and More, December 2019 Interview Guide [Fauna managers] 1. Vanuit uw beroep, wat vindt u van de aanwezigheid de wolf? 2. Wat is het standpunt van de gemeente Ede omtrent de wolf? 3. Wat is uw persoonlijke standpunt? Naam : leeftijd : Beroep : opleiding : man/vrouw : Deel 1: Introductie

6. Kunt u mij wat meer vertellen over uw werk?

7. Welke dieren komen er in dit gebied voor?

8. Kunt u mij meer vertellen over het beleid dat er gevoerd wordt omtrent wildbeheer?

Deel 2: Uw perspectief omtrent de terugkeer van de wolf

7. Wat komt er bij u op als u aan de wolf denkt?

8. Wat vindt u van de terugkeer van de wolf op de Veluwe?

9. Wat is uw perspectief op: f. Het beheer van de wolf (hekwerken, schade behandeling, ) g. De invloed die de wolf heeft op mensen h. De invloed op natuur i. Beleid vanuit de overheid

10. Kunt u mij eens vertellen wat het standpunt/perspectief van de gemeente Ede is omtrent wolf-beheer?

Factoren die uw perspectief gevormd hebben 3.

Deel 3: Waarde Oriëntaties met betrekking tot wilde dieren.

Gebruiksovertuiging 4. Vindt u dat mensen de populaties wilde dieren die in Nederland voorkomen actief moeten beheren zodat mensen daar profijt aan hebben?

55 About Wolves and More, December 2019

5. Wat vindt u van het idee dat de behoeften van mensen voor gaan op de behoefte van wilde dieren?

6. Wat vindt u van het idee dat wilde dieren er vooral nuttig zijn voor het gebruik voor menselijke behoeften?

Overtuiging omtrent de jacht 5. Wat is uw standpunt omtrent de jacht?

6. Denkt u dat de jacht op wild wreed en inhumaan is?

7. Hoe denkt u over het idee dat de jacht geen respect heeft voor de levens van dieren?

8. Bent u het er mee eens dat mensen die willen jagen de kans moeten krijgen om dat te doen?

Overtuiging omtrent sociale binding tussen mens en dier 4. Denkt u dat we zouden moeten streven naar een samenleving waar mens en wolf zonder angst naast elkaar zouden moeten leven?

5. Ziet u dieren als onderdeel van een grote familie?

6. Wat denkt u van het idee dat dieren, waaronder de wolf, grofwild etc. de zelfde rechten zouden moeten krijgen als mensen?

Overtuiging omtrent de zorg voor wilde dieren 4. Geeft u net zoveel om dieren als om mensen?

56 About Wolves and More, December 2019

5. Onderhoudt u een sterke emotionele band met dieren?

6. Waardeert u het gevoel van gezelschap dat u krijgt in de omgang met dieren?

57 About Wolves and More, December 2019