 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEARNWolves of the World
Public Attitudes Towards Wolves in Croatia: Positive Change with the Wolf Population Drop SUBMITTED for the PROCEEDINGS of the WOLF MEETING IN LEON (SPAIN) 1993
Reprinted with permission from Djuro Huber. Berislav Radisic Dinko Novosel Alojzije Frkovic The contemporary survival of wolves (Canis lupus), like the other large predators, almost entirely depends on the willingness of man to accept his presence in certain areas. Therefore the potential success of conservation measures is closely related to the attitude of local inhabitants towards the species in concern. Recent estimates show that fewer than 50 wolves (most probably only around 30) live in Croatia today. Historically the whole Croatia was wolf habitat, but today wolves inhabit only the mountainous regions in Gorski kotar and Lika. Prosecuted as pests they were killed in an average of 274 annually in the period 1954-72, mostly due to stimulations by high bounties. There were no population estimates at that times, but it can be guessed that the wolf numbers could have been around 800 (600 - 1000). The damage which the wolves have been doing on livestock during many centuries and until some 20 years ago, created an entirely negative image of wolves in the minds of the most people. From 1945 to about 1975, the hatred against wolves was supported by the state run public campaign. Killing of wolves was organized and stimulated. In some periods the bounty was equivalent to the monthly salary of an forestry engineer. With the decrease of the amount of damage done by wolves (in Gorski Kotar area the last confirmed damage by wolves was in 1984) the use of poisons to kill wolves was forbidden in 1972 and the use of leg hold traps in 1975, while the bounties were canceled in 1976. Though the wolves remained legally unprotected until today the annual killing of them dropped significantly (Frkovi and Huber 1993). The attitude of people towards wolves was studied in 1983 (Gyorgy 1984) and in 1986/87 (Huber et al. 1993) in Croatia, and in 1992 (Huber et al. 1993) in Macedonia (for comparison with a more stable wolf population). Public opinion of foreign visitors to the Plitvice Lakes National Park in Croatia about bears and wolves was studied in 1985 (Mori} and Huber 1989). We wanted to investigate the present attitudes of people towards
wolves in Croatia and find out the eventual change in the last 6
to 10 years as well as to compare the attitudes of people living
in the wolf habitat and the ones living in towns. The objectives
of this study were to determine the factors influencing the human
attitudes and the possible ways to change the negative attitude.
All 53 rural examinees believe that roe deer is the most common wolf natural food, and 46 (88%) of them put the red deer on the second place. The sheep (91%), dog (79%), goat (66%), and cattle (64%) are ranked as the most common domestic prey. Only 8% (N = 4) examinees are using some of the measures to protect their livestock. From the fourth place as a pest, in the minds of rural people in 1986/87 (Huber et al. 1992), the wolf dropped to the seventh position counting the animals for which >50% of examinees felt to be of greater damage than wolves (Table 2). Wolf is considered as a useful species in nature by 68% rural and 60% urban people (Chi2 = 0.37, difference not significant). This is contrasted to 100% rural examinees in Macedonia who see wolves harmful (Huber et al. 1992). In 1983 in Croatia 42% people considered wolf harmful (Gyorgy 1984), compared to the 25% in this study (Chi2 = 10.2, significant). At the time of the study of Gyorgy (1984) the share of rural people claiming the wolf to be harmful was 70% and among urban people 27% (Chi2 = 65.0, very significant). However, only 9% of foreign visitors to Croatia in 1985 considered wolf as a harmful species (Mori} and Huber 1989). Nobody in rural and 40% in urban Macedonia (Huber et al. 1992) considered wolf population too low. In Croatia 66% rural and 70% urban people feel that there is too few wolves, and only 8% vs. 2% thinks that there is to many (Chi2 = 0.84, not significant). On the contrary in 1983 (Gyorgy 1984) even 31% (43 of 139) rural and 10% (25 of 248) urban people stated that there are too many wolves (Chi2 = 25.3, significantly more rural than urban). The drop number of rural believers in too many wolves from 31% to 8% is also very significant (Chi2 = 10.1) (Fig. 1). Highly significantly more people today believe that the number of wolves is too low vs. the ones believing in enough or too many wolves (Chi2 = 25.8). The percent of rural people that would like to introduce again the bounties for killed wolves dropped significantly from 1986/87 (Huber et al. 1992): from 85% to 23%, Chi2 = 38.86, as well as the ones that would again like to use poisons against wolves: from 26% to 4%, Chi2 = 8.91 (Fig. 1). Comparing the attitudes to all three large predators among rural people in Croatia the wolf got the higher number of voices for total protection (27%) than bear (15%) and lynx (11%). Wolf was the second with only 8% for extermination among rural, as well as among urban examinees (Fig. 2, Table 1). In the survey by Gyorgy (1984) in 1983 even 21% (81 of 387) people wanted to exterminate wolf (significantly more than in 1993, Chi2 = 9.19), while only 5% of (42 of 710) foreign visitors to Croatia in 1985 had the same opinion (Mori and Huber, 1989). Answers of a total of 29 hunters were compared to 25 rural non-hunters: 96% hunters and 48% non-hunters consider wolf population too low (significant, Chi2 = 5.82). Though the differences among the other answers were not significant the general attitude of hunters was more positive, e. g. 76% hunters vs. 56% non-hunters consider wolf useful (Chi2 = 2.39), and 34% hunters vs. 16% non-hunters would give wolves total protection (Chi2 = 1.52). Selecting examined persons with more experience with wolves, i.e. the ones that had faced at least 2 of the following events: seen, heard, killed wolf or found litter, vs. less experienced, no significant differences in attitudes towards wolves were found (Chi2 = 0.03 - 2.3). Comparing 80 male vs. 26 female examinees, significantly more males find the wolf useful and necessary to protect (Chi2 = 3.87 and 9.56). However, more females would give full protection to lynx (50% vs. 26%, Chi2 = 4.05). People below and over 50 years of age did not differ in attitudes towards wolves (Chi2 = 0.05 to 3.77), but the older group wanted to protect lynx more than younger ones (36% vs 33%, Chi2 = 9.78). Examinees with high education (N = 29) compared with the ones with lower and intermediate education (N = 77) showed significantly (Chi2 = 5.38 to 8.55) more positive attitude towards wolves: considering them useful, too few, refusing bounties and asking for total protection. Profession related to agriculture and forestry (N = 32) vs. all other professions (N = 74) showed no preferences in attitudes towards wolves.
It can be concluded that the size of wolf population, and the related size of damage are the principle determinants of the attitude of local human population towards wolves. From 1986/87 the wolf dropped from the fourth to the seventh place as a pest animal in the people's minds. The attitude towards wolves in Croatia seems already favorable enough for the urgent introduction of legal protection. Additional informing and educating the public about the real wolf population status would further contribute to the conservation of species. Saving the wolves in Croatia would help save their population in the neighboring Slovenia, and it is an essential step to facilitate further dispersal of wolves towards northwest, i.e. Alps. Fig. 2. Comparisons of attitudes towards wolves, bears and lynx in Croatia. Shown are the percents of the examined rural persons in Croatia that would give to the wolf, bear and lynx the total protection or would like to see them exterminated.
Table 2. Wolf rank as a pest in the minds of examined people cohabitating with wolves. Numbers in brackets show the percent of examinees that see that animal/s as bigger pest/s than wolves.
|
Sign up to receive news and special offers! Donate Now. Experience an Adventure Track Wild Wolves |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
