Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland 11b 2005 Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11b/2005 Name of publication: Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland Publisher: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Photographs: Seppo Ronkainen, Ilpo Kojola ISBN 952-453-270-0 ISSN 1238-2531 Graphic design: Z Design Oy Ab Layout: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Printer: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2006 Contents 1. Introduction 5 1.1 Background 5 1.2 Preparation of the management plan 6 1.3 Aims and measures in the management plan 7 PART 1. BACKGROUND 8 2. The biology of the wolf and the viability of the wolf population 8 2.1 Status and development of the wolf population in Finland (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) 8 2.1.1 Background 8 2.1.2 Monitoring of population numbers 8 2.1.3 Variations in the wolf population in the 19th and 20th centuries 8 2.1.4 Trends in wolf numbers in recent years 9 2.1.5 The structure of the Finnish wolf population 9 2.1.6 Reproduction, mortality and expansion of the wolf population 11 2.1.7 Sources of food and populations of prey species 12 2.1.8 Habitats 14 2.2 Wolf populations in Finland’s neighbouring areas (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) 14 2.3 Red List of threatened species (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 15 2.4 Viability of the wolf population (Jouni Aspi, University of Oulu & Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) 15 3. Economic losses caused by the wolf population in Finland 17 3.1 Wolves as a cause of damage (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) 17 3.2 Types of damage, amount of damage and location of damage (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) 17 4. National legislation, international obligations and international cooperation (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 20 4.1 The position of the wolf in national legislation in Finland 20 4.1.1 Summary of changes of the position of the wolf in Finnish legislation from 1973 onward 20 4.1.2 Hunting legislation concerning the wolf currently in force 20 4.2 European Community law 22 4.2.1 The Habitats Directive 22 4.2.2 The CITES regulation 22 4.3 International treaties 22 4.3.1 The Bern Convention 22 4.3.2 The CITES Convention (Veijo Miettinen, Finnish Environment Institute) 23 4.3.3 The Convention on Biological Diversity 24 4.4 Nordic cooperation 24 4.4.1 Cooperation between the authorities 24 4.4.2 The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers 24 4.4.3 The North Calotte Council 24 4.4.4 The coordination group for Nordic research on large carnivores 24 4.5 Other international cooperation 25 5. Management of the wolf population so far 26 5.1 The aims of the Working Group for Large Terrestrial Carnivores 1996–2010 (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 26 5.2 Development of an information centre for large carnivores (Samuli Sillman, Metsähallitus) 27 5.2.1 Background 27 5.2.2 Petola Visitor Centre to become part of the national information provision on large carnivores 27 5.3 The regional cooperation model of North Karelia, Kainuu and North Savo (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) 28 5.4 The hunting licence system maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 28 5.4.1 General 28 5.4.2 Hunting licences, instructions for granting them and their focus 28 5.4.3 Decisions on granting hunting licences and the relevant legislation 29 5.4.4 The infringement procedure started by the Commission 30 5.4.5 The impact of hunting on the wolf population 31 6. Expectations and aims in management of the Finnish wolf population 32 6.1 History of Finnish policy concerning the wolf (Sakari Mykrä & Mari Pohja-Mykrä, Satakunta Environmental Research Institute, University of Turku) 32 6.1.1 Wolves as outlaws in Finland from the 14th century 32 6.1.2 Intensive hunting in the 19th century 32 6.1.3 Losses give rise to persecution 33 6.1.4 The press encouraged elimination of wolves 33 6.2 Recent opinion polls (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) 34 6.2.1 Opinion-makers and the media encourage attitudes against large carnivores 34 6.2.2 People are afraid of wolves 34 6.2.3 Concern about growing large carnivore populations in North Karelia 34 6.2.4 Fear of carnivores on the increase 35 6.2.5 More than 80% of Finns in favour of control of large carnivore populations 36 6.2.6 The policy concerning large carnivores is a source of frustration 36 6.2.7 Large carnivores can be accepted in the reindeer herding area on certain specific terms 36 6.3 The hearing procedure connected with preparation of the management plan for the wolf population (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) 37 6.3.1 Background 37 6.3.2 Summary of the research report 37 6.3.3 Key conclusions from the study 39 PART 2. AIMS AND MEASURES 40 7. Guidelines for management of the wolf population 40 7.1 Important principles and conditions of population management 40 7.2 A favourable conservation status 41 7.3 Regional management of the wolf population 42 7.3.1 New population management regions 42 7.3.2 Regional target populations 42 7.3.3 Special aims and measures for specific regions 43 7.4 Damage prevention and the costs involved 44 7.4.1 General 44 7.4.2 Fencing 44 7.4.3 Livestock guarding dogs 45 7.4.4 Protecting dogs 46 7.4.5 Principles for the use of funds allocated to prevent damage 47 7.5 Compensation for damage 48 7.6 Derogations from the conservation of wolves and wolf hunting in the reindeer herding area 49 7.7 Monitoring of and research on the wolf population and how they can be developed 50 7.7.1 Monitoring of the wolf population 50 7.7.2 Other research 51 7.8 Training, advisory services and information provision 52 7.8.1 The Petola Visitor Centre and the www.suurpedot.fi website 52 7.8.2 The hunters’ organization 52 7.9 Supervision of hunting 53 7.10 Reintroduction of wolves 54 7.11 Wolf-dog hybrids 54 7.12 Wolves in eco-tourism 55 7.13 Diseases 55 7.13.1 Animal diseases that can be transmitted to people 55 7.13.2 Other diseases 56 7.14 Cooperation between different authorities and organizations 56 7.14.1 Regional cooperation 56 7.14.2 National cooperation 57 7.14.3 International cooperation 57 7.15 Responsibility for population management 58 7.16 Updating the management plan 58 7.17 Opportunities and threats for the conservation of the wolf population 58 Literature 60 Appendix 64 Summary 69 � 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Finland had a relatively large wolf population until the 1880s. It was then that a systematic persecution of wolves began, eventually bringing wolves almost to extinction in Finland. Since then, however, the number of wolves has gradually grown and the wolf population in Finland has expanded considerably in recent years. The number of lit- ters has developed quite favourably. In 2004, 16 litters were found in Finland, compared with four in 1996. In ad- dition to these 16, there were another 4–5 litters on the Russian side of Finland’s eastern border whose pups also wandered across to Finland from time to time. At the end of 2004, Finland’s wolf population consisted of an esti- mated 185–200 individuals. The wolf population in Finland is linked with that of Russia along the entire length of the border between the two countries. Thus it is possible to regard the Finnish wolf population as a fringe population of a large population of some 25,000–30,000 wolves. During the past few years, the growth of the wolf population in Finland and the spread of wolves to new areas have highlighted the challenges of managing the wolf population. The last time the wolf population was this numerous in Finland was in the 19th century. There are strongly conflicting targets in the management of the wolf population. The inhabitants of sparsely populated areas, in particular, have expressed forceful demands that the population growth of large predators, wolves in particular, must be restricted and the number of individuals reduced by hunt- ing. On the other hand, there are also a number of stakeholders in the nature sector in Finland that have demand- ed protection for large predators and, especially, improvements in the protection of wolves. The management of the wolf population undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has tried to take all these highly conflicting aims and demands into account, and this has left its mark on Finland’s policy with regard to wolves. In Finland, the wolf is a game species and the responsibility for management and conservation of the wolf popula- tion belongs to the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. At the regional level, game management is the re- sponsibility of the game management districts, which are the administrative units of Finnish game management, and also the regional administrative units of the statutory hunters’ organization. Their position and duties are de- fined in the Hunting Act (615/1993). The Ministry of the Environment also acts as an authority in this sphere. It de- fines the status of any species that is threatened and thus it has considerable influence over the debate on wolves in Finland and internationally. As a result of Finland’s accession to the European Union, the wolf became a game species subject to very limited hunting due to the obligations to protect it. Outside the reindeer herding area in northern Finland, the wolf falls under Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) which is binding on Finland and places the species under strict protection, subject to dero- gation only under certain very clearly specified conditions. People in the areas where wolves exist have found it difficult to adjust to this change brought by EU membership. Wolves occurring in the reindeer herding area fall un- der Annex V of the Habitats Directive, which allows more flexibility in the action by the authorities. In 2000, action plans for the conservation of wolves, lynxes, wolverines and bears were prepared by the Council of Europe. Each plan set a target that Member States should prepare management plans for all large carnivores. The drafting of management plans for large carnivores is also connected with measures to be taken at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in order to implement the initiatives on renewable natural resources and the countryside that are included in the Action Agenda of the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development. The Natural Resources Strategy of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry defines the aims for sustainable use of renewable natural resources and shared aims for all administrative sectors together with guidelines for each sector until 2010. Practical implementation of the Natural Resources Strategy is carried out primarily by each individual � sector with the help of various strategies and programmes. The strategy is also implemented through the operations and financial planning of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and through steering of the administration under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The management plan for the wolf population is one part of the implemen- tation of the Natural Resources Strategy carried out by the game management sector. 1.2 Preparation of the management plan The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry made preparations in 2002 for drafting the management plan for the wolf population by inviting statements from various bodies and starting to collect statistics and other background ma- terial. In order to base the management plan on extensive public hearings, the Ministry requested at the end of 2003 that the Institute for Rural Research and Training at the University of Helsinki should plan a research project with the aim of studying the socio-economic issues connected with management of the wolf population in Finland and thus prepare background information for the management plan. From the beginning of 2004, the University of Helsinki set out to implement a project to produce a proposal for a national management plan based on an exten- sive hearing procedure. Public hearing was also assigned particular value in a proposal connected with the Rural Policy Programme, according to which plans for the management of individual species of large predators in Finland should assign appropriate weight to views from the general public and the business sector, without risking the fa- vourable conservation status of the populations of these species. The project, entitled ‘Criteria for the management of the wolf population in Finland’, set out as the aim for its first stage to study people’s views on wolves, policy on wolves, expectations and demands in each province. The target groups consisted particularly of people whose everyday lives are affected by the presence of wolves, and organiza- tions and authorities that were involved in some way with conservation, the use of natural areas, or the relevant supervision. Another reason for the decision to use an extensive hearing procedure was the view that management of the wolf population is a sociological rather than a purely biological matter. In the course of preparing the management plan, 30 public hearings were arranged in different locations in Finland. A total of 1,617 people attended them to share their views on management of the wolf population. In addition, 220 actors in various regional interest groups were sent a questionnaire concerning the management of the wolf population, and some 1,000 people were involved in preparing the responses. A similar process was also carried out with interest groups at the national level, this time with 14 respondents. Separate meetings were arranged with all parties defined as stakeholders with the aim of establishing cooperation. A total of 16 such meetings were held, with over 200 participants in all. A research report on this process, which lasted for months, and its main results was published in the publication series of the Institute for Rural Research and Training at the University of Helsinki. In addition to this, the project also collected together other research material based on random samples that had been produced during the past few years on the subject of Finnish people’s attitudes to large carnivores and their expectations concerning trends in the populations of large carnivores. On August 18, 2005, the Institute for Rural Research and Training at the University of Helsinki submitted to the Min- istry of Agriculture and Forestry a draft for a management plan for the wolf population in Finland. After that, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry prepared a version based on the draft that was dated September 5, 2005, and this proposed management plan was widely circulated for comment, starting on September 9, 2005. As a result, 61 comments were received. They all considered it important that the drafting of a management plan was based on international obligations, national characteristics and the hearing of local people, regional actors and national stakeholder groups, and taking their views into account. The bodies commenting on the plan generally felt that Part 1 of the draft plan was an excellent information package and very few comments, suggestions or clarifi- cations were made concerning it. The attitude to the measures proposed in Part 2 of the draft management plan was also generally positive, and most measures were supported unconditionally. On the other hand, many propos- als for amendments were also made to Part 2, particularly concerning the definition of ‘favourable conservation status’, population management areas, the population targets set for those areas, and derogations from the protec- � tion of the wolf. Furthermore, many of the comments from the population management area in western Finland expressed great reservations about the proposed development targets for the wolf population in the area. The management plan has been completed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the basis of the comments received. The remarks, suggestions and clarifications given in the comments have been taken into account in the management plan to the extent that they do not jeopardize the targets set in the management plan and its imple- mentation. In finalising the management plan, the obligations of Recommendations 59 (1997) and 74 (1999) of the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the sustain- able use principle of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the obligations of the Habitats Directive have all been taken into account so as to fulfil the international obligations placed on Finland concerning management of the wolf population. 1.3 Aims and measures in the management plan The management plan for the wolf population in Finland is divided into two main parts. Part 1 sets the background for the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s policy concerning the wolf population. It describes the biology of the wolf and the status of the wolf population and compares the situation in Finland with international research where relevant. Part 1 also deals with topics such as national legislation, international obligations and forms of co- operation, the economic losses caused by wolves, the shared history of the wolf and man, previous aims of wolf population management, the nature of that management so far and sociological research into large carnivores. Further, Part 1 comprises research material drawn from the hearing procedure which is closely linked with the prac- tical part of the plan, i.e. the actual management plan. The practical management plan presents guidelines based on the biology of the wolf, on the one hand, but also on socio-economic facts that are considered important in this context on the other. Finland will apply all this in its con- tinued systematic management of the wolf population and efforts to stabilize the wolf population as a permanent part of the Finnish wilderness and its wide diversity of wildlife. The fundamental aim of management and conservation of the wolf population is to maintain a favourable conser- vation status for the wolf. This aim will be implemented through the combined effect of different measures. Meas- ures are proposed for the management of regional wolf populations, the prevention of damage and a lowering of its costs, compensation for damage, the granting of derogations from the protection of wolves, monitoring the wolf population, research and how to develop it, the provision of training, advisory services and information, supervision of hunting, cooperation among the various parties involved and the division for the responsibility for population management. The measures to be taken will take into account economic, social and cultural requirements and re- gional and local characteristics. The management plan for the wolf population in Finland included in this document describes the actions that the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will implement in managing the country’s wolf population. Implemen- tation of the plan will be monitored and the plan will be developed if the need arises. Helsinki, December 19, 2005 Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Director General, Department of Fisheries and Game Juha Korkeaoja Seppo Havu � PART 1. BACKGROUND 2. The biology of the wolf and the viability of the wolf population 2.1 Status and development of the wolf population in Finland (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) 2.1.1 Background The wolf has a larger range than other wild terrestrial mammals, even if it has been exterminated from much of North America and Western Europe. It is also a high- ly adaptable species, being found in all vegetation zones in the Northern Hemisphere (Mech & Boitani 2003b). Wolves breed well and have a potential for rap- idly expanding into new areas. Wolves form established pairs and generally reproduce every year. A wolf pack is usually a family unit made up of one pair (the so-called alpha pair) and its offspring. Other types of pack structure are known, but they are much more rare (Mech & Boitani 2003b). The wolf feeds on a variety of other mammals that oc- cur in its habitat. The main diet generally consists of large ungulates, in the boreal zone generally moose (Pulliainen 1965, Olsson et al. 1997, Gade-Jörgensen & Stagegaard 2000, Kojola et al. 2004a). In the reindeer herding area, the wolf’s main prey is reindeer (Pulliain- en 1965, 1985). The conflict between wolf and man is caused largely by the wolf’s tendency to kill livestock. One wolf causes several times the amount of livestock damage caused by a bear or lynx (Kojola 2005). Unlike the other large carnivores in Finland, the wolf will also kill domestic dogs for food. The wolf is also quite widely considered to be dangerous to humans, and about one in three Finns is afraid of wolves (Lumiaro 1997). In certain rare situations and circumstances, wolves are known to have attacked humans (Linnell et al. 2002). 2.1.2 Monitoring of population numbers A rough outline of the population numbers and trends in the Finnish wolf population can be gathered from hunting statistics from the 1840s onward (Ermala 2003). Actual population monitoring has been carried out from 1968 onwards, when the Frontier Guard began to record wolves crossing the Finnish border, following an initiative from Professor Erkki Pulliainen. These records enable us to track changes in population den- sity in the border region and to assess the migration of wolves into Finland (Pulliainen 1974, 1980, Pulliainen & Rautiainen 1999). The Frontier Guard districts have also produced estimated numbers for the area of their districts (Pulliainen & Rautiainen 1999). Minimum population estimates made by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RKTL) are based on the observations recorded by a monitoring network for large carnivores made up of volunteers. Observa- tions have been collected from 1978 onwards (Nyholm 1995). RKTL has improved the efficiency of its own in- formation gathering by starting a research project in 1998, which has so far (since spring 2005) fitted 82 in- dividual wolves with radio or satellite collars in a re- search area that covers southern Kainuu, North Karelia and North Savo. Studies on movements and habitat have produced information on the number of wolves in the main distribution range of wolves in Finland and considerably helped in interpretation of the observa- tions recorded by the volunteer monitoring network. The wolf population is organized in family packs, pairs and lone wolves that are usually young animals search- ing for a new territory and a partner. The family packs and pairs have their own territories and observations concerning them form clusters on the map, each of which represents a separate pack or pair. Lone wolves without specific territories account for 15–25% of the overall population. From 1996 onwards, the RKTL has monitored the trend in the number of litters in Finland. The occurrence of a reproducing population and the number of yearly litters can be considered the most unambiguous descriptors of the status of the wolf population in Finland (Kojola 2003). The number of reproducing individuals, the so- called effective population size, has also been exam- ined on the basis of the population’s genetic structure (Aspi et al. 2006). 2.1.3 Variations in the wolf population in the 19th and 20th centuries For a couple of decades in the 1850s and 1860s, wolves were killed at a rate of about 400 individuals a year (cf. Ermala 2003). Taking into account example calculations � of the so-called sustainable harvest rate (29–34%; Keith 1983, Fuller 1989, Smietana & Wajda 1997), it is possible that the wolf population in Finland during that period was more than 1,000 at its highest. There was a clear change in the period between the end of the 1870s and the mid-1890s, when the annual number of wolves killed fell from about 300–400 wolves a year to a few dozen (Teperi 1977, Ermala 2003). In the last century, regular occurrences of wolves were limited to northern and eastern Finland (Pulliainen & Rautiainen 1999). Fluctuations in numbers were linked with population changes in northwest Russia, especial- ly Karelia (Pulliainen 1965, 1974, 1980, 1985). The ex- pansion of wolves into Finland from beyond the border with Russia was higher than average in, for instance, 1959–1963, 1975–1979 and 1982–1985 (Pulliainen 1985). The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute esti- mated that the wolf population had grown from 80 in- dividuals to 300 between 1978 and 1984, but that it had fallen to about one hundred individuals in 1985– 1987 (Nyholm 1996). The growth of the wolf popula- tion in 1978–1984 fits the time of the expansion that was observed in the early 1980s (cf. Pulliainen 1985, Pulliainen & Rautiainen 1999). The estimate of at least 300 wolves in 1984 seems very high, however, because the number of wolves killed in 1984–1986 (21, 15 and 12 individuals) remained at a fraction of the ecologi- cally sustainable number. Considering the number of killed wolves recorded, the wolf population should have grown in 1984–1987, but in fact, the population declined by about one third during this time. With a view to the number of wolves killed in 1984–1986 and the simultaneous rapid decline in the population, it would seem that there were far fewer wolves in 1984 than estimated. 2.1.4 Trends in wolf numbers in recent years The number of confirmed litters per year more than tri- pled in 1996–2004 (Figure 1). In 1996–1998, about five litters were recorded each year. In the early 21st cen- tury, the number of annual litters has risen from ten lit- ters in 2000 to at least 16 litters in 2004 (Figure 1). Measured by the minimum number of litters recorded, the annual growth in the wolf population (λ) in 1996– 2004 was an average of 1.17, i.e. 17%. The distribution range of the breeding wolf population has expanded westward as population numbers are growing (Figure 1). In the 1990s, litters were found on- ly in the Kainuu, North Karelia and Kymi game manage- ment districts, but in recent years, breeding wolves oc- cur regularly also in the South and North Savo game management districts. Individual litters have been re- corded even on the west coast of Finland (Pyhäjoki 2002 and Kristiinankaupunki 2004, see Figure 1) for the first time in over a hundred years (Kojola et al. 2005c). At the end of 1999, the minimum number of wolves in Finland was estimated to be 98 (Kojola 2000b). The cor- responding estimate for 2003 was 150 wolves (Kojola & Määttä 2004). At the end of 2004, there were at least 185–200 wolves (Kojola et al. 2005d). These estimates are based on the assumption that the approximate size of the wolf population can be derived by multiplying the number of family-based packs by ten (H. Sand et al., unpublished material). In estimating the wolf popula- tion in Finland, another thing that must be taken into account is that some of the packs with litters live on both sides of the border between Finland and Russia. The number of such packs has been multiplied by five. In estimating wolf numbers in Finland, and taking re- search results on the population structure and average litter size in Finland into account, an estimate of the minimum number of wolves in Finland can also be de- rived by multiplying the number of litters with the aver- age size of litters (Kojola et al. 2005a, 4,37, see the sec- tion on ‘Reproduction’) and by multiplying the resulting figure by 2.5, because the prey structure indicates that wolf pups account for about 40% of the wolf popula- tion in Finland (see the section on ‘The structure of the Finnish wolf population’). The minimum of 16 litters re- corded in 2004 thus give a result of 175 individuals. In addition to these, five litters were observed near Fin- land’s border with Russia, and it is assumed that these litters were born on the Russian side of the border. 2.1.5 The structure of the Finnish wolf population Family packs studied in eastern Finland in 1999–2004 consisted of an average of 7.0 individuals in the winter. The pack size is thus about the same as in the Scandi- navian wolf population (6.7 on average; H. Sand, per- sonal communication 2004) and bigger than in Poland or Italy (Ciucci & Boitani 1999, Jedrzejewski et al. 2000, Apollonio et al. 2004). One reason for this may be that the main prey species are smaller in the deciduous zone (cf. Mech & Boitani 2003a). In Fennoscandia, pack size is about the same as it is for wolves in Alaska, whose main source of food is moose (cf. Fuller et al. 2003). The 10 biggest family pack in the research area in eastern Fin- land consisted of 12 wolves, the smallest packs of three. Pack size has a clear connection with pack history. In the winter following the birth of the first couple of lit- ters, average pack size was 5.4 individuals (variation 4–7 wolves, n = 14). After subsequent litters, average pack size was 8.4 wolves (variation 3–12 wolves, n = 21). The gender division of the Finnish wolf population has shifted from a majority of males to an even distribution between males and females. In 1969–1979, there were far more males than females among wolves killed (65.8%, n = 123 wolves, Pulliainen 1980), but in the data on wolves killed in 1996–2004, the percentage of males was 47.7% (n = 108 individuals, Kojola et al. 2005a). The earlier dominance of males would indicate that there were more males than females among the wolves migrating from Russia. An analysis of the genetic struc- ture of the Scandinavian wolf population based on old museum records also suggests that males would tend to move further than females (Flagstadt et al. 2003). However, results from wolves fitted with transmitters do not indicate any differences between males and fe- males in terms of percentage of dispersing individuals or the distances they travel (Boyd & Pletcher 1999, Ko- jola at al. 2005b). On the basis of the size of the Finnish wolf population, the average litter size and the data on the number of litters, it is possible to estimate that wolf pups account for about 40% of the Finnish wolf population. An ex- treme example of wolf reproduction in Finland is the situation after the 2000 breeding season in Kuhmo, where in three wolf packs (n = 35 wolves total) 57% of Figure 1. Wolf litters in 1996–2004 (Kojola et al. 2005b). 11 the wolves were under one year of age. In North Amer- ican wolf packs, the percentage of pups in the winter has varied between 29–67% depending on the area (Fuller et al. 2003). Of the wolves killed in Finland in 1996–2004, 42% were less than a year old (n = 72 wolves, whose ages were determined on the basis of dental samples at the Matson laboratory in Montana). One-year-olds accounted for 28% and wolves older than one year accounted for 30% (Kojola et al. 2005a). A comparison with the monitoring data on the Scandi- navian wolf population (P. Wabakken, personal commu- nication 2005) indicates that the age distributions in Finland and Scandinavia are similar. This distribution is characteristic of an expansive wolf population. 2.1.6 Reproduction, mortality and expansion of the wolf population Reproduction Female wolves usually have their first litter when they are about two years old. The data on Finnish wolves in the wild so far comprises eight females. Five of these had their first litter at the age of two and three had their first litter at the age of three. The number of pups in a litter has been estimated early in the winter. The litters in the research area in eastern Finland had an average of 4.3 pups aged under one year (variation 1–8 pups, n = 27 litters). First litters had an average of 3.4 pups (n = 11) and subsequent litters 5.1 pups (n = 16) (Kojola et al. 2004a). The first litters were the same size as in the Scandina- vian wolf population (3.5; O. Liberg, personal commu- nication 2005). Compared with the North American populations, the number of pups (4.3) in winter packs was higher than average, because only 21% of the re- search data (n = 14) presented by Fuller et al. (2003) had a higher number of pups than the packs in western Finland. Mortality In North American wolf populations (n = 9 studies on different populations), the annual mortality of adult wolves varied between 14–44% (Fuller et al. 2003). In North America, populations have fallen only if the mor- tality of adult wolves has been 40% or more (Fuller et al. 2003). In Finland, a minimum mortality rate for wolves fitted with transmitters can be calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate; this rate was 17.5 ± 6% (n = 40 wolves, Kojola et al. 2005b). After the early stages of life, wolf mortality outside con- servation areas is mainly caused by humans (Fuller et al. 2003). Research data collected by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute determines or esti- mates the cause of death for 25 wolves fitted with col- lars. Most of them (80%) were estimated to have been killed as a result of permitted hunting or other killing. The cause of death for the remaining individuals includ- ed traffic, illnesses or being killed by a moose or other wolves. Expansion of the wolf population Young wolves generally leave the territories were they were born in the research area in eastern Finland in April–May, at an age of about 11–12 months. Only a small minority remain in their original territory longer than this, and the estimated average age for leaving is 13.5 months (Kojola et al. 2005b). There is no signifi- cant difference between males and females in terms of the distance to the new territory (average 150 km, with- in a range of 35–445 km, n = 20 wolves). Most of the new territories are less than 100 km from the area where the wolves were born. Dispersal is fairly even in all directions (Figure 2). The wolves’ movement is likely to be steered by the fact that young wolves try to avoid the territory of neighbouring packs (Kojola et al. 2005b). For the dispersal of young wolves into new areas, re- search material suitable for comparison is available for North America. In North America, wolves generally leave their territory of origin later than they do in east- ern Finland (cf. Kojola et al. 2005b), but in Minnesota in 1969–1989, for instance, young wolves also generally left their original packs as pups or one-year-olds (Gese & Mech 1991). One of the explanations for the early in- dependence of young wolves in eastern Finland is prob- ably that there are areas without wolf territories avail- able in several directions around the cluster of wolf ter- ritories in the research area (see Wolff 1997). The size of the distribution area of the wolf population in Finland grew from some 20,000 km2 to about 100,000 km2 (Figure 3) in 1996–2004. This means that the distribution area grew to five times its size in 1996 while the number of litters quadrupled. There is a linear relation between the distribution area of the wolf pop- ulation and the number of litters (Figure 3). 12 2.1.7 Sources of food and populations of prey species In Finland, the moose is the main source of food for the wolf (Pulliainen 1965, Gade-Jörgensen & Stagegaard 2000, Kojola et al. 2004a). In the research area in North Karelia, moose accounts for over 90% of the biomass used by wolves for nutrition (Gade-Jörgensen & Stage- gaard 2000). In the Kainuu area, where there is wild forest reindeer, moose accounts for 75% and wild for- est reindeer for 20% (Kojola et al. 2004a). The remain- ing 5% consists of smaller prey. On the whole, moose is not favoured over wild forest reindeer, because the percentages in the diet of wolves correspond fairly ac- curately with the biomass ratio of moose and wild for- est reindeer in the area. The percentages of moose and wild forest reindeer show clear seasonal fluctuations. In January–March, the wolves’ diet contains almost no wild forest reindeer, but in the autumn and early in the winter, it is their main prey (Kojola et al. 2004a). In Finland, there are about 150,000 moose before the moose hunting season, and some 90,000–100,000 moose in the winter (V. Ruusila, personal communica- tion 2005). There are moose throughout Finland, but in recent years densities have been highest in central Fin- land and in the coastal areas (Figure 4). Occurrences of white-tailed deer and roe deer are limited to the west- ern and southern parts of Finland (Figure 4). It is esti- mated that there are some 35,000–40,000 white-tailed deer and some 15,000–20,000 roe deer (V. Ruusila, per- sonal communication 2005). Wild forest reindeer occur in Kainuu and Suomenselkä (Figure 4). According to an airborne census performed in 2005, there are about 1,000 wild forest reindeer in Kainuu. This number has fallen rapidly in recent years. In 2003, there were about 1,000 wild forest reindeer in Suomenselkä, but it is as- sumed that the population has grown since then. Humans have an impact on wolf populations both di- rectly and indirectly, while forest management has had an impact on the food sources of the wolf’s prey spe- cies, such as moose (Seip 1992, Heikkilä & Härkönen 1996, Rempel et al. 1997). On the other hand, the pop- ulation density of moose in Finland remains below the level determined by food resources in any case (V. Ru- usila, personal communication 2005). The food situation of wolves can be roughly outlined by using the ungulate biomass index, which makes it pos- sible to compare different areas (Keith 1983, Fuller 1989, Fuller et al. 2003). When the fact that the Euro- pean moose is smaller than its North American counter- part is taken into account in the grounds for calculation Figure 2. Dispersal of young wolves from their home territory. The dark symbols indicate the estimated location of the new territory (Kojola et al. 2005b). Figure 3. The relation between the number of annual litters and the distribution area of the wolf population in 1996- 2004 (Kojola et al. 2005a). 13 Figure 4. Distribution index for white-tailed deer (% of land area), density of moose population (individuals per 1,000 hectares, 5-year average), distribution index for roe deer (% of land area) and occurrence of wild forest reindeer in Finland (Ruusila & Kojola 2005, unpublished). 14 of the index, and the comparison figure for size is set at five instead of six as used by Keith (1983) and Fuller (1989), the index per wolf for the 20,000 km2 area of eastern Finland is 470 (3.7 wolves and 350 moose per 1000 km2; moose population data V. Ruusila/ Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute). The index is higher than the average for North American research areas (271, within a range of 97–659; Fuller et al. 2003). The density of the moose population in Fin- land is about half that of the areas in Scandinavia where wolves occur and lower than in most areas in North America where moose occur (cf. Fuller et al 2003), but still seems to enable a relatively high rate of repro- duction in a wolf population of the present size (see the section on ‘Reproduction’). 2.1.8 Habitats In southernmost Finland, as in most of Europe, the hab- itat of the wolf consists of forests that are interspersed with habitation and road networks (cf. Linnell et al. 2000). In eastern Finland, wolves occur mainly in for- ested areas where there is a lower-than-average den- sity of roads and human habitation (Kaartinen et al. 2005). Wolves are not selective about the age or den- sity of trees in the area where they breed (Kaartinen et al. 2005). Radio positioning suggests that wolves living in established territories avoid human activity even when moving within their own territory (Kaartinen et al. 2005). In future, research on wolves’ use of their ter- ritory will also be based on use of GPS transmitters, helping to provide a more comprehensive picture than we have now about wolf movements at night. In its movements, the wolf population seems to avoid both habitation and roads (Kaartinen et al. 2005). The connection between sparsely inhabited areas and wolf observations produced by Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute monitoring of large carnivores is il- lustrated in Figure 5. Although wolves generally strive to avoid people, wolves are still observed near human habitation and even in people’s yards. This would ap- pear to have an effect on people’s attitudes towards wolves. 2.2 Wolf populations in Finland’s neighbouring areas (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) Over the last few decades, wolf numbers have grown and the area in Europe where wolves occur has expand- ed (Boitani 2003). The wolf has recently expanded to countries such as France and Germany (Boitani 2003). In Finland’s neighbouring areas, wolf populations have both increased and decreased. The present wolf population in Scandinavia originated with a litter born in 1983 (Wabakken et al. 2001). In 1991, the population that was descended from this one pair was supplemented with another male (Vila et al. 2003). Figure 5. Population density outside urban built-up areas and wolf observations in Finland in 2003 (sources: Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute observations of large carnivores and municipal statistics). 15 All three founding members of this population derive from the Fenno-Russian wolf population, according to an analysis of genetic material (Vila et al. 2003). Other cases have subsequently been discovered, which also indicate that there is some kind of connection between the Scandinavian and the eastern wolf populations; for instance, a male wolf shot in Jämtland, Sweden, in win- ter 2004/2005 came from the Fenno-Russian wolf pop- ulation while a female shot in eastern Lapland had been tagged in southern Norway (O. Liberg, personal communication 2005, P. Wabakken, personal communi- cation 2005). Some of the pairs in the Scandinavian wolf population are so closely related that their first litters are smaller than normal (Liberg et al. 2005). However, the Scandi- navian wolf population has grown rapidly (see e.g. Ar- onson et al. 1999, 2004) since the average net increase in numbers has been 29% a year (Wabakken et al. 2001). At present, the Scandinavian wolf population consists of about 120–140 individuals (H. Sand, unpub- lished material). In northwest Russia, the province of Karelia has been the main area of origin for wolves crossing into Finland (Pulliainen 1980, Pulliainen 1985, Pulliainen & Rau- tiainen 1999). Over the past twenty years, the wolf pop- ulation of Russian Karelia has fallen to about half of what it was in the early 1980s (Danilov et al. 1998, Danilov 2003). There are some 300–350 wolves in Rus- sian Karelia (P. Danilov, unpublished material), and south of the Gulf of Finland in Estonia, the number of wolves has fallen even more rapidly in recent years (Männil 2003). 2.3 Red List of threatened species (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) In the latest Red List of Finnish threatened species, pub- lished in 2001, the wolf is classified as Endangered (EN) (Rassi et al. 2001). The report states that on the basis of the number of breeding individuals (under 50), the wolf ought to be classified as Critically Endangered (CR). The classification determined on the basis of pop- ulation size was reduced to EN, however, as the Finnish wolf population is supplemented by wolves from Rus- sia. Although the classification of a species as Endangered does not give the reasons for that status, the report nevertheless says that the main reason for wolves be- ing endangered and the main risk factor for them is hunting. The report goes on to say that one of the im- portant issues for the protection of endangered species is how to maintain a balance between the protection of large carnivores and hunting. The wolf, in particular, is considered so endangered that the population cannot support much decimation. In conclusion, it is stated that the aims for the protection of large carnivores should be examined and adjusted. In the case of the wolf, the report is based on the situation and population data for 1998. According to Kojola (1999), there were at least 95 wolves in Finland at the end of 1998, while at the end of 2004, there were at least 185–200 wolves in Finland (Kojola et al. 2005d). According to the report, the new endangered status is not a proposal for action in the same way as a previ- ously assigned Red List of threatened species. Further- more, the probability of biological extinction does not always tell us enough about an individual species’ need for protection or the ways in which it can be protect- ed. 2.4 Viability of the wolf population (Jouni Aspi, University of Oulu & Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) To put it simply, the continued existence of the wolf population in a specific geographic area only requires that the sum of reproduction and immigration is bigger than or at least as big as the sum of mortality and em- igration. The main factor influencing this balance are the food resources available and the mortality caused by man (Fuller et al. 2003). In estimating a viable mini- mum population, it is fundamentally a question of esti- mating the risk of extinction for a specific period in the future. Key starting points include the minimum number of individuals required for preservation of the popula- tion and the minimum area required (Shaffer 1987, Soule 1987). The required minimum number of individ- uals is significantly influenced by birth rate and mortal- ity, and also by immigration and emigration. Another key basis for evaluation is the genetic structure of the population, as a reduction in the genetic diversity un- dermines the general vitality and reproductive ability of individuals (Gilpin 1987). Inbreeding has been found to reduce the lifespan of individuals and the reproductive ability of females in wolf populations kept in captivity (Laikre & Ryman 1991). Mating between close relatives among wolves in the wild also tends to increase off- spring mortality (Liberg et al. 2005). 16 Finland’s wolf population is genetically diverse. Diver- sity is described by the observed heterozygosity found, and this was the same, 0.71, both for the research pe- riod 1996–1998 (n = 39 wolves) and 1999–2001 (n = 31 wolves) (Aspi et al. 2006; the age of the generation of wolves was used as the basis for the division into three-year periods). In the samples collected in 2002– 2004 (n = 47), the observed heterozygosity was slight- ly lower than before (0.68). The values obtained were at the same level as those of eastern European or North American wolf populations (Wayne 1996, Lucchini et al. 2004). The observed heterozygosity is lower (0.59) in the Scandinavian wolf population, which is known to be inbred, and it is also lower in the isolated wolf pop- ulations in mountainous regions in Italy (0.44) and Spain (0.50). The index describing the extent of inbreeding was slightly higher for the Finnish wolf population in the most recent research period (- 0.045 in 1996–1998; - 0.052 in 1999–2000 and 0.032 in 2002–2004), but it is still well below that of Italy (0.10) or Spain (0.17) (Luc- chini et al. 2004). The index change observed in the Finnish data was not statistically significant, but it may indicate that inbreeding is on the increase (Aspi et al., unpublished material). One explanation could be that immigration of wolves has fallen as a result of the de- crease in the wolf population in Russian Karelia. Frankham et al. (2002) estimate that the negative ef- fects of inbreeding can be avoided if the number of re- producing individuals is clearly over 50. The theoretical calculation referred to above examines the viability of independent populations. The wolf population in Fin- land is supplemented by individual wolves arriving from Russia, although there is no exact information on the number of these new arrivals. Observations based on genetic data (Aspi et al. 2006) and data on the devel- opment of the wolf population in Russian Karelia (Danilov et al. 1998) seem to indicate that the signifi- cance of immigration may have fallen. The wolf population in Finland is linked with that of Russia along the entire length of the border between the two countries. According to Boitani (2003), it is pos- sible to regard the Finnish wolf population as a fringe population of a large population of some 25,000– 30,000 wolves. If it is assumed that the migration of wolves into Finland from outside will continue in the future, too, it can be estimated on the basis of the ef- fective population size derived from genetic analysis, i.e. the number of breeding wolves (42.5; Aspi et al. 2006) and the previous population estimate (150; Ko- jola & Määttä 2004), that Finland should have 20 breed- ing pairs in order to ensure that the effective population size remains at over 50 (J. Aspi, unpublished material). This requires that the migration of wolves from popula- tions in Russian Karelia into Finland remains unchanged. If the number of migrants falls from the present level, Finland would need over 25 breeding pairs of wolves. Analyses of the viability of the wolf population have been criticized for not taking the flexibility typical of the species and the regional variations in habitat, e.g. in the population density of prey species, into account suffi- ciently (Boyce 1992, Fritts & Carbyn 1995). In 2004, the Finnish wolf population consisted of at least 16 pairs that had bred in Finland and five pairs whose territories extended onto both sides of the border between Fin- land and Russia (Kojola et al. 2005d). The increase in the population, its genetic diversity and its production of pups (some 40% pups in the winter population) all indicate that the wolf population has a great deal of potential to be viable. 17 3. Economic losses caused by the wolf population in Finland 3.1 Wolves as a cause of damage (Ilpo Kojola, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute) Outside the reindeer herding area, the amount of dam- age done by wolves differs considerably between indi- vidual wolves, with 10–20% of the wolf population causing about 80% of the damage. These individual dif- ferences may arise from differences in the environment of the wolves in question and in individual tendencies. Linnell et al. (1999) emphasize in their overview of the literature that the number of opportunities on offer and the recurrence of such opportunities have an impact on the risk of damage to livestock caused by large carni- vores and they also question the significance of indi- viduality. However, the tendency of wolves in eastern Finland to kill domestic dogs showed striking differenc- es between packs and the differences were unconnect- ed with the number of dogs or the populations of prey species locally (Kojola et al. 2004c, but cf. also Kojola & Kuittinen 2002 concerning the possible impact of moose population density). On the other hand, material col- lected in Sweden showed a clear connection between the number of damage incidents per territory and the use of dogs (Karlsson & Thoresson 2002). Damage by wolves to reindeer husbandry has tradition- ally occurred mainly in the reindeer herding districts along Finland’s eastern border (Nieminen & Leppäluoto 1986). In recent years, there has been most damage in Kainuu. This is mainly due to the fact that independent young wolves from the family packs to the south of the reindeer herding area have dispersed into the area of the Kainuu reindeer herding districts (Figure 2). 3.2 Types of damage, amount of damage and location of damage (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) Damage by wolves to reindeer makes up the biggest damage category in terms of individual animals. The number of reindeer killed by wolves has varied in recent years between less than 50 reindeer killed in 1995 and nearly 600 reindeer in 2002. In examining damage to reindeer, it is important to bear in mind that not all rein- deer killed by carnivores are found. Sheep are suitably sized prey for wolves, and the behav- iour of sheep when threatened, i.e. gathering into herds and becoming paralysed with fear, makes them a par- ticularly easy prey for wolves. Damage to sheep is the second biggest damage category. A certain amount of cattle also fall prey to wolves (Figure 6). Wolves are occasionally seen in the yards of houses and certain individuals may, as a result of either starvation caused by sickness or learned behaviour, strive repeat- edly to seek food in yards. Young wolves moving to new areas may also visit the yards of houses, apparently ei- ther in search of food or because of the dogs in the yard. In addition to this, there are numerous observa- tions by locals of radio-tagged wolves visiting their yards, often yards where dogs are kept. Even if these visits do not cause any damage, they tend to give rise to fear locally and to demands that wolves that come Figure 6. Damage caused by wolves that was reported to the authorities and compensation paid in Finland in 2000–2003 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, unpublished). 18 too close to habitation should be eliminated (Bisi & Kurki 2005). Attacks on dogs and loss of dogs are one of the biggest problems that undermine tolerance of the wolf popula- tion at the local level (Palviainen 2000). According to damage compensation statistics kept by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, wolves have killed between 20–40 dogs a year on average in Finland over the past few years. A closer analysis of the damage to dogs in eastern Finland has shown that about half of the dogs were taken from their yard, while the rest of the dam- age took place in the context of hunting (Kojola & Kuit- tinen 2002). It should be noted that not all dogs killed by wolves are entered in the official damage statistics, since not all dogs taken by wolves are found and not all these dogs are reported to the compensation system due to the de- ductible involved. Damage to dogs accounts for a con- siderable proportion of the cost for all damage done by wolves. For example, about half the damage that was compensated for in 2003 consisted of damage to dogs. There were 31 recorded incidents of such damage and their combined cost came to about EUR 38,000. In recent years, damage by wolves to dogs has occurred in different parts of Finland. In 2003, the damage that took place in North Karelia and compensation for it raised the total sum of compensation and the total damage considerably, accounting for about half of all damage to domestic animals in Finland. If we examine all the damage that has occurred over the past few years and the compensation paid, it is clear that most of the damage occurred in the areas with the highest wolf population density, i.e. North Karelia, southeast Finland and Kainuu. In North Karelia, the total sum of compensation paid in 2001–2004 came to about EUR 47,000, and the sums for southeast Finland and Kainuu came to over EUR 20,000. Compen- sation was also paid in Northern Savo and Ostrobothnia of over EUR 10,000. Elsewhere, damage was either lim- ited to a few thousand euros, or just hundreds of euros. Appendices 1–3 give statistics on damage according to the territories of the Employment and Economic Devel- opment Centres (T&E Centres); the diagrams show in- cidents of damage by species and year, the category ‘other’ refers to damage other than animals being killed, e.g. veterinary care costs, chewed and broken GPS equipment for hunting dogs, etc. It is difficult to predict the effect the population growth and expansion of wolves on the trend in damage, but the amount of damage appears to be linked with the size of the wolf population. Damage caused by wolves has grown with the increase in the wolf population, and in 2003, the wolf population was already causing more damage subject to compensation payments than all other large carnivores put together. The volume of livestock farming also has an impact on the amount of damage. In 2004, there were about 21,500 working farms with livestock in Finland, and just over half of these, some 13,000 farms, grazed their an- imals outdoors. Of these farms, about 1,000 kept sheep (Figure 7), for which the risk of damage is the highest. Generally, the bigger sheep farms tend to lie in south- western Finland or Pirkanmaa, but there is a fairly even distribution of sheep farms throughout Finland. The presence of wolves has various kinds of effects on human activity, for instance on the keeping of dogs and other domestic animals, but also on how freely children can be permitted to move around outdoors. Although there are no recorded incidents of wolves attacking hu- man beings in Finland for over 100 years, many people still refuse to consider wolves as harmless and are, in fact, afraid of wolves (Lumiaro 1997, Bisi & Kurki 2005). This should be seen against a background of stories and myths, but also a number of actual incidents of wolves killing children in the 19th century. Many Finnish mu- nicipalities provide transportation to school for children because of the occurrence of wolves in the area, which causes additional costs for these municipalities. 19 Figure 7. Sheep farms and the occurrence of wolves in Finland. 20 4. National legislation, international obligations and international cooperation (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 4.1 The position of the wolf in national legislation in Finland 4.1.1 Summary of changes of the position of the wolf in Finnish legislation from 1973 onward The hunting legislation concerning wolves has been amended several times during the past 30 years. Table 1 shows a brief summary of the main content of the amended provisions. 4.1.2 Hunting legislation concerning the wolf currently in force Wolves outside the reindeer herding area In Finland, wolves outside the reindeer herding area are among the species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (Animal and plant species of Community in- terest in need of strict protection). This requires that measures are taken to establish a system of strict pro- tection for the wolf in its natural range and a prohibi- tion on all forms of deliberate capture or killing of spec- imens of this species in the wild. The Habitats Directive has been implemented in the Finnish hunting legisla- tion by defining the wolf as a game species that is al- ways protected outside the reindeer herding area (sec- tion 24(2) of the Hunting Decree). It must be possible to make exceptions to this protected status under certain specific circumstances. Derogation is possible only for particular, justified reasons under the grounds for derogation given in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive. However, this requires that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. The grounds for derogation given in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are: a) in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats; b) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property; c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; d) for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants; e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities. The above-mentioned provisions concerning deroga- tions are set down in Section 28 of the Hunting Decree. Under this section, if no other satisfactory solution ex- ists and the hunting does not endanger the mainte- nance of a favourable conservation status, exceptions to the general closed season for wolf as laid down in section 24 (2) may be made: 1) in order to conserve natural wild fauna or flora; 2) in order to prevent particularly significant damage to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry or other property; 3) for compelling reasons of public health, general safety or other particularly important reasons in respect of public interest, including financial and social reasons, and when the exception yields benefits of primary importance for the environ- ment; and 4) in carefully supervised circumstances selectively and to a restricted extent in order to take certain individual animals. A hunting licence can be granted for the above purpos- es for the period between November 1 and March 31. Hunting licences are granted by the game management districts subject to restrictions set down separately by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Table 1. Amendments to the hunting legislation concerning wolves from 1973 onward. Act/Decree Adopted on In force Content 749/1973 14.9.1973 14.9.–31.12.1977 Wolf protected throughout Finland with the exception of the reindeer herding area until the end of 1977. 1038/1975 31.12.1975 1.1.1976– Bounty on wolves is abolished. 720/1977 7.10.1977 1.1.1978–31.12.1979 It is permitted to hunt wolf all year round in the reindeer herding area and in the municipalities of Kuhmo, Nurmes, Lieksa, Ilomantsi, Tuupovaara, Tohmajärvi, Värtsilä and Kitee between September 1 and March 31. Wolf otherwise protected. 1000/1979 21.12.1979 1.1.1980–31.12.1981 It is permitted to hunt wolf all year round in the reindeer herding area and in the municipalities of Kuhmo, Nurmes, Lieksa, Ilomantsi, Tuupovaara, Tohmajärvi, Värtsilä and Kitee between September 1 and March 31. Wolf otherwise protected. 1000/1981 23.12.1981 1.1.1982–31.12.1984 It is permitted to hunt wolf all year round in the reindeer herding area and in the municipalities of Kuhmo, Nurmes, Lieksa, Ilomantsi, Tuupovaara, Tohmajärvi, Värtsilä, Kitee, Kesälahti, Punkaharju, Uukuniemi, Saari, Parikkala, Rautjärvi, Ruokolahti, Imatra, Joutseno, Taipalsaari, Nuijamaa, Lappeenranta, Lemi, Ylämaa, Luumäki, Miehikkälä, Virolahti, Vehkalahti and Hamina between September 1 and March 31. Wolf otherwise protected. 830/1984 5.12.1984 1.1.1985–31.12.1987 It is permitted to hunt wolf in the provinces of Kymi, North Karelia, Oulu and Lapland between September 1 and March 31. Wolf otherwise protected. 1133/1987 23.12.1987 1.1.–31.12.1988 It is permitted to hunt wolf in the provinces of Kymi, North Karelia, Oulu and Lapland between November 1 and the end of February. Wolf otherwise protected. 1165/1988 23.12.1988 1.1.1989–31.12.1990 It is permitted to hunt wolf in the provinces of Uusimaa, Kymi and Lapland between November 1 and the end of March and in the provinces of North Karelia and Oulu between November 1 and the end of February. Wolf otherwise protected. 1136/1990 14.12.1990 1.1.1991–31.12.1992 It is permitted to hunt wolf in the provinces of Kymi and Lapland between November 1 and the end of March and in the provinces of North Karelia and Oulu between November 1 and the end of February. Wolf otherwise protected. 1246/1992 11.12.1992 1.1.1993–31.7.1993 NB! The hunting season remained unchanged until March 31, 1994) It is permitted to hunt wolf in the provinces of Kymi and Lapland between November 1 and the end of March and in the provinces of North Karelia and Oulu between November 1 and the end of February. Wolf otherwise protected. 666/1993 12.7.1993 1.8.1993–14.1.1997 NB! The hunting season remained unchanged until March 31, 1994) Game animals are protected as follows: … 5) wolf is protected in the reindeer herding area defined in section 2 of the Reindeer husbandry Act (848/1990) between April 1 – October 31, and elsewhere in Finland throughout the year; … 1374/1996 30.12.1996 15.1.1997– 31.12.1998 Game animals are protected as follows: … 5) wolf is protected in the provinces of Kymi, North Karelia and Lapland, as well as the province of Oulu in the Kainuu game management district and in the Oulu game management district in the reindeer herding area defined in section 2 of the Reindeer Husbandry Act (848/1990) between April 1 – October 31, and elsewhere in Finland throughout the year; … 869/1998 27.11.1998 1.1.1999– A) Section 24 General closed seasons Game seasons are closed as follows: … 5) wolf in the reindeer herding area April 1 – September 30 … Wolf outside the reindeer herding areas, bear, otter, wolverine, lynx and harbour seal are always protected. B) Section 28 An exception to the general closed seasons … For the purposes referred to in subsection 1 above, the hunting of the following is permitted: 1) wolf outside the reindeer herding area November 1 – March 31; … 664/2001 19.7.2001 1.8.2001– A hunting licence as referred to in section 10(2) of the Hunting Act (615/1993) must be obtained for: … 4) hunting wolf in the reindeer herding area. Hunting licences are granted by the game management district. 22 Wolves in the reindeer herding area Wolves in the reindeer herding area fall under Annex V of the Habitats Directive (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and ex- ploitation may be subject to management measures). This category, though less strict than that of Annex IV, does not provide for uncontrolled hunting either, since the Habitats Directive requires that the taking of indi- vidual wolves from the wild and exploitation must not be detrimental to the maintenance of a favourable con- servation status for the wolf. The above has been taken into account in the Hunting Decree by requiring a hunt- ing licence for hunting wolves in the reindeer herding area. Hunting licences are granted by the game man- agement districts within the restrictions set down sepa- rately by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The hunting season is defined by law as the period between October 1 and March 31. 4.2 European Community law 4.2.1 The Habitats Directive The aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote conser- vation of biodiversity through the conservation of natu- ral habitats and wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty ap- plies. Measures taken in accordance with the Directive strive to maintain or restore a favourable conservation status for natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. In terms of the conservation of habitats, the wolf is a ‘priority species’ in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. This means that the wolf is a species of Community in- terest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation. In practice, this means that the Natura 2000 network should comprise wolf habitats in order to ensure that a favourable conserva- tion status is maintained or restored for wolf habitats in the natural range of the wolf. However, the require- ments in Annex II are not applied to the Finnish wolf population, as Finland was given a derogation on this point in the accession documents. In terms of protection for the species, the wolf comes under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection). According to Article 12 of the Habitats Di- rective, Member States are required to take measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV (a) in their natural range and a prohibition on all forms of deliberate capture or kill- ing of specimens of these species in the wild. However, the requirements of Annex IV are not applied to the Finnish wolf population in the reindeer management area, as Finland was given a derogation on this point in the accession documents. The provisions of Annex IV are applied elsewhere in Finland. Wolves in the reindeer herding area in Finland fall un- der Annex V of the Habitats Directive (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management meas- ures). Under Article 14 of the Habitats Directive, Mem- ber States are required to take measures to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora listed in Annex V as well as their exploi- tation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status, if, in the light of surveil- lance, the Member States deem it necessary. The Habitats Directive is binding on the Member States. National legislation must comply with the requirements of the Directive, and national derogations from provi- sions set down in the Directive are not possible. 4.2.2 The CITES regulation The CITES regulation is European Community legisla- tion governing international trade in endangered spe- cies of animals. It is in force in its own right, requiring no national legislation to implement it. The CITES Con- vention has been established on the basis of the CITES regulation, and the Convention is described in more de- tail in section 4.3.2 below. 4.3 International treaties 4.3.1 The Bern Convention Aims The Convention on the Conservation of European Wild- life and Natural Habitats, often called the Bern Conven- tion, was adopted in Bern on September 19, 1979. The Convention entered into force in Finland on April 1, 1986. The aim of the Convention is the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those species and habitats whose conservation requires the cooperation of several States, and to promote such cooperation. The Bern Convention gives particular em- 23 phasis to endangered and vulnerable species, including endangered and vulnerable migratory species. Under the Bern Convention, the Contracting Parties shall take requisite measures to maintain the popula- tion of wild flora and fauna at, or adapt it to, a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements. In doing this, the Contracting Parties shall take account of economic and recreational requirements and the needs of sub-species, varieties or forms at risk locally. Each Contracting Party shall take steps to promote na- tional policies for the conservation of wild flora, wild fauna and natural habitats, with particular attention to endangered and vulnerable species, especially endemic ones, and endangered habitats, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Each Contracting Party undertakes, in its planning and development policies and in its measures against pollution, to have regard to the conservation of wild flora and fauna. Each Contract- ing Party shall promote education and disseminate gen- eral information on the need to conserve species of wild flora and fauna and their habitats. The status of the wolf In the Bern Convention, the wolf falls under ‘Strictly protected fauna species’ (Appendix II of the Conven- tion). The Convention requires the prohibition of all forms of deliberate capture and keeping and deliberate killing of wolves. However, Finland entered a reserva- tion in the instrument of ratification to the effect that the Convention shall not apply to the wolf. Measures under the Bern Convention Action plans for the conservation of all European popu- lations of large carnivores have been made under the Bern Convention (see Boitani 2000, Breitenmoser et al. 2000, Landa et al. 2000, Swenson et al. 2000). The ac- tion plans set as a target that all Member States should prepare national management plans for all large carni- vores on land. For instance Sweden, Norway and Esto- nia have already drawn up management plans for large carnivore populations (Appendix 4). In addition to this, several recommendations on large carnivores have been issued. Some of the most important ones are list- ed below. Recommendation No 17 (1989) Recommendation of the Standing Committee on the Protection of the Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe. Recommendation No 43 (1995) Recommendation on the Conservation of Threatened Mammals in Europe. Recommendation No 59 (1997) Recommendation on the Drafting and Implementation of Action Plans of Wild Fauna Species. Recommendation No 74 (1999) Recommendation on the Conservation of Large Carnivores. Recommendation No 82 (2000) Recommendation of the Standing Committee on Urgent Measures Concerning the Implementation of Action Plans for Large Carnivores in Europe. 4.3.2 The CITES Convention (Veijo Miettinen, Finnish Environment Institute) The CITES Convention (The Convention on Internation- al Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) governs international trade in endangered of animals and plants. The Convention entered into force on July 1, 1975. Finland has been a party to the convention since August 8, 1976. So far, over 160 states have become parties to the Convention. Trade in specimens of the species listed in Appendix I of the Convention is prohib- ited. Trade in species listed in Appendix II of the Con- vention is not prohibited, but it is subject to permits. These appendices correspond to Annexes A and B of the EU legislation implementing the Convention, Council Regulation 338/97. It should also be taken into account that in the EU this particular regulation on trade applies not only to trade between Member States but also to trade within Member States. In Finland’s neighbouring areas in Norway and Russia, the wolf is listed in Appendix II and thus available to international trade. Within the area of the European Un- ion, the wolf, and also the brown bear and the lynx, are listed in Annex A of the above Council Regulation, the list of species under the strictest protection, because this Regulation also implements the restrictions on trade in species listed in the Habitats Directive. This means that the trade is prohibited. However, it is still possible to sell products derived from wolf in Finland if the wolf in question has been legally obtained and a certificate issued by the game management association 24 can be produced for it and if a sales permit has been obtained by certificate from the Finnish Environment Institute. Such certificate also confers a sales permit for other parts of the European Union. This permit system makes it difficult to sell products deriving from illegally killed wolves. 4.3.3 The Convention on Biological Diversity The Convention on Biological Diversity was drawn up in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 1992. The Convention en- tered into force in Finland on October 25, 1994. The aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity is the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic re- sources. Sustainable use is defined in the Convention as meaning the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long- term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. The aims of the Convention and measures taken in ac- cordance with it have certain impacts on management of the wolf population, too. Responsibility for any meas- ures belongs to the relevant authorities. 4.4 Nordic cooperation 4.4.1 Cooperation between the authorities The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been taking part in meetings with the authorities re- sponsible for large carnivores in Sweden and Norway (Naturvårdsverket in Sweden and Direktoratet for Naturførvaltning in Norway) since 2000. Meetings are held once or twice a year in the different countries in turn to discuss topical matters concerning large carni- vores and ongoing projects. 4.4.2 The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers are in charge of official Nordic cooperation. The Nordic Council was founded in 1952 and is the forum for Nor- dic parliamentary cooperation. The Council has 87 members, representing the five Nordic countries and three autonomous territories. The Nordic Council of Ministers was founded in 1971 as the forum for coop- eration between the governments of the Nordic coun- tries. The Nordic Council has proposed a common Nordic ad- ministrative strategy for large carnivores. The Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian authorities commented on the revised proposal at a seminar arranged by the Council’s committee on natural resources and the environment on September 24, 2002. Following closer scrutiny, the Council of Ministers has since found that there is al- ready cooperation between Finland, Norway and Swe- den on matters concerning large carnivores and that a common administrative strategy is not feasible. 4.4.3 The North Calotte Council The North Calotte Council is a permanent cooperation organ between Finland, Sweden and Norway, whose task is to increase cooperation in the North Calotte re- gion in areas such as regional policy, labour market pol- icy and other areas of cooperation that have an impact on employment in the North Calotte. The North Calotte Council is mainly funded by the Nordic Council of Min- isters. The area of operations consists of the counties of Nordland, Troms and Finnmark in Norway, the counties of Norrbotten and Västerbotten in Sweden and the province of Lapland in Finland. The large carnivores committee of the North Calotte environmental council that is subordinate to the North Calotte Council has published four reports on large car- nivores: a status report on wolverine, lynx, wolf and brown bear in the North Calotte in 1993; a proposal for parallel monitoring of large carnivore populations in 1994; a proposal for parallel administration in 1996; and a status report on wolverine, lynx, wolf and brown bear in the North Calotte in 1992–2000. In addition, the committee has issued recommendations on coopera- tion between Finland, Sweden and Norway in matters regarding large carnivores. 4.4.4 The coordination group for Nordic research on large carnivores The purpose of the group is to coordinate Nordic re- search on large carnivores. The group comprises repre- sentatives of the relevant authorities in Finland, Swe- den and Norway (the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Naturvårdsverket in Sweden and Direktoratet for Naturførvaltning in Norway) and other notable funding bodies. Coordination has been used particular- ly to start major research projects on large carnivores 25 between Sweden and Norway. The group meets annu- ally. 4.5 Other international cooperation Under the cooperation between neighbouring areas of Finland and Russia, the authorities responsible for game species and game researchers have arranged joint sem- inars and shared information on the status of the ani- mal populations involved, population trends and trends in research and population management. There have been various meetings every year. There is similar coop- eration with Estonia and other countries in southeast Europe. 26 5. Management of the wolf population so far 5.1 The aims of the Working Group for Large Terrestrial Carnivores 1996–2010 (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) In January 1996, the Council for Environment and Nat- ural Resources appointed a working group of experts to draw up an estimate of the populations of wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine, the ideal populations of these spe- cies and related viewpoints including regional distribu- tion and justifications for it, measures to be taken to avoid damage by carnivores and any issues related to population control, using the best available information and data as background for their report. The working group submitted its unanimous memorandum to the Council for Environment and Natural Resources on Oc- tober 31, 1996. The Council approved the report of the working group and on November 13, 1996, proposed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that the man- agement and sustainable use of the populations of large carnivores in Finland should be outlined up to 2010 in the way proposed by the working group, using population management districts. The 1996 report of the Working Group for Large Terres- trial Carnivores (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1996) put forward the following aims for the wolf pop- ulation in each population management district up to 2010: Figure 8. The population management districts and targets for the wolf population proposed by the Working Group for Large Terrestrial Carnivores for 1996-2010. I Northern reindeer herding area +/- remains unchanged, +/- 0.5% per year i.e. +/- 7.5% during the report period II Western reindeer herding area +/- remains unchanged, +/- 0.5% per year i.e. +/- 7.5% during the report period III Eastern reindeer herding area +/- remains unchanged, +/- 0.5% per year i.e. +/- 7.5% during the report period IV Western Finland +++ increases clearly, over 4.0% per year i.e. over 60% during the report period V Central Finland +++ increases clearly, over 4.0% per year i.e. over 60% during the report period VI Eastern Finland +/- remains unchanged, +/- 0.5% per year i.e. +/- 7.5% during the report period 27 The objective was to reinforce the wolf population in the population management districts of western and central Finland, while in eastern Finland and whole of the reindeer herding area the population should stay on the level of 1995. The report was not a binding document for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or other parties. However, efforts have been made to follow the objectives set in the reports in the management of the wolf population at the Ministry. 5.2 Development of an information centre for large carnivores (Samuli Sillman, Metsähallitus) 5.2.1 Background The work to develop the visitor centre of Metsähallitus in Kainuu into the Petola Visitor Centre started in 2001 with a feasibility study concerning the founding of a national information centre for large carnivores, which would be managed by Metsähallitus. The initiative for creating an information channel on large carnivores came from the work of the Kainuu regional committee on large carnivores headed by the Regional Council of Kainuu. At the same time in 2001, work started to set up a web- site on the initiative of the Finnish Association for Na- ture Conservation to collect basic information on large carnivores, the latest information on research and pop- ulation management of large carnivores all in one place. The website (www.suurpedot.fi) was opened in summer 2002, and it had been set up together with rep- resentatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and For- estry, Metsähallitus, the Hunters’ Central Organization, the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RK- TL), the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and the Ministry of the Environment. As it was already known that an information centre for large carnivores would be established, the practical maintenance of the website was assigned to Metsähallitus. Maintenance and development of the website has been guided by a steering group of representatives of the bodies listed above. From spring 2003, Metsähallitus has been developing its visitor centre in Kainuu into a tool for information on large carnivores with the aid of two projects. One is a content production project that produces, for instance, an exhibition of a high standard on large carnivores and audio-visual and promotional material on large carni- vores, which also updates the content of the www.su- urpedot.fi website. Funding for this project run by the municipality of Kuhmo comes from the Interreg III A Karelia programme. The second project is the renovation and extension of the visitor centre to meet these new needs. As the con- struction work started, the name of the Kainuu visitor centre was changed to the Petola Visitor Centre. The aim of the extension is to improve the visitor centre with the addition of an extensive exhibition space, an auditorium, a classroom for nature studies and new customer service facilities. Metsähallitus received fund- ing for this project from the Labour Market Department of the Kainuu Employment and Economic Development Centre. 5.2.2 Petola Visitor Centre to become part of the national information provision on large carnivores The Petola Visitor Centre was opened to the public in June 2005. The Centre will have a clearly defined role in the visitor centre network of Metsähallitus as a cen- tre specializing in large carnivores and in providing in- formation on these. The setting for information provision was completed during spring 2005. Structures have been created for the guidance of information provision on large carni- vores to ensure that the service provision and informa- tion correspond to the needs of the various parties in- volved. Following discussions with the Ministry of Agri- culture and Forestry, a steering group has been set up to support the Petola Visitor Centre’s provision of infor- mation on large carnivores. The idea is that the steering group should be responsible for the operation and de- velopment of the www.suurpedot.fi website, in addi- tion to the information provision on large carnivores that takes place at the visitor centre. The role and main aims of the steering group are: 1. Providing instructions for the operating concept and service model of information provision on large carnivores at the Petola Visitor Centre; 2. setting targets for information provision and monitoring it; 3. monitoring and identifying the needs related to information on large carnivores; 28 4. providing instructions for the distribution of labour and partnerships in information provision; 5. recognition and implementation of any develop- ment projects needed; and 6. development of the www.suurpedot.fi website. In addition to representatives of Metsähallitus, repre- sentatives from the following organizations have been invited to join the steering group appointed to support information provision at the Petola Visitor Centre: the municipality of Kuhmo, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Hunters’ Central Organization, the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RKTL), the Finn- ish Association for Nature Conservation and the Minis- try of the Environment. 5.3 The regional cooperation model of North Karelia, Kainuu and North Savo (Jukka Bisi, University of Helsinki) A committee for large carnivores was founded in North Karelia in 1999 on the initiative of the provincial gov- ernment of North Karelia; representatives of forestry, wild berry pickers, hunters, farmers, the Frontier Guard, game management, conservation and the authorities were invited to join the committee. The purpose of the committee was to start discussion between the various stakeholders concerning their attitudes to large carni- vores and to develop a regional stance on the issue. In addition to discussion and interaction, the work of the committee also comprised research on large carnivores. Results of the operations included a publication from the University of Joensuu on large carnivores in North Karelia, particularly the encounters and experiences of the local people (Suurpedot Pohjois-Karjalassa, poh- joiskarjalaisten luonnonkäyttäjien kokemuksia suurpe- doista; Palviainen 2000) as well as a publication on large carnivores in North Karelia (Lyytikäinen et al. 2004). The committee has convened regularly and it has actively and interactively developed regional informa- tion provision on large carnivores and the prevention of damage as well as dealt with problems involved in the hunting of large carnivores. A regional committee for large carnivores based on the North Karelia regional cooperation model was founded in Kainuu in 2001. Initiatives taken by the Kainuu com- mittee include development of the initial project for the information centre on large carnivores in Kuhmo. It also helped promote interaction and cooperation between different parties. Another result of its operations was a 2003 report on the operations of the Kainuu regional committee for large carnivores in 2001–2003 (Kainuun suurpetoneuvottelukunta 2003). At the end of 2004, a regional committee for large car- nivores based on the North Karelia and Kainuu region- al cooperation model was also founded in North Savo. It was founded at a meeting convened by the Regional Council of North Savo. The aim of the committee is to provide further information on the situation of large carnivores in the region among the general public and decision-makers alike and to influence legislative work. 5.4 The hunting licence system maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Sauli Härkönen, University of Helsinki) 5.4.1 General The aim of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been to maintain a favourable conservation status for the wolf, and that management of the wolf population must be ecologically, economically and socially sustain- able. Public statements have repeated that the number of wolves could be allowed to increase in areas that are suitable and where the population density of wolves is still relatively low. The Ministry of Agriculture and For- estry has emphasized, however, that the wolf as a large carnivore must not be allowed to become an unreason- able burden for any particular area, population group or occupation. 5.4.2 Hunting licences, instructions for granting them and their focus The elimination of individual wolves and wolf hunting to prevent damage have been the means used in wolf population management and in balancing the demands of locals and the conservation needs of wolves. Accord- ing to the Hunting Decree, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may issue provisions concerning restriction of hunting allowed on the basis of hunting licences, the conditions for granting a hunting licence, the procedure to be adopted in issuing licences and information on al- lowable hunting, as necessary. Under the above, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has in recent years issued provisions to the game management districts concerning the number of wolves that can be hunted with hunting licences granted by the game manage- 29 ment districts under the Hunting Decree so as to ensure that a favourable conservation status is maintained for the wolf. It should be noted that the number of wolves that can be hunted with hunting licences is not a quota that has to be filled, nor is it grounds for granting a hunting licence. Restrictions issued have always been based on the annual wolf population estimates made by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RKTL) and the scale of sustainable hunting that has been estimated using these population estimates. The hunting of wolves has been subject to strict provi- sions. For instance, the potential for granting hunting licences for the 2005–2006 hunting season was re- stricted outside the reindeer herding area exclusively to the Kainuu, North Karelia and Kymi game management districts. The game management districts were permit- ted to grant hunting licences only for purposes given in section 28(1)(1–3) of the Hunting Decree, e.g. specifi- cally to prevent particularly significant damage. In the reindeer herding area, the game management districts of Lapland, Oulu and Kainuu were permitted to apply the normal procedures for granting hunting licences. The provisions have also taken wolves killed otherwise into account. This is referred to as ‘additional losses’ and comprises wolves killed either with special licences granted after the provisions were issued under section 41(2) of the Hunting Act or section 25 of the Police Act (493/1995) or other wolves killed by man that have come to light. The game management districts are re- quired to take these additional losses into account as a reduction in the number of wolves for which hunting licences are issued. This procedure exists specifically to ensure that the wolf population is not at risk under any circumstances. The total number of individuals lost from the wolf population due to hunting with hunting per- mits has been relatively small in recent years (Figure 9). The fundamental principle has been that hunting al- ways requires a hunting licence issued by a game man- agement district. As an exception, the Ministry of Agri- culture and Forestry has had the authority to issue hunt- ing licences for wolf in special cases on the basis of a case-by-case evaluation, despite the protected status of the wolf, for reasons given in Section 41(2) of the Hunt- ing Act (scientific research, game management, the pre- vention of damage, the prevention of disease or other approved reason) for the killing of a specific individual, even using prohibited hunting equipment and meth- ods. These special licences have been granted as far as pos- sible only during the times when the game manage- ment districts have not had the option of making an exception to the protected status of the wolf. In such situations the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has performed a case-by-case evaluation on the basis of the information given in the licence application and any statements enclosed with the application. This process also always takes the provisions of the Habitats Direc- tive into account. Furthermore, the Ministry of Agricul- ture and Forestry has requested statements from the local game management district and the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (RKTL) as background for its decision on whether to grant a licence whenever necessary. In considering its decisions, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has also used any other avail- able information that has been regarded as relevant for the decision. 5.4.3 Decisions on granting hunting licences and the relevant legislation Some of the cases where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has refused to grant a hunting licence for wolves have been reported to the Chancellor of Justice. The Chancellor of Justice has examined the matter on the basis of the Constitution of Finland. The relevant provisions for the matter are section 7(1) of the Consti- tution concerning the right to personal security, section 20(1), according to which nature and biodiversity are the responsibility of everyone, and, finally, section 22, which states that the public authorities shall guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights. Figure 9. Total number of wolves killed in the hunting seasons 2001/2002 – 2004/2005 with hunting licences granted by game management districts, licences granted by the police and special licences granted by the Ministry of Ag- riculture and Forestry. 30 In the reply (Dnro 1277/1/03 dated December 20, 2004), the Chancellor of Justice stated the following, among other things, about this matter: “The damage caused to domestic animals by carnivores and the threat they pose to people or are perceived to pose in consequence of being observed near people’s homes and immediate living environment are factors that undermine security in such a way as to make it the responsibility of the pub- lic authorities to eliminate the said factors. Wolves and indeed other carnivores are not part of the natural fau- na of inhabited areas in Finland. In this respect, the au- thorities must have at their disposal fast-acting and ef- fective means of dealing with carnivores that come near human habitation, built-up areas or traffic routes and other roadways used by people. On the other hand, the authorities also have duties concerning nature and biodiversity under section 20(1) of the Constitution. What we have here is a situation where securing a number of fundamental and human rights would seem to lead to conflict because of their opposing values, due in part to local circumstances. In such a situation, fun- damental and human rights must be weighted against each other and an attempt must be made to reconcile the interpretation of provisions causing conflict so as to ensure the implementation of fundamental rights in a way that complies with their intended purpose even in exceptional circumstances. However, the threat posed by carnivores cannot be eliminated in such a way as to endanger the natural biodiversity even of carnivore populations in wilderness areas in breach of the obliga- tions in section 20(1) of the Constitution.” Further, in conclusion the Chancellor of Justice states: “With reference to what has been said above, it must be emphasized that upholding the security that is guar- anteed as a fundamental and human right is the first priority of the public authorities. The authorities must be prepared to act and take measures to ensure that animals that cause insecurity can be dealt with or, in the most serious cases, eliminated. When a carnivore is ob- served in a place where there is a clear danger to hu- man safety, it is self-evident that the threat must be averted. The extreme action is to kill the animal. Assess- ment must, however, be based upon the provisions for derogation given in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive. In my view, these provisions for derogation enable leg- islation that allows for the practical implementation of measures needed to protect human life and property against threatening carnivores in the interests of public safety and possibly also in the interest of preventing property damage.” 5.4.4 The infringement procedure started by the Commission The Commission of the European Union has shown in- terest in Finland’s policy concerning large carnivores since 1995. To begin with, the Commission was asking for information mainly about the implementation of hunting legislation in Finland. As Finland gradually amended the legislation, the Commission’s statements began to focus more on the policy for granting hunting licences practised under the current legislation. In January 2005, The Commission announced that it was referring Finland to the European Court of Justice over the hunting of wolves. In a press release, the Com- mission stated the following: “The EU Habitats Direc- tive requires Member States to strictly protect a number of