Abstract
Conflicts between humans and large carnivores in Norway are high. Norway has developed an elaborate management framework to balance competing interests. This involves intensive use of lethal management of carnivores, mainly conducted by local hunters, organized under different legislative frames (e.g. quota hunting, license hunting, lethal management actions). Because of their key role it is essential to better understand the hunters who engage in carnivore hunting. In this study I examine the practices and motivations of the carnivore hunters within the framework of naturalist / philosopher / hunter Allen Jones (1997) which breaks motivation down into the process and the project of hunting, and underlines how technology influences the relative importance of these two aspects.
Using semi-structured interviews, I interviewed 14 large carnivore hunters in Norway that engaged in lynx hunting and wolf hunting. Hunters in Norway expressed multiple motivations to hunt lynx and wolves, including (1) fulfilling a societal role by implementing policy, (2) mastering skills, including the use of hunting dogs and effectively planning and coordinating the hunts, (3) reducing conflicts such as the risk of dogs being killed or livestock being depredated, (4) recreation, (5) belonging to a team or wider community, (6) rising to physical and mental challenges. Most hunters felt that hunting should be conducted using ethical practices that correspond to fair-chase for the animal and provided a richer process. However, in other contexts they were willing to sacrifice this emphasis on process in order to maximize efficiency in achieving the product of killing the carnivore. To do so they were willing to change practices and use technologies that would not be normal in standard hunting. In conclusion this study showed that Jones’ framework of separating between process and product was very useful to understand the complex motivations and practices of Norwegian carnivore hunters under different hunting contexts. The acceptability for the use of different technologies varied between contexts and influenced the relative importance of process vs product considerations. They differed between lethal management, license hunts and quota hunts. The lynx and the wolf did not differ much in the practices, but differed by being associated with different projects. I found that the biggest difference between Jones’ frameworks and the hunters was (1) the placed on the use of dogs, (2) their societal role as implementors of policy, (3) and the importance of teamwork.
Keywords: Large carnivore, hunting, motivation, practices
