10344_2015_925_Article 539..555

0 downloads 0 Views 699KB Size Report
May 9, 2015 - and Forest (INBO), Gaverstraat 4, B-9500 Geraardsbergen, Belgium. Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555. DOI 10.1007/s10344-015-0925-5.
1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555 DOI 10.1007/s10344-015-0925-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate Ann Van Herzele 1 & Noelle Aarts 2,3 & Jim Casaer 4

Received: 11 December 2014 / Revised: 27 April 2015 / Accepted: 28 April 2015 / Published online: 9 May 2015 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract Conflicts and debates on wildlife issues often prove Bintractable^ or resistant to resolution. This paper develops a three-layered methodological approach to identify the fault lines and dynamics, which perpetuate social division and conflict. This approach was applied to the analysis of six publicly debated events that followed the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium. The integrated findings demonstrate that conflict was not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but was highly determined by the conduct of the debate itself. The debates evolved along a few main fault lines, most notably Bbelonging/not belonging^, Bopportunity/threat^ and Bcontrol by intervention/nature controls itself^. A number of dynamics were identified along these fault lines, including the convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), the linking and scaling up of issues and the stigmatisation of outgroups. These processes were largely driven by the parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. At the same time, however, they tended to magnify the problems, polarised

Communicated by R. White * Ann Van Herzele [email protected] 1

Nature & Society research group, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium

2

Strategic Communication, WU Social Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, Netherlands

3

Corporate Communication, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018WV Amsterdam, Netherlands

4

Wildlife Management research group, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Gaverstraat 4, B-9500 Geraardsbergen, Belgium

positions along the fault lines, and thus hampered resolution. Furthermore, part of the debate served to confirm institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. Contrasting views on Bnature^ were hardly a topic of discussion. Rather they were locked into dichotomies and classifications expressed by the contending parties. Together, the findings from this paper provide useful clues for transforming the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relations between the parties involved. Keywords Intractable conflict . Dynamics of debate . Human-wildlife conflict . Fault line . Argumentation . Dichotomisation . Views on nature

Introduction Issues relating to nature have always been contentious, but they have become more prominent and politically mobilised in recent times. We are bombarded almost daily with reports about species facing extinction and natural habitats being in decline. Along with these are concurrent efforts to conserve and restore nature areas and biodiversity. Studies from across Europe show that such initiatives are confronted with many challenges, including the balancing of diverging interests and perspectives (Niemelä et al. 2005; Young et al. 2005) and the legitimacy of solutions being proposed (Paavola 2004; Keulartz and Leistra 2008; Arts et al. 2012). But meanwhile, there are also signs of recovery. Several bird and mammal species—beaver, white-tailed eagle, wild boar, moose, wolf, etc.—have made impressive recoveries as shown in the report BWildlife Comeback in Europe^ (Deinet et al. 2013). Whereas the reappearing animals help in creating conservation success stories, they are often associated with conflicts over their

Author's personal copy 540

presence or the way that they should be managed (e.g. Skogen et al. 2006; Kotulski and König 2008; Bisi et al. 2010; Garrote et al. 2013). Regarding large carnivores, another recent report (Linnell 2013) suggests that such conflicts are most severe when animals are recovering after an absence of decades or even centuries. It was assumed that people are no longer accustomed to living alongside them, and that old conflicts become reactivated also. The above observations set the scene for this paper about public debates on wildlife issues. Apparently, whether nature is in decline or in recovery, these debates remain intense. The conflicts that drive them are often long lasting and never fully resolved, as has been documented in many cases across Europe (e.g. Keulartz 2009; Blicharska and Angelstam 2011; Heydon et al. 2010; Redpath et al. 2013). Disputes about nature are obviously shaped by the specific sociopolitical and ecological contexts in which they occur, but they seem to raise remarkably similar questions, such as what nature to protect, why this should be done, how to do it and with what consequences. Disagreements over questions of this sort are not merely matters of fact, concern or interest. Underlying this dispute is often matters of content, that is, what Bnature^ is and how we should relate to it. By now, it is well documented that views on nature are entangled with highly diverse political responses to and engagements with nature (Eder 1997; Macnaghten and Urry 1998; Castree 2001; Drenthen et al. 2009; Haila 2012). Viewing nature as something to be developed and used versus something to be preserved for its own sake presents a classic example (e.g. Blicharska and Van Herzele 2015). Contrasting conceptions of nature may foster very different ideas regarding what should be done and how. And, conversely, such ideas can be made meaningful within mutually contradictory representations of nature. As a consequence, ambivalence is an unavoidable companion in the Bpolitics of nature^ (Haila 2012). Thus, conceptions of nature not only underlie but also permeate and animate the public debate in various ways. Several cases illustrate how contending parties in dispute propagate particular conceptions of nature to justify their respective positions in the debate (Harrison and Burgess 1994; Aarts and van Woerkum 1995; Buijs et al. 2011), to advance notions of expertise and to sustain professional identities and institutional competencies (Van Herzele 2006; Winkel et al. 2011). Any representation of nature tends to be concordant with an institution’s or social group’s self-preservation: its position as well as its ability to continue its operations in a certain direction (Van Herzele and Aarts 2013). As Beck (2009) suggests, the essential content of nature and the threats to it become produced and defined within particular groups and institutions and in the conflicts between them, and they are Bcorrelated with institutional power of action and organisation^.

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

The interplay of contrasting (and at times competing) conceptions of nature, their intermeshing with power, identities and other social relations makes any debate about nature far more complex and intractable than is often portrayed. The challenge of making those debates better understandable is therefore considerable. Much empirical work has been done to identify different views and concepts, representations and arguments about nature and—to a somewhat lesser degree— the strategic use and spread of these in public, institutional and political spheres (e.g. Whatmore and Boucher 1993; Harrison and Burgess 1994; Van Herzele 2006; Webb and Raffaelli 2008; Buijs et al. 2011; Arts et al. 2012). However, such views and arguments have been studied only marginally in relation to the features and dynamics of the debate itself. It is this aspect that we wish to address in the present research paper. To understand why debate about nature often seems intractable or resistant to resolution, we aim to examine how such debate evolves. So, our emphasis is not so much on particular nature conceptions underlying the debate, but more directly on the features of and processes in the debate which hamper resolution. We assume that understanding the dynamics of the debate is important in knowing how contrasting views on nature might go together with the perpetuation of conflict. For the purpose of such analysis, we develop a threelayered approach to the observation of debate. In this, we use the concept of fault lines from political science to sharpen our focus on the forces of tension and pressure within the debate. Our material comes from publicly debated events that followed the comeback of red fox and wild boar in Flanders (the northern federated region of Belgium). Before turning to them, we shall introduce the concept of fault lines and the three-layered framework.

Methodology The concept of fault lines Political scientists have borrowed the fault line concept from geology, more specifically the phenomenon that a solidly appearing rock might cleave along invisible lines (Brady 2011). Geologists have shown that rock molecules recrystallise and align so as to minimize pressure, thus producing fault lines along which geological change occurs. The mechanism by which this occurs for rocks hints at a way that it might occur in societies. Similarly, fault lines in societies might have something to do with the accumulating social tensions of managing change and unforeseen events (Brady 2011). Fault lines have been defined as contradictions that for a long time determine the matter of political conflict and delineate the contending camps (Elchardus 2007). The fault lines along which public opinion divides may be based, among

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

others, on social class, occupation, region and cultural values. They have in common that they perpetuate contradicting responses to a particular topic or question, and so continue to rule the landscape of conflict or tension. Current conflicts may be rooted in old fault lines or they may indicate the growth of new ones (Berger 1998). Elchardus (2007) notes that a fault line is more likely to persist when it links up with organisations—political parties, leisure organisations, newspapers, etc.—and when the contending parties succeed in translating new conflicts into the familiar fault line terms. Those who can define the conflict in terms of the fault line along which they have clearly profiled themselves will gain politically (Elchardus 2007). A recent example is the BMuslim headscarf^ debate, where headscarf opponents dispute the issue either in terms of secularity of the public sphere or in terms of gender-based oppression (Reilly 2011). Thus, fault lines—often labelled as dichotomies, e.g. secular-religious and urban-rural—can provide a kind of interpretation or coding scheme for issues addressed by policy makers, in news stories and popular culture media, and thus influence how the issue is defined. It is important to say that potential fault lines do not necessarily translate into conflicts, at least not immediately, they need to be activated, for instance, by sudden events. Meanwhile, the contradicting viewpoints are being kept alive and nurtured in organisations’ own media (Elchardus 2007) and in everyday talk (Kim and Kim 2008). As such, fault lines may drift further apart or separate groups of people, and viceversa, groups may play a role in maintaining these fault lines. The fault line concept is particularly useful as it refers to the forces of tension and pressure that build around them and fuel or perpetuate social division (rather than a priori distinctions between views on nature or groups of people). Whereas the concept itself does not explain the dynamics of these forces, it encourages us to look for these dynamics and subsequently (where appropriate using more specialised concepts) to scrutinise their role in the development of a debate. In the following we present an operational framework to apply the fault line concept to real-life debates. A three-layered observation of debate In order to identify the fault lines and dynamics, we develop a three-layered approach to the observation of debate. The distinction between the three layers is taken from Goodwin’s (2005) levels or components of argument, whereas the successive entry points to analyse them have a foundation in Luhmann’s (1995) three orders of observing arguments. The three-layered observation enables a comprehensive view on the dynamics of debate with respect to its main components. The first layer of observation takes the perspective that arguments are Bproducts^ of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of the arguments, i.e., what these

541

arguments say. For instance, what is the claim and what evidence supports it? We look for recurring contrasts, incompatibilities and other tensions in the views expressed, as well as the form in which these are presented. Tensions can arise from contradicting responses to a particular topic or question, incompatible pieces of evidence, etc., but also from language itself (e.g. opposite terms and value-laden language). The second layer of observation uses the perspective of arguments being exchanges or Btransactions^ between arguers and audiences. So, we take a step back to observe what is going on in such social interactions. That is, what parties do with the arguments, what they aim to achieve and what strategies they employ to this end. As Luhmann (1995) stated, we are no longer interested in what the reasons and evidence are, but simply that they are sought and employed by the arguers. Specifically, we seek to reveal how particular argumentative moves promote (or prevent) division and conflict. The third layer of observation takes the perspective that arguments are conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. We take another step back to observe how debaters Bfit^ their arguments into broader configurations of social relations. Social groups, institutions and other such networks have their own perspective or worldview, and their own sets of rules, discourses and practices that place limits and conditions on what arguments can be employed in a specific transaction. And conversely, arguments have a role to play in a network’s operation: enabling an organisation’s efficient functioning (Luhmann 1995), reproducing the dominance of its discourse and confirming shared identities, values and commitments. Thus, arguments not only make manifest the nature of network relations, including the tensions in them, but they also have a role to play in shaping these relations.

Background and data sources The red fox had almost disappeared from Flanders (from the western part in particular) in the first half of the nineteenth century, due to changes in land use and severe prosecution (Van Den Berge and De Pauw 2003). However, in the last decades of the twentieth century, foxes recolonized the whole region. Their comeback went largely unnoticed in the beginning but suddenly there were sightings of foxes everywhere, even in cities. This phenomenon, together with fox-related nuisance and proposed solutions to deal with them, gave rise to heated debates. In particular, the Flemish government’s decision to ease restrictions on fox hunting was (and still is) a subject of controversy. After disappearing from Flanders at the end of the eightieth century, wild boar only came back in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Since then their population continues to increase and spread over Flanders, as documented by hunting

Author's personal copy 542

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

statistics (Scheppers et al. 2013). Because of the risk of crop damage, car accidents and the spread of diseases, complete eradication of wild boar was the government’s initial response. But this goal was quickly seen to be unrealistic, given the actual landownership and hunting legislation. A pilot project on collaborative management was the start for a new wild boar policy that resulted in newly allowed hunting methods and wild boar management zones. Nevertheless, wild boar conflicts and disputes continue to arise. The material presented here is based mainly upon observations of public debate following the comeback of the red fox and wild boar. We observed the debate in various forums: mass and social media, parliament, advisory reports, specialist magazines and websites (Table 1 for an overview). To start with, we used a database from the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), which is systematically recording items of news related to nature in Flanders. We then conducted additional Internet searches—no time limits were set—to complement the material and to access local news and social Table 1

media sites. Nature and wildlife magazines were consulted in the INBO library. After forming an impression of the broad issues under discussion, we decided to organise observations around a number of events. Six events were selected on the basis that they covered the main issues discussed, provoked contradictory responses and represented a great variety of forums and stakeholders involved. The events were first observed separately and presented in a narrative form (observations of public debate in six events section). In a next step, the findings were compared and integrated in the three layers of debate (integrated findings and discussion section). Data collection and comparisons were aided by the Rationale argument mapping software (http://www.austhink. com/) to visually represent the reasoning or argument structure. In this manner, we produced so-called Breasoning maps^—diagrams of reasons, objections and evidence in support or opposition to a claim—as compact displays of lengthy pieces of text and speech. Overall, the diagrams helped us work out what the reasoning actually is (Van Gelder 2007)

Overview of events

Event

1. Foxes being spotted: do they belong here?

Factual information

Forums observed

•From the 1990s onwards: observations of foxes Websites of organisations dealing with nature throughout Flanders (also including road and other conservation, animal rehabilitation, wildlife kills); management; •A symposium on foxes (27.04.2005). Social media (Facebook, personal blog); Presentations given at symposium; Scientific communications; Local newspapers. 2. Poultry killed by foxes: •Local newspapers and authorities report on poultry Local and regional newspapers; who’s to blame? depredation by foxes; Websites of organisations dealing with nature •Natuurpunt and Vogelbescherming Vlaanderen conservation, animal rehabilitation, agricultural launch BSmarter than the Fox^ campaign information, construction information; (explaining how to protect your chickens) (2010). Websites of municipalities. 3. Fewer restrictions on fox •Parliamentary Hearing on hunting and damage by Parliamentary documents: annals, questions and hunting: a necessary foxes, geese, pigeons and wild boar (26.10.2010); answers, hearings, commissions; decision? •Vogelbescherming starts campaign Bfriend of the Recommendations by Environment and Nature fox^ (end 2010); Council of Flanders (MiNa-raad); •Government decision to permit hunting out of season Organisations and political parties websites and (in certain circumstances) as a measure to prevent press releases; damage by foxes (23.03.2012); Television reportage and debate; •Students action group starts campaign against the Ecological expert advice reports. Minister (end 2011). 4. Growing numbers of wild •Wild boar quickly spread (most in the province of Regional and local newspapers; boar: the question of Limburg); Websites of organisations dealing with nature (in)tolerance •Newspapers report on damage to agriculture and car conservation, agricultural information, forestry; accidents; Presentations given at symposium about wild boar; •A symposium on wild boar (25.09.2010). Scientific communications; Government policy documents. Regional and local newspapers; 5. Organised hunts: keeping •Hunts are organised to cull the wild boar; populations under control? •New wild boar policy vision: delineation of areas of Readers’ reactions to news articles; Government policy documents; zero-tolerance/controlled tolerance (2011); •New wild boar hunting season approved (2013) and Parliamentary documents. hunting methods legalised (2014). 6. Wild boars threaten jogger •A jogger’s dog is attacked and hurt by a pack of wild Readers’ reactions to the news article with dog: or is it the wild boar while strolling in the forest (19.11.2012) boar being threatened?

Time period 1995–2013

2005–2013

2010–2013

2009–2013

2011–2013

21.11.12

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

543

in both authored texts (e.g. opinion piece in magazine) and strings of interaction (e.g. transcript of parliamentary discussion and public reactions posted on the Internet).

Observations of public debate in six events Foxes being spotted: do they belong here? Over the last decade, lots of sightings of foxes have been posted on Internet forums. The following Facebook conversation was in reaction to a video that follows a fox walking through a pond:1 Li LL: BNicely filmed! Is that fox alone or part of a couple? To what extent is it a threat to the other animals in the Polder?^ Natuurpunt HP (local nature group): B… The fox belongs in our ecosystem, we have no problem with that. It will sometimes rob a coot nest, but that is Nature! The preservation of the ecological corridor through … [specification] is also of vital importance for the fox.^ Li LL: BThus, it arrived by itself, not purposely placed like the cows and the horses?^ Natuurpunt HP: BThe fox came very spontaneously. As we also have polecat and stone marten, even roe deer. It illustrates how important it is to preserve connections with other nature areas.^ Rosette DR: BThat’s true Nature!!! Keep it that way!!!!!!^ Pascale B: BBeautiful creature! I hope he/she stays away from busy roads.^ This encounter shows a mixture of excitement and concern among the commentators, while the nature conservation group praises the merits of the ecological corridor. Remarkable is the shared and undoubted view of nature as good and spontaneous. This conception then underpins a kind of evaluative dichotomy that we call belonging/not belonging. According to the nature group, a robbing fox in the Polder is not a problem as it belongs there, it is the way of Nature. The commentators only start speaking of true nature when it becomes clear that the fox had come on its own to the Polder. That the fox belongs in Flanders can be found in many introductions to informative texts about foxes. Historical and geographical references were used to further support the return and the presence of the fox as being a completely natural phenomenon: Foxes belong to our native fauna and form an important link in the ecosystem.2

1

Facebook Natuurpunt Hobokense Polder, 19.06.2011 Petition to save the fox set up by Bird Protection Flanders and Natuurpunt, 2010 2

After 150 years of absence in large parts of Flanders, in less than 10 years the fox filled up this unique gap in its distribution area since the middle of the eighties.3 A phenomenon that occurred in most of Western Europe in a spontaneous way.4 The naturalness of the process was defined using terms like Breconquering its place^, Bre-colonisation of historical habitats^ and Brevival^. In addition, the fact that the fox had vanished through human intervention was often emphasised: During the first half of the 19th century the fox became extinct in the western part of Flanders through a combination of habitat loss such as deforestation and persistent eradication by fulltime hunters.5 Indeed, before one can speak of a return at all, the fox must previously have disappeared. Apparently, if the latter process is human-induced, it adds to the naturalness of this return. The evaluation of belonging rests on a limited set of dichotomous definitions (e.g. natural/unnatural) of dichotomous facts (e.g. presence/absence and arrive/disappear). And, Bnaturalness^ serves as a key marker in these assessments. This was aptly summarised in the following quote: It is not the presence of the fox that is unnatural, its absence for decades (and centuries) was unnatural.6 By contrast, fox opponents stressed the unnaturalness of the process, speculating about the possibility that foxes were released or had escaped, which in turn resulted in all kinds of disputes over facts. In response to that, a fox researcher made great efforts to refute such speculations one by one in a lengthy report, emphasising: … the fact that we are dealing with a spontaneous phenomenon, instead of an unnatural situation fixed by ecologists.7 Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO): BPopulation dynamics of Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Flanders^, www.inbo.be 4 K. Van Den Berghe: BFood ecology of the fox in Flanders^, presentation given at Symposium on Foxes, Brussels, 27.04.2005 5 Natuurpunt: BThe fox^, www.natuurpunt.be 6 K. Van Den Berghe (INBO): BPeople should learn to live with foxes^, 25.11.2008, VILT (Flemish Information Centre for agriculture and horticulture), www.vilt.be 7 K. Van Den Berghe: BThe fox vulpes vulpes in Flanders: inventory and synthesis of the major bottlenecks^, in: Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Bosbouw en Wildbeheer 1995 (1). 3

Author's personal copy 544

A frequent counter-argument was that Flanders’ current urbanised environment is entirely different to the historical situation and does not provide suitable habitat for the fox:

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

the number and type of chickens attacked, along with the dismayed reactions from their owners: I was as happy as a king with my dozens of chickens and ducks^, says the 59 years old hobby breeder … BIt turned out to be a big disappointment^ he sighs. BI take a lot of measures to protect my animals. I lock them in their coop overnight, but when I leave for work in the morning I have to let them roam free. A few days ago, the fox killed all my chickens… It’ s not a pleasant sight when you come home and find your yard full of corpses… My grandchildren Arne and Brecht are fond of the chickens and ducks but I’m afraid if they come looking for them. I dare not tell them the truth^, he says despairingly.12

This species does not belong anymore to our modestsized Flemish biotopes and densely populated society.8 The fox WAS gone from our region. Now, it is completely built-up, they put the fox again, allegedly to keep natural balance…. Stupid move, if you ask me!9 Much was at stake in this struggle for Bthe truth^. It was recognised, indeed, that if the fox does not belong in Flanders there is hardly a reason to protect it. For instance: Frustrated hunters began to spread lies in the press by stating that environmentalists had released the foxes. The purpose of these lies was to deny the natural resurgence of the fox in Flanders and to consider the presence of the fox as unnatural. This would be the preferred explanation to gain public opinion for the intense killing of foxes.10 Also notable in this quote is the reference to strained relationships (between hunters and conservationists). Identities were stereotyped and contrasted by making insinuations and one group blaming the other. This often happened when findings of killed or injured animals were reported: A long time ago our greatest predator was as good as extinct but has made a huge revival … Nature conservationists welcome this, hunters do the opposite. They hate foxes because foxes are predators, and predators need meat. Meat like rabbits, pheasants, that is, animals they like to have on their own plate. It is no wonder that illegally shot foxes are found so often.11

Poultry killed by foxes: who’s to blame?

Such personalised stories depict how foxes not only affect livestock, but social life and relationships too. Meanwhile, those in favour of foxes voiced concern that the accumulation of incidents was damaging the fox’s Breputation^. One strategy used to improve the image people have of foxes was praising the fox for the benefits it brings, for instance: The fox belongs in our nature and fulfils an important role there. The fact is that foxes help to naturally regulate the populations of small rodents, rabbits and birds.13 In this respect, the fox was often classified as a Buseful animal^, definitely not Bvermin^ like the large amount of rats and mice it is supposedly eating. Some farmers confirmed this and asserted (in on-line forums) that the fox is their Bally^ in keeping down rodents. Another strategy for fox defence was condoning the killing of chickens (even without consuming them) as an evidently natural behaviour driven by survival instincts. So, nothing is wrong about this. Several texts—in particular by nature conservationists and animal help centres—took this line of argument a step further by saying that foxes are Bfood opportunists^ and will therefore attack chickens when given the chance, for instance: When it comes to food the fox is a true opportunist. When a fox passes an unprotected henhouse it will not miss the opportunity for a quick snack.14

Those encounters with foxes that got the most attention in the media were the ones with backyard chickens. Newspapers provided quite detailed information about the bloody scenes, 8

Wildlife Management Unit Flemish Ardennes: BIs there still a need for foxes^, 21.03.2013, http://www.wbe.be/ vlaamseardennen 9 Discussion on the Bouwinfo forum: BLiving together with the fox^ 22.10.2010 www.bouwinfo.be 10 H. Schockaert: BThe cunning old fox ?!?^, http://home. scarlet.be/webvos 11 Nature Help Centre: BFoxes shot…^, 01.03.2009, www. natuurhulpcentrum.be

The conclusion is obvious: People should ensure that their chickens are protected properly to prevent foxes from getting at them. Thus, in a way, the responsibility was shifted onto the News article: BPoultry holder considers petition against protection of foxes^, Agripress 26.07.2012 13 Nature Help Centre: BFoxes^, www.natuurhulpcentrum.be 14 Bird Protection Flanders: BFoxes and poultry^, www. vogelbescherming.be 12

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

545

there is today no area in Flanders where only humans or only foxes live.18

poultry keepers. And, chickens became victims of irresponsible owners rather than foxes. This idea was further promoted in a BSmarter than the Fox^ campaign with the fox proof chicken coop. However, this solution was often rejected as too expensive for the average person to afford. Furthermore, culinary terms like Bfree buffet^, Bset table^ and Bfast food restaurant^ invited one to look at the situation from a fox’s perspective. This was also happening sometimes to place responsibility on hunters, because they shoot so many rabbits and partridges that there is little left over for the fox:

When humans live within a foxes’ territory, the latter do not cross any border. While such reasoning may serve to Bnaturalise^ the presence of the fox, it tends to emphasise the same fact—i.e. the urbanised and fragmented contemporary landscape—as those contesting the naturalness of fox populations. An alternative attempt was to value our contact with the Bwildness^ of the animal:

What would you do for food when all you have left is a chicken coop?15

It is a fantastic animal… which first shows us that wild animals are living in our immediate surroundings.19

Beautiful animals that only act on survival instincts. How would you be yourself?16 By shifting perspective to the fox’s point of view, the damage becomes also less relevant. However, the idea that foxes do not survive independently in nature also provided a reason to doubt the claims about their natural presence and beneficial role in nature. Revealing in this respect was a discussion among poultry keepers on a forum for construction and renovation.17 Along with the exchange of experiences, tips and tricks for chicken protection, the following criticisms were also raised: A frequently heard argument is that the fox keeps wild animal populations in check. While it does not even catch wild animals because there are easier meals in people’s gardens.

Fewer restrictions on fox hunting: a necessary decision? With the continuous flow of headlines and news stories, opinions and some protest actions too, pressure was growing on politicians to tackle the Bproblem of foxes^. In their press releases and speeches in Parliament, some political parties and the Hubertus hunters association (HVV) pointed to the seriousness of the problem as evidenced by citizen complaints and local mayors ringing alarm bells. Apart from damage to livestock, Bthe fox^ was said to pose possible risks to public health. For these reasons, they called for fewer restrictions on fox hunting, such as permitting it out of season and even at night. Whereas facts of damage, loss and risk were cited at length, it appeared that social acceptability rather than damage itself carried the most political weight. For instance, as one politician concluded:

The fox will not tire itself out with controlling rat, rabbit and frog populations, but simply steal people’s chickens, ducks and bunnies. So the fox is a nuisance and nothing more.

The social support base for the fox has been gradually exceeded in Flanders and measures to regulate the fox population are required.20

Every henhouse is, in principle, in a foxes’ territory… People must learn to live with the presence of foxes. Whereas formerly they could stay away from each other,

Overall, the dynamics of debate showed a remarkable tendency to broaden the issue base. Firstly, issues got magnified through multiplying single incidents (such as poultry killed by foxes) to form a Bsocietal problem^ on the scale of Flanders. Scaling up the issues was also facilitated with repetition of incidents in the mass media and through the transfer of complaints from locals to the Minister. Fox opponents shifted attention from the animal to its population (also called the Bfox plague^), which was said to be unnaturally high. Similarly, the

Public reactions on Radio 1 programme Bfox soon outlawed?^ 06.04.2010, www.radio1.be 16 Nature Help Centre: BOnce again dead foxes…^ 04.01.2005, www.natuurhulpcentrum.be 17 Discussion on the Bouwinfo forum: BSlaughter in our henhouse^, 06.11.2011 www.bouwinfo.be

K. Van Den Berghe (INBO): BPeople should learn to live with foxes^, 25.11.2008, VILT (Flemish Information Centre for agriculture and horticulture), www.vilt.be 19 G. Hoste (Flemish comedian): column in Mens & Vogel, October 2010 20 I. Sabbe: BFox population in Flanders should be regulated^ Press release LDD 20.10.2010 www.ldd.be

Thus, the explanation of food opportunism is also working against the fox when it finds those opportunities outside nature. An interesting attempt to put the fox back into its natural habitat, at least symbolically, was Bincluding^ people’s gardens into the foxes’ territory:

18

15

Author's personal copy 546

issue of predation was scaled up by using the naturalness dichotomy: I repeat again my call to the whole Flemish nature sector: open your eyes to reality and stop entrenching yourself in the belief that predation is natural, because the level of predation occurring today in Flanders is not natural anymore!21 Furthermore, it was argued that fox predation causes an imbalance in nature. Hunters in particular referred to the socalled food pyramid, which in their view was turned upside down (Bbroad top and narrow basis^). But also Natuurpunt agreed there might be a problem. However, it was scaled down to Bsome areas^: There is no natural balance anymore in Flanders’ nature. Management is therefore required… Hunting may be necessary in some areas, but a general loosening of hunting restrictions doesn’t make sense.22 Secondly, the issues were extended to a much wider field. One example is fox predation on game animals, with the issue being further extended to the threat to Bbiodiversity^ and even to consequences for conservation policies, both in Flanders and in Europe: Game species aren’t the only victims [of predation] but vulnerable species too, such as meadow birds, ground nesters … HVV wonders what impact the fox and other predators can have on the conservation objectives and Natura 2000.23 Thirdly, the issues were attached to social groups, institutions and relationships. There were on one hand those affected by foxes. People with poultry were frequently referred to as victims of the fox and municipalities encouraged them to fill in a complaint form in case of damage. On the other hand, were those who wished to respond to the problem. Mayors and local politicians took up the role of spokesperson for affected citizens, in particular by visiting, phoning or writing to the Minister. Frequently, politicians were placed in marked positions, for instance, the Minister was called Ba lover of foxes in Flanders^,24 but she was also said to find that Bthere is no place for the fox in Flanders^. 25 Y. Sterverlynxk: BPreface^, De Vlaamse Jager, September 2012 22 P. Symens (Natuurpunt): Parliamentary Hearing 26.10.2010 23 J. Schrijvers (HVV) in Parliamentary Hearing 26.10.2010 24 I. Sabbe (LDD) in Parliamentary Annals 23.12.2010 25 W. Van Gils (Natuurpunt) in: BExtension fox hunting is bad signal^, 13.01.2012, Vilt (Flemish information centre for agriculture and horticulture), www.vilt.be 21

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

Furthermore, HVV pointed to the fact that the fox in Flanders has no natural enemies except humans, which supports the important societal role of hunters in maintaining the balance of nature and biodiversity health. However, those against the extension of fox hunting reduced the hunters’ identity to the much narrower profile of hunting for pleasure. Opponents of loosened hunting rules had a compelling assertion that the killing of foxes will have the adverse effect of that intended. The widely circulating explanation, coming from a fox specialist at INBO, focused on population biology: The control of foxes results in a reproductive reaction: more females participate in reproduction and their litters increase.26 Foxes regulate their own population pressure through subtle social and biological mechanism … That’s my scientific proposition.27 Thus, following the principle of the fox’s self-regulation, the population issue was Bnaturalised^, it was deemed to be a non-problem by those who were opposing the loosening of the hunting rules. Likewise, hunting was presented as a non-solution: new foxes will quickly recolonize the emptied territories. The opponents also warned that hunting destabilises the fox population and Walloon foxes infected with tapeworm will move into the emptied territories. Furthermore, the issue of predation by the fox was downplayed by explaining it away as only Bone facet of the ecological system^ or only Bone of many factors regulating populations^.28 Among these factors, human impacts were often emphasized, hence producing an unnatural situation, which was then considered the real problem: Today it’s very simple for the fox to skim the scarce, straight, open and poorly structured forest and field edges in search of a tasty snack. The problem is not so much the fox, but the impoverished landscape that offers little coverage.29 Thus, the blame was shifted from the fox to inappropriate land use practices and policies. In summary, these arguments put the problem of foxes into a different perspective: the population is Bnatural^ and selfK. Van Den Berghe (INBO) in the television reportage Panorama, VRT, 06.02.2011 27 K. Van Den Berghe (INBO) in news article BThe fox has done it again^, De Standaard 21.06.2008 28 P. Symens (Natuurpunt) in Parliamentary Hearing 26.10.2010 29 Natuurpunt: BTowards sound fox management: what came before^, 07.02.2012, http://zoogdierenwerkgroep.be 26

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

regulating, livestock damage is preventable and eventual predation of valuable species can be tackled locally on a nature conservation basis (the Bspecies programmes^). But the debate did not stop here and started focusing on the people engaged in the problem, their assumed interests and agendas. Hunters were by far the most targeted group. They were criticised for showing concern about vulnerable wildlife and backyard chickens, while their only motivation comes from Bthe hunting interest^. Sometimes, they were contrasted with Bright minded conservationists^ and even with Bordinary^ people with poultry: Most distressing is the fact that this hunting interest (of wealthy citizens) is pursued at the expense of the poultry keepers (ordinary people).30 Blame also went to the Minister of Environment because of her decision to extend legislation allowing foxes to be controlled in certain circumstances. The Minister spoke of Ba very limited adjustment^,31 while the opponents accused her for having de facto outlawed the fox. But more frequent was the accusation that the minister had just bowed to the demands of the hunting lobby, colleague ministers and municipal mayors. Hints were made about hidden interests, such as ministers probably having hunting family members and local politicians appealing to their electorate: … angry mayors who think they score points by reacting to complaints from citizens about fox damage in an extremely emotional but totally irrelevant way.32 Debating parties insinuated or accused each other on various forums (television debate, the Internet, etc.) of ignoring reasonable arguments or making arguments in favour of their own interests. A group of biology students even began a campaign to accuse the minister of wilfully ignoring legitimate scientific findings. It was issued as a Bsymbol dossier of scientific and political dishonesty^.33 Earlier on, the HVV had complained that Bird Protection Flanders was making the fox a cuddly political symbol and that scientific research from around the world (proving the negative ecological impact of fox) had been silenced. Meanwhile, in HVV’s magazine, the change of legislation was presented as a victory and a reason 30

J. Rodts in reaction of Bird Protection Flanders to the proposal of resolution for the extension of fox hunting, 26.10.2010, www.vogelbescherming.be 31 Minister J. Schauvliege in television reportage Panorama, VRT, 06.02.2011 32 D. Draulans (science journalist): BThe fox has become an outlaw^, Knack, 15.08.2013 33 ROBIN: Open letter to Minister Joke Schauvliege, www. fierdatikeenvosben.be

547

for becoming a member of HVV. By doing so, social representation of the group as well as the group’s commitment was enhanced. Growing numbers of wild boar: the question of (in) tolerance In the near-decade since the wild boar arrived, sightings made the news multiple times. The common reactions reported were surprise, uncertainty and fear. Farmers were the most concerned. They said that they have no idea of how to protect their crops against wild boar, and some believed that boar— being Ba colossal and dangerous animal^—poses a threat to their calves.34 Professionals in nature management were also not confident and were faced with dilemma, for instance: It is clear that Nature is again asserting itself. Which is good news for biodiversity. At the same time, we are closely monitoring the population, because wild boars reproduce very quickly. This entails risks for a forest at the edge of a large city.35 Much of the news coverage was setting an alarming tone and problematized the presence and coming of wild boar at larger scales (the province, Flanders). Estimates were provided about the number of wild boars already present and any prospects about the rapid spread and growth of populations. In addition, warnings (or events) of agricultural damage, road accidents and sometimes diseases were given. The two issues of population and damage—both including questions of tolerance and intolerance—were also at the centre of political debate. No one had a clear idea how many animals were actually out there. The farmer union Boerenbond called the estimates provided by INBO—a count of 1300 boars in the province of Limburg—Ba gross underestimate^. 3 6 Furthermore, it was the government’s plan to delineate (non)-tolerance zones for boar, but Boerenbond found it impracticable (BNo boar reads a sign that says where it can go and where it can’t go^37) and set instead the following view:

News article: BWild boar spotted in the Dyle valley^, Het Nieuwsblad 08.03.2012 35 G. Reinbold (Brussels Institute for Management of the Environment) in: BWild boar and roe deer populations remain stable^, 27.06.2013, www.zonienwoud.be 36 K. Vanheukelom (Boerenbond Limburg) in: BPopulation wild boar dangerously large in Limburg^, 25.09.2012, Vilt (Flemisch information centre for agriculture and horticulture), www.vilt.be 37 News article: BBoars better stay in Wallonia^, De Standaard 12.02.2012 34

Author's personal copy 548

Agriculture and wild boar do not go together here. We would have no problem with a smaller population. Those animals just reproduce very quickly. The stock is uncontrollable. Therefore, we advocate for making Flanders a no-go zone for wild boar.38 Complete eradication or Bzero-tolerance^ for wild boar in Flanders was initially the view of the government, but it was later dismissed as Bnot feasible^ especially in view of not being able to control the immigration of the species from abroad. Lack of societal support for this vision (in particular the nature and hunting sectors) was also raised as a barrier to achieving eradication.39 Less radical but moving in a similar direction was a view expressed by Bird Protection Flanders. It was evidenced by a negative assessment of both the available habitat and the boar’s arrival: We advocate a zero tolerance policy in areas where there are no boars today … Wild boars need vast forests, which are rare here. Moreover, the majority of these pigs may have come here in an unnatural manner.40 The origin of the boar, where it came from, was frequently a topic of speculation. So, it made a big difference whether the animals were wild or domesticated. In this respect, samples for genetic screening were collected and it was found that the boars in Flanders were Btrue pure boar^.41 Yet, there were still rumours of released or escaped animals, in particular when the first sightings occurred and animals showed tame behaviour. These Bfacts^ in turn were used either to disapprove the presence of boar, to blame the hunters or to make insinuations against them: The presence of wild boar is not good news for our wild nature. Only the hunters are better off for they can now go hunting in areas where they were never allowed before. They succeeded in their intent.42 Wild boars were typically spoken of as animals on the loose. It was reported that due to overpopulation in Wallonia and northern France, the boars were Bswarming^ or Bmarching^ north. Alternatively, they might be on the run from hunts in neighbouring countries. Furthermore, increased maize production providing food and shelter, the absence of

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

natural enemies and climate change bringing milder winters were common explanations for their rising numbers. All of this gave the implicit impression that—whereas it was often said that wild boar disappeared in Flanders through human impact (in particular over-hunting)—their return is not a completely spontaneous phenomenon. The latter was however not really discussed in public. More often, these explanations were used (by nature conservationists) to emphasise the farmers’ share in the problem (abundance of maize) or to promote large predators (wolf and lynx) as part of the solution. Lack of space or suitable habitat, namely that Flanders is too urban and most of its forests are too small, was a common argument against boar. For Natuurpunt, this is exactly the problem which it has called attention to. Its text BSpace for the wild boar^43 begun by saying that Bwild boar belongs in Flanders, it is a part of our nature^, but then highlighted even more the important role of boar in future nature development and the imaging of nature. They consequently argued that through the creation of large interconnected nature areas—a policy priority for Natuurpunt—space can be provided for large animal species such as wild boar. The issue of imaging was referred to in a newspaper opinion piece as an intense experience of contact with nature: An encounter with a family of boars is really an encounter with the primal power of Nature.44 Similarly, opportunities for wild boar (for the local economy) rather than threats were also highlighted by the director of the only national park in Flanders: BOn safari in Limburg. Spot the big five!^45 Organised hunts: keeping populations under control? The issue of wild boar was increasingly seen as being out of control. Debate went along with an increased use of risk and militaristic language, for instance: Societal nuisance is too high. The battle against the wild pig is therefore opened on several fronts.46 Boerenbond, HVV and several municipalities urged the minister to amend the obsolete legislation to allow the hunters to keep the Bexplosion^ of boar populations under control.

38

I. Deroo (Boerenbond) in news article: BThe hunt is open again?^ De Morgen 29.05.2012 39 Agency for Nature and Forest (ANB): Wild boar management vision, February 2011 40 J. Rodts (Bird Protection Flanders) in: BThe hunt is open again?^ De Morgen 29.05.2012 41 BTrue wild boar in Flanders?^ INBO Newsletter July 2009 42 Nature Help Centre: BNew creatures in Nature^ 06.12.2011 http://www.natuurhelpcentrum.be

Natuurpunt, 17.05.2011 www.natuurpunt.be C. Steenwegen (Natuurpunt): BMake space for the primal power of Nature. The wild boars should stay^, De Standaard 29.19.2012 45 I. Schops (Regional Landscape Kempen and Maasland): presentation given at Symposium on wild boar 25.09.2010 46 News article: BLimburg is full: there can be no more wild boar. Het Belang Van Limburg 02-03.02.2013. 43 44

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

They all referred to the damage and risks, notably destroyed fields, risk of swine fever, road accidents and safety for residents and hikers. The hunters also pointed to threats to biodiversity, e.g., ground nesters like the rare nightjar. Moreover, roe deer suffered from stress and their calves were in danger. Boerenbond, HVVand local authorities also pointed an accusing finger to the nature areas where hunting is usually not allowed. Boar can hide there and cause damage in the surrounding fields. Such protection of boar was further contrasted with forests in neighbouring countries where hunts take place: Those boar see the 130 ha nature area of Voeren as a safe haven in a war zone of surrounding forests where they can be hunted.47 But Natuurpunt assigned responsibility to the farmers as well: Hunters do claim that the boars are in our areas and they regret that they are not allowed to hunt there, but those pigs are also in the maize fields of agriculture. They can easily hide there and find plenty of food. So it is a joint responsibility.48 In several places, large hunts were organised to cull the growing number of wild boar. The results were often disappointing and public reaction was mainly amused. Also, the hunters made jokes: BThose pigs are much smarter than we are^; BThey roll in the mud of laughter with us^.49 A closer examination of the public comments on news articles revealed that they typically began with discussing the facts, e.g., how was it possible that the hunters finished the day without one kill? The population figures were questioned (e.g. BWhat is not there, you cannot shoot!^) and personal experiences served as added evidence for and against the estimates (e.g. BI walk a lot in the woods, but I’ve never encountered a wild boar^). Some argued that the boar is not responsible for the nuisance, also shifting to the boar’s perspective:50 The animals cannot help it. It is the fault of humans who have destroyed their shelters and food resources. What would you do if they destroyed your home? 47

H. Broers (mayor of Voeren) in news article: BFarmers demand action against overpopulation wild boar^ Het Nieuwsblad 26.09.2012 48 C. Steenwegen (Natuurpunt) in news article: BAgriculture is jointly responsible^, De Zondag 11.11.2012 49 News article: BWild boar and hunters play cat and mouse in Limburg^, De Standaard 27-28.10.2012 50 Public reactions on news articke: B110 hunters don’t shoot one boar^, Het Belang Van Limburg 15.04.2013

549

Responsibility for the problem was a contentious issue. Commentators on news articles were quick to link the facts to the hunters involved and hunters in general (usually in a negative way). For instance, they made insinuations that hunters exaggerated the problem as they strive for the right to freely hunt day and night in all kinds of areas (hence in turn they exaggerated the request of the hunters). Furthermore, the supposedly released boars were sometimes equated with domesticated animals. The distinction (domesticated, not wild) was then used as an incriminating fact against the reported hunting event: one should not shoot tame animals.51 But there was also general criticism against the hunts, e.g. causing a bloodbath and disturbing the breeding season, and hunters were blamed for killing for pleasure. Counter-arguments said that the hunters had no interest in wild boars, but were instead at risk to pay the damage caused by them. In reality, both farmers and hunters were complaining about the uncertain legal consequences resulting from the damage. However, in the mass media, the issue of compensation for damages provoked strong reactions. Hunters in particular were blamed for wanting the benefits gained from wild boar but not the costs and that they are Bbig money makers^. There were also insinuations of farmers being members of HVV and the Minister supporting their cause. Besides the damage to crops, danger was a main argument for intervention. From municipal mayors to the Flemish parliament, all used the risk of deadly car accidents to call attention to the urgency of the situation. Most important appeared to be the risk that authorities would be held responsible. Nevertheless, the Minister emphasised the opportunities provided by current legislation to adequately tackle the wild boar and the proper interventions organised by the nature administration, so defending the image of a good functioning ministerial department (Bour services do the best they can^52). Wild boar threatens jogger with dog: or is it the wild boar being threatened? A small newspaper article about a jogger and his dog being attacked by a group of wild boar—including a photo with the wounded dog Nestor—generated 210 published reactions.53 A lively discussion developed. Early on the focus was on the facts of the incident: had this really happened? Was the dog leashed or un-leashed? On this occasion, some started to blame the behaviour of dogs—and by extension, that of dog owners—for being more disturbing and dangerous than the Public reactions on news article: BHunt organised against roaming wild boar^, Het Nieuwsblad 31.01.2013 52 Committee meeting Flemish parliament 15.01.2013 53 BWild boars attack jogger with dog^, Het Belang Van Limburg 21.11.2011 51

Author's personal copy 550

boars. Furthermore, there was a fierce disagreement over whether wild boar should be defined as either a fearful or an aggressive animal. Those who were empathetic with the dog emphasised the aggressive pole of the dichotomy (e.g. Bthey may bite for no reason at all^), while others tried to refute this by saying that wild boars are very shy animals, or to attenuate the opposition by saying that boar only behave aggressively when they feel threatened, so placing responsibility on the jogger who let his dog unleashed in the forest. But others squashed the latter attempt and asserted that it was because the dog was leashed that it could not escape from the wild boar’s attack. Contradictory views on the phenomenon of wild boar in Flanders developed further in the discussion, representing a wider problematisation and up-scaling of the issue. On the one hand, there was the contention that populations should be reduced because of the liability for damages, as well as for the balance of nature (BIf we let nature go its course, many native fauna and flora will be lost^). On the other hand, principles or fundamentals about Nature and human-nature relationships came to the fore, which were put in contrast with the managerial view of above: I trust that Nature recovers and a new type of balance will develop. Nature knows best and we should not interfere. Who are we to judge whether or not a species belongs here. Every animal has the right to live and exist. Only a few attempts were made to counteract such principles (e.g. Bhave those pigs the right to overpopulate our forests?^). Principles about nature served to disapprove human intervention and, more specifically, the culling of wild boar because it is dangerous: Learn to adapt to Nature and not the other way round. Nature that is made following your wishes is not Nature but Plopsaland [an amusement park]. It was remarkable that such principles were often applied to humanity as a whole rather than to individuals or groups. In this respect, several references to collective guilt and misplaced superiority were also apparent: We humans have injured, killed and even eradicated far more animals. The problem is that we always feel ourselves superior. The further the discussion developed, the more it turned to issues of power and decision-making, in particular, the undemocratic character of nature conservation (also called Bnature fascism^), e.g. nature organisations were blamed for

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

being the absolute and omnipotent ruler of vast natural areas. Experiences were referred to in which nature areas were closed off or marked with warning signs and rules. Nature conservationists (also called Bnature destroyers^) were further contrasted with Breal nature lovers^ by stigmatising them as big spending elite people: They cross through the woods with an expensive 4x4, equipped with nature design clothing and expensive binoculars, and chase away the real nature lover who is not coming to steal wood like they do.

Integrated findings and discussion Similar patterns of argument were observed in all events and forums. Overall, the debate about foxes and boars unfolded mainly along three fault lines which—following Elchardus’ definition (Elchardus 2007)—continued to perpetuate contradicting responses and delineate opposing positions: 1. Belonging/Not belonging: the animals belong in Flanders or Bin our nature^ versus they do not belong there; 2. Opportunity/Threat: the animals are useful and provide opportunities versus they pose harm and threat; 3. Control by intervention/Nature controls itself: the necessity to keep the animals under control versus the capacity of nature to balance or control itself (or intervention is undesirable). The identification of fault lines is the initial step in understanding an intractable debate. Next, we need to pay close attention to what is happening in the force fields of tension and pressure of these fault lines. In the following, we integrate observations in the three layers of debate (outlined in the beginning of this paper) and discuss these with the previous findings and specific concepts in the literature. 1st layer observations: forces of convergence and alignment of arguments It is remarkable that much of the argument rested on a small set of binary oppositions or dichotomies. Contradictory evaluations—most notably those related to the identified fault lines—were underpinned by facts and definitions, often presented in a dichotomous form too. For instance, a clear chaining together of dichotomies was found in the evaluation belonging/not belonging, which rested on a dichotomous definition (natural/artificial) of dichotomous facts (presence/absence; coming/disappearing). The fact that—after they disappeared through human intervention—foxes or wild boar came back on their own was defined as a spontaneous or natural

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

phenomenon. Their absence was defined as unnatural. Hence, the fox or wild boar was classified as belonging in Flanders. However, we also found contradictory facts in this discussion—the animals were released, they were not truly wild, etc.—which helped to define their presence as artificial, so definitely not belonging. This position was additionally supported by contrasting recent urbanisation in Flanders with the historical, rural situation where wild boar once belonged. In summary, we identified a strong pressure of argument convergence. In all the forums, we observed that the debate converged on the same set of binary oppositions. We therefore suggest that the debates’ dynamics were governed by what Coleman et al. (2007) call Bfixed-point attractors^, with the above mentioned dichotomies (often combined in chains) operating as attractors leading parties running into the same issues and so composing (and limiting) the scope or space of the debate. The pressure of convergence went together with the pressure of aligning the arguments either in support of or in opposition to the poles of a dichotomy. It is known that dichotomies force a choice between two alternatives, the negation of one of the two leads to the conclusion that the other is the case (Macagno and Walton 2010). In this way, the dichotomies both signalled and sharpened divide in the interpretation of events and what responses these events called for. In other words, the dichotomies (and combinations of them) both made manifest and strengthened the fault lines in the debate. The forces of convergence and alignment were further intensified by the use of value-laden language. Such terms import into the debate certain interpretations or connotations, as they were facts beyond discussion. The reasoning is grounded on a judgement, which becomes a reason to carry out a specific action (Macagno 2013). Most widespread were risk (e.g. the fox plague and explosion of boar population), criminological (e.g. theft and murder and zero-tolerance) and militaristic language (e.g. war zone, invasion and battle fronts). Militaristic terms were also expressed in dichotomies emphasising opposing sides, e.g. the fox as the Benemy^ of the hunter versus the conservationists’ Bfriend of the fox^ campaign. Furthermore, derogatory (e.g. bloodthirsty, aggressive and those pigs) and attributes of admiration (e.g. beautiful creature, intelligent and the primal power of Nature) were assigned to the animals in question. Together, these terms exaggerated and deepened the contrasts between different interpretations of the events. Part of the reasoning was enriched with numerical information, most frequently at the undesirable pole of a dichotomy. Despite there being no official figures, we found plenty of damage figures (in Euros, hectares of maize, numbers of complaints, kills, accidents, etc.) in support of evaluating the fox or the boar as harmful or being a threat. Likewise, foxes and boars were considered to be out of control as they could travel widely and have almost limitless reproduction potential (in kilometres per night, litters per year, numbers of

551

young per litter, etc.). Measuring a problem creates pressure to do something about it (Stone 1988). But in this case, uncertainty about those numbers (how many foxes or wild boars are actually out there?) appeared to foster the perception of being out of control and hence the urgent need for intervention. 2nd layer observations: argumentative strategies complicating resolution First and foremost, parties in the debate sought to gain credibility and support with audiences for their interpretation of an event. Various strategies were employed to this end, but at the same time, these strategies tended to magnify the problem, anchor the aligned positions along the fault lines and further complicate the resolution of conflict. As outlined above, the debate unfolded along a narrow range of binary oppositions. While dichotomies can be useful tools to drive the discussion forward and find a solution (Macagno and Walton 2010), excluding middles where middles exist will limit the choices of action and policy, and eventually lead to polarisation between groups (Govier 2009). However, much will depend on how arguers construe and use the dichotomies for their argumentative purposes. Dascal (2008) distinguishes between the strategies of dichotomisation (radicalising a polarity by emphasising the incompatibility of the poles) and de-dichotomisation (showing that the opposition between the poles is not a contradiction, thus allowing for intermediate alternatives). Whereas dichotomisation may radicalise a debate through polarisation, thus rendering it difficult or even impossible to resolve, de-dichotomisation may open possibilities for reconciling the contenders’ positions. Dichotomisation was clearly dominant in the debates observed. A frequent strategy was stressing the pole that ought to be preferred through selecting and interpreting facts in support of it (e.g. emphasising either the damage by wild boar or its opportunity for the local economy). Only few attempts were made to object to the dichotomy itself. More often parties tried to deny the possibility of a certain predicate to be attributed (e.g. that the boars were not truly wild, that the foxes were classified as Bvermin^). Furthermore, particularities of a dichotomous position were exploited as arguments in one’s favour to demonstrate the exaggerated nature of one of the poles or to make it irrelevant (e.g. if fox populations control themselves the question whether we should intervene becomes redundant). Another common strategy was the linking of original issues in the debate to other issues that were previously separate. For instance, one fox’s attack on backyard chickens was linked to similar facts elsewhere, but also to concerns about fox predation on native fauna, which was further linked to Flemish and European biodiversity policy targets. According to Coleman et al. (2007), conflict escalates with the potential to become intractable when distinct issues become interlinked: The

Author's personal copy 552

activation of a single issue activates all the other issues and the likelihood of finding a solution that satisfies all the issues is thus correspondingly diminished. The strategy of issue linking was often employed together with scaling up the issue at a higher level to make it more important (e.g. accumulating single chicken attacks into a Bsocietal problem^ in need of government intervention). Some previous studies show how actors scale an issue to legitimise inclusion and exclusion of actors and arguments in the policy process (Kurtz 2003; Van Lieshout et al. 2011). In the present study, both up- and downscaling of issues had an effective function in the organisation of responsibility (or irresponsibility). For instance, issues previously up-scaled to the governmental level were downscaled again by arguing that poultry keepers or managers of nature areas are responsible for the damage by foxes or wild boars, respectively. As the debates developed, linkages to social relationships appeared to be more frequent. Arguments no longer revolved around issues of foxes and wild boars per se but centred on social relations and institutions involved, including responsibilities, interests and agendas. As soon as one party broadened the scope of the debate to relationships, it invited other parties to respond in a similar fashion. As a consequence, issues became less tangible and amenable to practical and technical solutions (Vallacher et al. 2012). Such tensions in the debate were further intensified by the imposition of stereotypes and stigmas. For instance, there was a tendency in public reactions to portray Bthe hunters^ negatively, in the sense that they kill (defenceless) animals for pleasure or out of frustration. In a similar way, conservationists were portrayed as elite people, also receiving governmental subsidies for Bdestroying nature^ (in contrast to the commentators being Breal nature lovers^). Stereotypes gloss over the differences between individuals and impose a composite picture on the whole group (Billig 1996), but many of our examples go further and show stigmatization by attributing to the group as a whole the Bbad^ characteristics of that group’s Bworst^ members and eventually modelling the self-image of one’s own group on its Bbest^ members. Elias (1994) calls such a strategy a Bpars pro toto distortion^ in opposite directions, which facilitates throwing the blame on the other group and to prove one’s point to the own group as well as to others (i.e. influencing public opinion). This in turn led to complaints of those who felt Bdemonised^, in particular hunters. Finally, an occasional but remarkable strategy was the shifting to the animal’s perspective (Bwhat would you do if you were a wild boar and…?^) In this way, foxes or wild boars were presented free from above dichotomisation, scaling and issue linking. An advanced example was the assertion Bevery henhouse is in a fox’s territory^ to point out the inevitability of fox attacks. Hence, different questions came to the fore, including how to coexist with foxes and whether it is fair to intervene in one place and not another.

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

3th layer observations: consolidating positions within social networks Taken as a whole, the debate was highly reactive to the situations at hand. Institutional roles played a special part in these reactions. The most obvious was the role of serving public needs. Local officials and politicians in particular were inclined to defend the case of those affected by foxes and boars. Regarding wild boar, there was also the fear of being held legally responsible for car accidents, damage to crops, etc. Furthermore, the view of the Flemish authorities sought compatibility with formal competencies and rules. In addition, gaining or loosing societal support appeared to be an important political argument influencing decisions. Organisations’ reactions were bounded by their respective roles, e.g. animal help centres argued in defence of the injured or killed animals and the hunters association emphasised the need for balance in nature (vital to hunters raison d’être). In this way, institutional roles and identities were confirmed and reproduced in the course of the debate. Organisations also acted as policy entrepreneurs using the situation at hand to push attention to their favoured solutions (e.g. nature conservationists claim of creating large interconnected nature areas). But organisations’ arguments were not merely oriented toward external recognition and rewards. Appealing to members and sympathisers was important as well. This was very clear with the hunters association who referred in their magazine to the legislation change to praise its achievements and encourage those who are not members to join. So, group coherence was forged through the sharing of common problems and successes. But promoting coherence within the group is also accomplished through intensification of negative feelings toward the out-group (Elias 1994; Coleman et al. 2007). A clear example from our study is the stereotyping judgements of hunters by nature help centres. Furthermore, we found plenty of stigmatisation—especially of hunters and conservationists—at popular forums and some might indicate reactivation of old fault lines of social division, most notably the elite versus ordinary people division. However, the time span of observation was too short to understand the importance of history. Furthermore, we observed that a considerable part of the debate was linked up with social groups or organisations. Views and arguments on the situation recirculated in their own networks and media (e.g. hunting magazine, nature organisation’s website and a politician’s blog). In such circumstances contradicting viewpoints are being kept alive and the fault lines are more likely to persist (Elchardus 2007). Established groups in particular were under pressure to translate events and new information in such a way to make these consistent with the preferred position. For instance, the fact that foxes were threatening vulnerable species was attributed by conservationists to the impoverished landscape and not to

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555

the harmfulness of the fox itself. Such reinterpretations enable the group to maintain an internally consistent narrative in the face of contradictory and ambiguous information (Vallacher et al. 2012). Furthermore, groups located other groups involved in some kind of issue space and placed them in a certain position in relation to that issue even when this group had not taken any position previously. For instance, regarding foxes, farmers were placed on the Buseful^ and chicken owners on the Bharmful^ pole. While the continuing positioning occupied much space in the public debate, principles and views on nature were hardly a topic (except on some popular Internet forums). This does not mean that conceptual matters had no importance. Rather, our findings suggest that conceptions of nature were locked up in language, which mean that these conceptions underlie dichotomies and classifications that parties in debate express when constructing their arguments. Besides a few classical metaphors (e.g. balance of nature and food pyramid), the debates were replete with references to animal properties (beautiful, native, wild, useful, dangerous, etc.). While such features lent support to the fault line along which the arguers profiled themselves, it is not always clear from our observations whether this was a purposeful strategy or not. Throughout history and across cultures, animals have been characterised and classified by their appearance, location and relationship to humans. Binary distinctions such as wild/tame, useful/useless, edible/non-edible and beautiful/ugly are rooted in sociocultural contexts (Thomas 1983). Our findings show that such categories have important implications for what should be done in practice (e.g. one should not shoot tame animals). Parties in the debate were also aware of the consequences, for instance, fox defenders showed much concern with the fox’s reputation and its possible classification as Bvermin^. But commonly used categories also appeared to be open to various interpretations and new meanings, e.g., the usefulness of foxes for the ecosystem, or the wildness of boars as a unique nature experience. Given their importance, further research is needed to better understand the politics and practices of animal classification (e.g. Eder 1997; Boonman-Berson et al. 2014) and their consequences in contemporary debate about nature.

Conclusion In this paper, we aimed to understand how debates about issues relating to nature tend to evolve into intractable conflict. We developed an operational approach that allows the identification of features of and processes in the debate which hamper resolution. By analysing six events surrounding the return of foxes and wild boar to Flanders, we found that the debates evolved along a few main fault lines. We also revealed a number of important dynamics that increased polarisation along

553

these fault lines. Specifically, processes such as convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), linking and up-scaling of issues and stigmatisation of outgroups were manifested in many different forums and contexts. They were largely a result of the contending parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. Also, considerable part of the debate served to confirm and reproduce institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. There were contrasting views on nature, but they were hardly a topic of discussion. They had mainly an indirect role as they were Bactivated^ by language (in particular dichotomies) in positions along the fault lines. Binary classification of animal characteristics was a remarkable contributor and further research in this area is required. It is of course difficult to find common ground between parties who hold fundamentally different views on nature and human intervention. What our study demonstrates, however, is that intractability is not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but is largely to be found in the conduct of the debate. In other words, the debate itself produces a polarising dynamic. The central issue for resolution, then, is how to transform the debate from the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relationships between the parties. Interrogating the former dynamics, as done within this paper, can yield important clues for those who aim to foster the latter dynamics. More specifically, future research would need to test the potential of de-dichotomisation, disassembling issues, de-emphasising linkages, moving out of comfort zone roles, building meaningful contacts with out-groups and many other strategies to address the intractability of public debate on biodiversity and wildlife issues. This is of utmost importance when it comes to concerted efforts to preserve and restore wildlife populations and habitats, such as those forming part of the Rewilding Europe initiative, and which are likely to generate similar conflicts as those analysed in this paper. Acknowledgments This paper derives from research funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development: the BESAFE project, grant number 282743.

References Aarts N, van Woerkum C (1995) The communication between farmers and governments about nature. Eur J Agric Educ Ext 2(2):1–11 Arts K, Fischer A, van der Wal R (2012) Common stories of reintroduction: a discourse analysis of documents supporting animal reintroductions to Scotland. Land Use Policy 29:911–920 Beck U (2009) World at risk. Polity Press, Cambridge Berger P (1998) The limits of social cohesion: Conflict and mediation in pluralist societies. Westview Press, Boulder Billig M (1996) Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Author's personal copy 554 Bisi J, Liukkonen T, Mykrä S, Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2010) The good bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the finnish wolf conflict. Eur J Wildl Res 56:771–779 Blicharska M, Angelstam P (2011) Conservation at risk: Conflict analysis in the Bialowieża Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. J Environ Plan Manag 54(10):68–74 Blicharska M, Van Herzele A (2015) What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Bialowieża Forest in Poland. For Policy Econ forthcoming article Boonman-Berson S, Turnhout E, van Tatenhove J (2014) Invasive species: the categorization of wildlife in science, policy, and wildlife management. Land Use Policy 38:204–212 Brady HE (2011) The art of political science: Spatial diagrams as iconic and revelatory. Perspect Polit 9(2):311–331 Buijs AE, Arts BJM, Elands BHM, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329–341 Castree N (2001) Socializing nature: Theory, practice and politics. In: Castree N, Braun B (eds) Social nature: Theory, practice and politics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–21 Coleman PT, Vallacher RR, Nowak A, Bui-Wrzosinska L (2007) Intractable conflict as an attractor: a dynamical systems approach to conflict escalation and intractability. Am Behav Sci 50(11):1454– 1475 Dascal M (2008) Dichotomies and types of debate. In: Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B (eds) Controversy and confrontation. John Benjamins BV, Amsterdam, pp 27–50 Deinet S, Ieronymidou C, McRae L et al (2013) Wildlife comeback in Europe: the recovery of selected mammal and bird species. Zoological Society of London, United Kingdom Drenthen MAM, Keulartz FWJ, Proctor J (2009) New visions of nature. Springer, Heidelberg Eder K (1997) The social construction of nature: a sociology of ecological enlightenment. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli Elchardus M (2007) Sociologie, een inleiding. Pearson Education Benelux, Amsterdam Elias N (1994) Introduction: a theoretical essay on established and outsider relations. In: Elias N, Scotson JL (eds) The established and the outsiders: a sociological inquiry into community problems. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Dehli Garrote G, Lopez G, Gil-Sanchez JM et al (2013) Human-felid conflict s a further handicap to the conservation of the critically endangered Iberian lynx. Eur J Wildl Res 59:287–290 Goodwin J (2005) The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument. Informal Logic 25(2):151–165 Govier T (2009) Logical opposition and social opposition. Cogency 1(1): 43–57 Haila Y (2012) Genealogy of nature conservation: a political perspective. Nat Conserv 1:27–52 Harrison CM, Burgess J (1994) Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 19:291–310 Heydon MJ, Wilson CJ, Tew T (2010) Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and regulation in England. Wildl Res 37(8):731–748 Keulartz J (2009) European nature conservation and restoration policy— Problems and perspectives. Restor Ecol 17(4):446–450 Keulartz J, Leistra G (2008) Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy—Case studies in multilevel governance. Springer, Heidelberg Kim J, Kim EJ (2008) Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Commun Theor 18: 51–70

Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555 Kotulski Y, König A (2008) Conflicts, crises and challenges: wild boar in the Berlin city—a social empirical and statistical survey. Nat Croat 17(4):233–246 Kurtz HE (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmental justice. Polit Geogr 22:887–916 Linnell JDC (2013) From conflict to coexistence: insights from multidisciplinary research into the relationships between people, large carnivores and institutions. Report for the European Commission Luhmann N (1995) Legal argumentation: an analysis of its form. Mod Law Rev 58(3):285–298 Macagno F (2013) The acts and strategies of defining. In: Kisicec G, Zagar IZ (eds) What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives. Windsor Studies in Argumentation, University of Windsor, Open Monograph Press, pp 63-78 Macagno F, Walton D (2010) Dichotomies and oppositions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 23(2):229–257 Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage, London Niemelä J, Young J, Alard D et al (2005) Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. For Policy Econ 7:877–890 Paavola J (2004) Protected area governance and justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environm Sci 1:59–77 Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A et al (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109 Reilly N (2011) Rethinking the Interplay of Feminism and Secularism in a Neo- secular Age. Feminist Rev 97:5–31 Scheppers T, Huysentruyt F, Neukermans A et al (2013) Grofwildjacht in Vlaanderen: cijfers en statistieken over de periode 2002–2012. Rapporten van het Instituut voor. Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussels Skogen K, Mauz I, Krange O (2006) Wolves and eco-power: a FrenchNorwegian analysis of the narratives on the return of large carnivores. Rev Geogr Alp 94(4):78–87 Stone DA (1988) Policy paradox and political reason. Scotts Foresman & Co, Glenview Thomas K (1983) Man and the natural world, changing attitudes in England (1500-1800). Allen Lane/Penguine Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England Vallacher R, Coleman PT, Nowak A, Bui-Wrzonsinska L (2012) Why do conflicts become intractable? The dynamical perspective on malignant social relations. In: Tropp LR (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 13–28 Van Den Berge K, De Pauw W (2003) Vos—Vulpes vulpes. In: Verkem S, De Maeseneer J, Vandendriessche B et al (eds) Zoogdieren in Vlaanderen. Natuurpunt Studie & JNM-Zoogdierenwerkgroep, Mechelen and Gent, Belgium, pp 363–369 Van Gelder T (2007) The rationale for RationaleTM. Law Probab Risk 6: 23–42 Van Herzele A (2006) A forest for each city and town. Story lines in the policy debate for urban forests in Flanders. Urban Stud 43(3):673– 696 Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2013) BMy forest, my kingdom^ – Selfreferentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46(1):63–81 Van Lieshout M, Dewulf A, Aarts N, Termeer C (2011) Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a Bmega farm^ in a small Dutch village. Ecol Soc 16(1):38 Webb TJ, Raffaelli D (2008) Conversations in conversation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. J Appl Ecol 45(4):1198–1204 Whatmore S, Boucher S (1993) Bargaining with nature: the discourse and practice of environmental planning gain. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 18: 166–178

Author's personal copy Eur J Wildl Res (2015) 61:539–555 Winkel G, Gleißner J, Pistorius T, Sotirov M, Storch S (2011) The sustainably managed forest heats up: discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany. Crit Policy Stud 5(4): 361–390

555 Young J, Watt A, Nowick P et al (2005) Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers Conserv 14: 1641–1661