Loss of traditional knowledge aggravates wolf–human conflict in Georgia (Caucasus) in the wake of socio-economic change

Reports of the damage from wolf attacks have increased considerably over the last decade in Georgia (in the Caucasus). We interviewed locals about this problem in two focal regions: the Lanchkhuti area (in western Georgia) and Kazbegi District (in eastern Georgia) where livestock numbers had increased by an order of magnitude owing to dramatic shifts in the local economies over the last decade. This coincided with expanding habitats for wolves (abandoned plantations, for example). We found that the perceived damage from wolves was positively correlated with a poor knowledge of wolf habits and inappropriate livestock husbandry practices. Our results suggest a loss of traditional knowledge contributes strongly to the wolf–human conflicts in Georgia. Restoring traditional, simple but good practices—such as protecting herds using shepherd dogs and introducing bulls into the herds—can help one solve this problem.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0580-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Building consensus on divisive issues: a case study of the Yukon wolf management team

This article presents a case study of a successful effort to reach agreement on one of the most intractable environmental issues of our time: wolf management. This case is unusual in several ways. In this case, the members of the negotiating team were ordinary citizens rather than leaders of organized groups. This team was given an unusually high level of authority to write the plan as they saw fit; the agency pledged to implement “whatever they came up with.” The agency convened the process, but agency personnel were not members of the team and attended only when they were invited. The team members were able to reach agreement on this tough issue even though polar opposites were at the table—one who felt that wolves are a “spiritual essence” and another who felt that, as he put it, “wolves, coyotes, and cockroaches have a lot in common”. They produced a detailed plan that addressed all the issues in just 5 months. Another unusual aspect of this effort is that the final agreement does not list the team members. They explained that they wanted their plan to “stand alone” and be judged based on what it said, not on who was involved.However, just after their agreement was completed, a new, pro-wolf control government was elected that refused to endorse the plan. While the government gave various reasons for not ratifying the plan, more and more diverse interest groups came out in support for both the plan and the process that created it. Eventually, overwhelming public support forced the government to sign and implement the plan as written. This demonstrates that, while it is important for a team to seek the sanction of decision-makers, it is perhaps even more important for the general public to see the effort and the final agreement as fair. Strong support from a broad spectrum of the public can help win the necessary political support.In addition to discussing the unorthodox aspects of this consensus-building effort, this article also attempts to give the reader a front row seat to this process by using the informants' own words—words rich in detail, brimming with color and spoken straight from the heart. Certainly their experience dispels any notion that such efforts are simply a matter of following a recipe. During the process, members of the negotiating team experienced the entire gamut of emotions—anger, defeat, humor and, finally, a genuine sense of pride. As team member Patty Denison put it, “We showed that a random group of people could work together and do something truly monumental.”