The relationships that exist between sheep farmers and the management authorities is characterized by frustration. The management authorities are perceived as having their own
79
logic, and must determine facts from its own administrative procedures and logic, rather than the farmers' statements. Their perceived experiences describes an asymmetric relationship. The farmer did not feel that they are believed. Some believed that it has improved now, but that one was previously mistrusted and thus did not receive compensation. The management authorities should have believed the farmers a little earlier. This they believe is the case also in terms of documentation of losses to carnivores. Farmers are neither heard, nor believed, as employees from the management system must go out and confirm it for themselves. What characterizes much of this blame laying seems to be linked to what relationships users have to the various organs. One of the farmers thought they had a good cooperation with the SNO rangers and did not blame them for anything, while another believes that SNO is obstructing as much as the Norwegian Environment Agency.
Many felt frustration at the way the management functions today. A scepticism and distrust of the management authorities and their policies was a clear discourse. Concerning the management style there were strong opinions all around. Some blamed it on the politicians, others blamed the Environmental Agency and the Ministry. One of the farmers believed that politicians had lost power and that the administrators in the management system were obstructing the process and not doing as the politicians intend. He felt that politicians were too weak, and that they must open their eyes soon and see that they are about to destroy not only a whole sector but also rural areas. He believed that the carnivore compromise in the Parliament is not really being implemented, and that the politicians had already lost the fight. The management was not felt to be acting in the sheep industry's favour and did not show signs of understanding the problems that farmers were experiencing. There was a general feeling of hopelessness. Government and the economy control agriculture, and the authorities were regarded among some respondents as obstacles in today's agriculture. Some argued that the carnivore policies are not being followed through. One farmer went so far as to say that confidence in the management authorities is at an all-time low.
One of the farmers complained about too much indecisiveness from the government, which has made it difficult to plan ahead. Ever new, unnecessary measures and obstacles were being imposed on them and it was not something they could control. You had to constantly change to keep up with regulations, directions and policies being laid down. Subsidies were introduced, and then in the next round removed. The complaint was about a system that lacked stability. Being inside a reproduction zone for large carnivores has been the biggest challenge for one of the farmers. The fact that the carnivore zone was decreased, and that a stricter regime was
80
imposed in the region has created problems. He believed that there was a lack of management for these areas, and if there had been better control; it would have been possible for him to run his farm.
"The carnivore zones simply allow them to breed. There is no plan, or will to remove crazy bears [presumably those who kill sheep]. They allow it to just run wild"
Many are puzzled by the zones created, and why there should be carnivores in pasture prioritized areas (outside the carnivore zones), and why it should be so difficult to remove the carnivores that are within the areas where they really should not be. The opinion of most is that the management delays the processing of applications to kill carnivores, so that the carnivores have an opportunity to get away. It was felt that this did not work well from the farmers' point of view, and it was said suspected that this is what was originally intended. The interviewees felt that carnivores should be shot when there was tracking snow on the ground during winter and spring in the prioritized grazing areas, as the only solution.
The media was also blamed for much of the negative attitudes towards agriculture, and they were held responsible for putting farmers and locals against each other. They reinforced the conflict more than was necessary.
SNO is responsible for conducting fieldwork within "The national monitoring program for large carnivores" and delivers data to research and management institutions for analysis. This includes among other things counts of the number of carnivores and supervision. This was seen as a potential problem, one of the interviewees said. SNO should not only run supervision, but also management. Another challenge is that they felt that a lot of documentation was being kept secret compared to in the past, and that the documentation was erroneous. Another farmer had even gone so far that he hired a lawyer to access the reports from carnivore contacts, sent by those responsible for regional carnivore documentation. The reports were alleged to contain false information with regard to the cause of death of the sheep. The carnivore contacts are also partly blamed, along with the rest of the management authorities, for lacking knowledge and providing erroneous information to farmers.
Among farmers the methods of conducting carnivores censuses was also questioned, as they believed that practical counts did not accurately reflect the real situation on the ground. One of the farmers argued, among other things, that one lynx is not counted unless it moves more than 3 km off its last recorded point, within a certain time limit. If it settles in and sleeps for three days, then it does not exist.
81