Major Perceived Impacts of Hunting Tourism

The summary provided here relates to both impacts that were perceived to be occurring now and im-pacts which may arise in the future should the hunting tourism sector expand. The issues that arose for contemporary and future impact were the same in any case to a very large extent, and interviewees often conflated responses when answering questions on impact.

6.4.1 Positive Impacts

There appeared to be strong cross-country consensus for positive economic benefits from hunting tour-ism. Although key informant responses normally and primarily referred explicitly to perceived economic benefits, these are also, of course, of benefit in social terms (e.g. in maintaining the populations and cultural integrity of small rural communities). Key contributions to the socio-economic sustainability of remote rural areas were perceived to be in supporting or enhancing income and employment, through, for example, the diversification of rural tourism activities and business products. Another key perceived benefit was in extending the normal tourist season, allowing the more prolonged and efficient use of tourist infrastructure, such as holiday accommodation. Appropriate hunting tourism products were also thought by some to act (potentially) as a catalyst in improving not just the breadth of tourism-related opportunities for development in an area, but also the quality of service provision to tourists, carrying the prospect of higher economic returns from rural tourism.

Other perceived beneficial impacts, albeit emerging less strongly in a cross-country sense, were actually quite diverse in character, extending beyond narrow economic impact concerns. For example, a sense of local pride in being able to attract (particularly overseas) visitors to an area, perhaps linking in with the strong feeling reported above that hunting tourism should provide the opportunity to showcase the natural, wilderness beauty and cultural heritage of local environments. There was also a sense that hunt-ing tourism could make an important contribution to the control of game species populations, helphunt-ing to maintain habitats for the wider benefit of society.

More prosaically, it was felt by some participants that hunting tourism allowed better access to hunting facilities and services for locals, bringing in money directly to local hunting clubs to help maintain their facilities, and thus membership. There was even the perception that the presence of hunting tourism may help to promote more ‘professional’ attitudes amongst some hunters, with improved understanding of acceptable hunting practices and safety issues. Indeed, and perhaps in Iceland in particular, there was a perception that the growth of hunting tourism might act as a catalyst for the development of improved wildlife management frameworks more generally.

6.4.2 Negative Impacts

The issue that came across very strongly in Iceland, Finland and Sweden was that of possibly strained relationships between local hunters (or the local hunting culture/tradition) and tourist hunters or hunt-ing tourism entrepreneurs. To some extent, this can be viewed simply as a (potential) clash of the old and the new (tradition versus entrepreneurship), but, critically, it is also a very clear demonstration of the perceived existence of social as well as ecological limits to the development of hunting tourism, often compounded by a feeling of ‘ownership’ of local environments and their natural resources by resident hunters, even where local hunting grounds are on common or state-owned land. The importance of re-specting what were described as “social key biotypes” was emphasised by one Swedish entrepreneur:

“If consideration is taken to the local people’s recreational areas…it [hunting tourism] will usually be considered positive.”

Whilst there was little evidence found of major problems currently in the relationship between local hunter and tourist hunters/entrepreneurs, very real concerns were raised with regard to the future ex-pansion of the hunting tourism sector. These concerns can be summed up as a loss of opportunity for

local hunters to pursue their traditional way of life. The precise mechanisms that might lead to such a loss of opportunity varied within and between countries, but included both direct and indirect effects, for example: the over-commercialization or over-production of hunting tourism leading to increased general competition for, and scarcity of, at least some game species; spatial restrictions on areas open to traditional hunting; and, increased requirements to obtain, or competition for, hunting permits or licenses leading to new or increased financial costs for local hunters.

In Scotland, by contrast, where there is little by way of a tradition of local hunting groups or clubs, negative associations with hunting tourism were frequently based on perceived ecological and habitat management issues, although there was considerable disagreement apparent amongst interviewees.

Whereas some key informants argued that hunting tourism caused some estate owners and manag-ers to ovmanag-erstock the land with red deer preventing forest regeneration, othmanag-ers argued that there was a

‘public good’ derived from moorland management practices on private estates in maintaining Scotland’s almost iconic heather moors (e.g. regular burning to support grouse populations). Elsewhere, negative ecological impacts were more associated with potential changes to natural habitats caused by over-hunting, although there were fears expressed in Sweden about the possible over-population of moose by landowners in order to provide shootable surplus. In Finland, concern was expressed about possible over-population by some species should local hunting decline, although there appeared to be consider-able faith in the system of game and habitat management already in place.

Concerns over the public acceptability of high volume, driven (grouse) shoots also emerged in Scotland, and were echoed elsewhere (e.g. Iceland) amongst many interviewees. In Scotland, such concerns may be linked to a generally less favourable attitude towards hunting, and the maintenance of large private

‘sporting estates’ that were not perceived by some interviewees to be economically viable and necessar-ily the best way to sustain the socio-economic integrity of local communities. Speaking of the need to subsidise hunting provision in Scotland, one land manager explained that:

“You can subsidise it either by… being very wealthy and having money to burn… or by having a… group of businesses where there are enough profit centres to carry the loss centres, of which the sporting [hunting] enterprise may well be one.”

A more widespread economic concern across the nations involved was the potential for greater eco-nomic leakage out of local communities should hunting tourism become commercialised in ways that was not well integrated with local community services and skills.

6.4.3 A Summary Reflection on Perceived Impacts

Whereas there was near universal cross-country consensus amongst our interviewees of the current and/or potential socio-economic benefits of hunting tourism, the broad outcome for perceived negative impacts was perhaps more complex, and it is important not to over-generalise from findings. Although very clear and similar concerns emerged in Finland, Iceland and Sweden about hunting tourism resulting in the possible loss of opportunity for local hunters to pursue traditional lifestyles, there were nuances or details in the findings for each country that should not be forgotten.

Indeed, a general lesson that could be drawn from national findings is that both attitudes to hunting tourism and the negative impacts associated with hunting tourism products and businesses varied not just within and between national stakeholder groups, but were even finely tuned according to particular game species. Thus, for example, particular sensitivities and/or a greater potential for conflict between

traditional and tourist hunters emerged with respect to ptarmigan in Iceland, grouse in Finland, and moose in Sweden. Taking Finland as an example of such diversity of opinion, it is clear that not all hunting clubs for instance adopt the same attitude and approach to engaging with hunting tourism entrepreneurs, with factors such as the age distribution of members an important influence on attitude to hunting tourism and, hence, perception of impact. Individuals may also hold complex attitudes to hunting tourism:

“Favouring entrepreneurs will result in conflict, there is no way round that. The hunting clubs are the last active associations in these villages. And they need certain structures and the like… there are some visitation arrangements and they are good” (hunter representa-tive, Finland).

Additionally, a geographical dimension to attitudes towards hunting tourism and its perceived impacts was evident in findings from Sweden, and Sweden also provides a good example of a situation where an existing legal framework (in this case relating to reindeer husbandry on state land) has very direct con-sequences for the potential to expand hunting tourism activity, with commercial hunting a lower priority than reindeer husbandry or the needs of local hunters.

However, it would have been unrealistic to have expected wholly, or even predominantly, consistent im-pact (and attitude) messages to have emerged within and between the stakeholder groups, and across the nations, involved in this study. That said, some common benefits and problems associated with the development of hunting tourism have been confirmed or identified through our impact work. But, our investigation also demonstrates the need for national and local sensitivities to be reflected in particular hunting tourism development strategies, and there will always be a dualism or tension between what can be generalised, internationally, and factors that are more specific to national and local conditions.

Ultimately, sustainable hunting tourism can only be operationalised successfully as a community-based endeavour.