Concertation project "Protection measures against the wolf (including livestock guarding dogs) and other land uses in the Vercors RNP 1

Meeting on 25 May 2021 (11:00-16:00)

Discussion: Livestock breeders' and shepherds’ perspectives on the situation and on the actions discussed in the virtual workshops

MINUTES

Participants : Jonathan Bard (C2PMU), Sébastien Bos & Elisabeth Moreau (GAEC Bos, Gigors-et-Lozeron), Nicolas Peccoz et Catherine Savignac (GAEC du Savel- Gigors-et-Lozeron), Manon CHEVALIER (PNR-Vercors), Florence Niel (PNR-Vercors), Pascal Ravix (Eleveur A la Crécia, Lans en Vercors), Vincent Ducomet (Eleveur et Référent IDELE), Franck Vigne (Eleveur- Société De Chaumane, Combovin)

Elected representatives/observers: Gérard Gagnier (Maire de Beaufort sur Gervanne), Béatrice Martin (Conseil Municipal Commune de Gigors-et-Lozeron), Ad Koolen (Commune de Suze)

Excuses : Michel VARTANIAN (Vice-président PNR Vercors), Cyrille GAUTIER (Moutain Bikers Foundation MBF- Atelier d’Avril), Kostia CHARRA (CD26- Atelier de Mars),

Facilitation and organisation: Estelle Balian, Rachel Redon et Marion Joly Azimont, with the RNP-Vercors.

Purpose of the meeting: In a context where the wolf is present, the introduction of protection measures (especially livestock guarding dogs, LGDs) can sometimes lead to problems with the users of the territory, particularly with regard to tourist activities and the local population. In order to avoid strained relations between the stakeholders concerned, the Vercors Regional Nature Park (RNP Vercors) wishes to set up and lead a multi-stakeholder working group on "Protection measures against the wolf (including LGDs) and other land uses".

The project funded by the European institutions supports this initiative by providing a team of experts to assist the Vercors RNP in implementing the dialogue process.

At a first stakeholders' meeting in September 2020, participants discussed working along three axes of activity:

1) Collecting information (positive and negative) on encounters between LGDs and other land users, 2) geolocation of flocks, 3) efforts to raise awareness and inform users.

An online meeting was held in March 2021 with organisations managing initiatives including Axes 1 and 2. The participants discussed how the different initiatives could be coordinated. A second online meeting was held in April to bring together stakeholders from the tourism and nature sports sectors to discuss their needs in relation to the axes identified above and the

1 The meeting is organised under the EU-funded Service Contract for the establishment of additional regional/local platforms on coexistence between

people and large carnivores, 07.027739/2018/792763/SER/ENV.D.3. More information: :https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/regional_platforms_France.htm

2

possibilities of coordinating efforts to raise awareness among tourists and nature sports enthusiasts about the presence of LGDs.

The aim of the meeting on 25 May was to give livestock breeders and shepherds a voice, to understand their perspective on the current situation and to gather their opinions on the initiatives and work areas discussed at previous meetings. The elected representatives were present in the role of observers in order to leave the space for the livestock breeders and shepherds to express themselves, but they were able to share what they had heard during dedicated moments.

Programme

• Introduction and objectives

• Time to listen to the situation and the challenges facing livestock breeders and shepherds

• Presentation and discussion of current and future initiatives

• Discussion of livestock breeders' needs and reflection on priorities

• Conclusion

Figure 1. Tour de table

The meeting started with a tour de table where each participant was asked to share something

he/she likes about their job/function. The livestock breeders all highlighted their passion for

their animals as the aspect that motivates them in their activity but also currently the feeling of

loss of meaning and fatigue in their job.

3

The EU project team gave a short presentation on what had already been done in the

framework of this consultation project and how this meeting fitted in.

The initial proposal to divide into small groups for a specific listening time was replaced by a

discussion-circle where the livestock breeders shared information about events that affected

them and the consequences this had on a personal, emotional and professional level.

The participants then shared a convivial lunch hosted by Ms Moreau and Mr Bos.

Discussions resumed with a presentation of existing initiatives on the three themes with the

support of printed sheets of the graphic representation developed on Miro during the other

meetings:

- Collection of encounters/incidents with LGDs,

- Geolocation of flocks,

- Awareness raising and communication.

The group reviewed the results of the previous meetings and gave its opinion on these different

actions and discussed the actions that appear to be priorities.

1 Time for sharing the experiences of livestock breeders

1.1 Evolution of their profession

The livestock breeders and shepherds present have been using LGDs to deal with wolf

predation for around 7 years. Given the increase in the wolf population and the number of

predations, their dog packs have increased in recent years, from 1 or 2 dogs to 8 and 11 dogs

for 2 of the farms. The time and money spent on breeding these dogs is considerable for them:

3 extra hours per day to feed them for example, plus the time spent on training these dogs and

frequent testing by the dog squad.

1.2 Incidents between LGDs and walkers/other land users. :

When the cases were reported to the livestock breeders, they themselves took action to try to

"repair" the damage and understand what had happened. This included: trying to find the dog

that had caused the incident, reeducating that dog, trying to understand what could have

caused the problem following the advice on dog training, fencing, reimbursement of the cost

of medical expenses or torn clothing. Breeders said that the emotional impact of causing fear

and problems in the local population was important. The consequences are also long-term

within the community, where there have been incidents where members of the RDP Vercors

have been witnesses to the confrontations. These oppositions between people are hardening

between "for" and "against" LGDs, but few people make the link with the presence of the wolf

and the role of the dogs.

Walkers do not understand:

- the constraints of protecting flocks from the wolf,

- constraints in relation to private property (livestock breeders rent certain plots and are

not allowed to graze their flocks elsewhere),

- how to deal with flocks guarded by dogs.

Livestock breeders and shepherds experience:

4

- costly and difficult adaptations to their jobs and a loss of motivation.

- great concern about the future of pastoralism insofar as they do not see the outcome

of the actions they have carried out over the past 10 years to allow cohabitation

between the wolf, the flocks, the inhabitants of the territory and tourists.

- They feel that they are in a minority and have great difficulty in making their problems

heard.

- These problems become so invasive that they affect their family life and their integration

with part of the population in the communes where their flocks are located.

- They question the evolution of society and no longer see their place given the ever-

increasing constraints on their activity and the loss of meaning because their time is no

longer devoted to what they are passionate about in their profession but to managing

protection against the wolf and the consequences. They question the current trend

towards more intensive farming.

- They face enquiries from journalists in search of sensationalism which further

aggravates the situation.

- the impression that all the stakeholders are overwhelmed by the increase in the number

of wolves and the number of problems that this poses, but mainly for livestock breeders.

A certain discouragement about the solutions that could be found, even collective ones,

emerged: "It's been 20 years! I'm fed up! »

- Concern about the effectiveness of measures that have not led to concrete

improvements for many years.

- "It was also noted that some structures are beneficiaries of these problems with the

wolf and may not have an interest in resolving the existing problems between the wolf

and the breeders in order to remain in place.

- Their appreciation of the work of the RNP-Vercors teams, who listen to them

It is clear from the expressions of the breeders, shepherds and elected representatives present

that tension is mounting, with a split between the local populations in certain areas.

5

Figure 2 Post-its with important points from the discussion

2 Review of ongoing initiatives and actions to be taken

2.1 Questionnaire on LGDs

Breeders' opinions: these questionnaires, as they currently exist, only record negative

incidents, or even the negative feelings of walkers, and therefore aggravate the problem of

negative perceptions of LGDs. This practice can then lead to newspaper articles that are solely

incriminating (e.g. several articles in the Dauphiné Libéré in summer 2019 and 2020)

Livestock breeders question the way in which this questionnaire is developed as without

consultation with livestock breeders to ensure that the facts collected are verified and that there

is a "counter point of view", this kind of questionnaire will only add fuel to the fire.

Question: There are questionnaires developed by shepherds. If this questionnaire were

reviewed by livestock breeders, what would it have to contain to be useful for you as well?

One livestock breeder indicated that a questionnaire on predation on flocks could also be set

up to link the two aspects.

6

Figure 3. Post-its with the points on the questionnaires

Finally, a consensus was reached that an online questionnaire on incidents open only to users

(walkers, sportsmen etc.) is useless and brings a risky bias:

- It does not bring the person who has had a bad experience with the dog and the breeder

closer together so that contact between the two parties can "repair" the incident, both

on the side of the breeder, who is sometimes not even informed of what has happened,

and on the side of the person who has been frightened or injured to make it a learning

experience for both parties.

- It does not allow real statistics to be collected of the interactions between dogs and

other users of the territory (it relates a few incidents, without giving sufficient details of

the event itself, or even crossing the two opinions to have more objectivity. These

incidents are not compared with the number of people who come across the dogs

without incident, in order to draw a percentage).

- The workload and cost are at odds with its actual effectiveness.

IDELE attended a meeting examining the consequences of complaints against LGDs. It seems

that the responsibility of breeders in the case of an incident is for the moment only rarely

accepted, there have been very few convictions, but this could change, it is important not to

dismiss this question.

One livestock breeder said that even if it doesn’t result in a conviction, being tried in a court of

law is an impactful, time-consuming and costly act.

When objective facts could be collected in the case of an incident, for example with a walker's

dog, it seems that dogs are rarely the cause of the problem and that it is a human problem.

7

In other areas, when a serious incident occurs, there is an investigation with fact-finding from

both parties involved, not just from one point of view. Gathering the objective facts from both

perspectives would also help livestock breeders to better understand what is going on.

2.2 Proposals in the event of an incident :

Instead of the planned questionnaire (the revisiting of the online questionnaire "My experience

with LGDs") relating events on a feeling basis and only for the use of walkers/users, it is

proposed:

- To set up a telephone number for both shepherds and walkers in the event of a serious

incident.

- Be able to use a neutral mediator to ease tensions. Putting the two parties together

without a third party is not desirable. An elected official mentions that they are often the

ones who intervene, but elected officials are not trained in mediation, it is a delicate

process, it requires caution in terms of speech and behaviour. The use of a neutral

professional would be a solution.

- IDELE referents are competent to mediate, but more mediators/neutral third parties are

needed. For the moment there are 5 or 6 referents and they are building a network of

25 relay interlocutors.

- To start a mediation, you need a request. How can this be organised? Find lists of

mediators? Associations with volunteer mediators?

- Obtaining funding from the DRAAF for mediations? This possibility would require

considerable advance planning as the subsidy schedule requires applications to be

submitted a year in advance.

2.3 Geolocation/GPS collars

The project team reported on the problem of sharing information on the geolocation of flocks

that had emerged from the first online meeting. There is a question of civil liability: it would

seem that if flocks move without the information being updated, the responsibility lies with the

livestock breeder.

Figure 4. Post-its - how to respond to an incident

8

The contact details of a lawyer specialising in digital liability issues will be forwarded to the

Vercors RNP.

One livestock breeder pointed out that, apart from geolocating the flocks for hikers, GPS collar

data on dogs is very useful for livestock breeders: it allows them to gather information on wolf

attacks, on the behaviour of the dogs and to adapt quickly. Several livestock breeders confirm

that they have access to little information on wolf movements, they try to learn from this

technique.

3 Actions on communication

3.1 Changing the narrative to communicate

In the current communication, the emphasis is on the LGDs and this is not desirable. It would

be more appropriate to have a more open account that starts with 1) the diversity of the fauna

in the Vercors with the evolution of the ecosystem and 2) in particular the presence of the wolf

over the last 20 years, which has led to the presence of LGDs to protect the flocks, 3) flocks

that play a vital role in maintaining the landscapes appreciated by hikers and inhabitants.

We need to change the narrative/narrative, to put a broader framework, rather than just

warning about the dogs. And then within that framework, put information on how to behave in

relation to the flocks and the LGDs.

There is a lot already done but a lack of coherence and the need for a clear common message

to be developed together with all interests/working group representing all stakeholders.

Message to be passed on

- A simple message, "understandable" by the different parties, that can be understood

by the greatest number of people, especially the youngest.

- A message that comes in several versions, a long and a short version pitch effective in

3 minutes and as complete as possible

- A message that dares to say frankly:

o That the wolf is there and is a predator

o That LGDs can bite because their role is to protect flocks

o That there are private areas, that the mountain is not always for everyone

o That there are regulations, a rural code with rules for behaviour in the countryside

9

How to get the message across:

- on Visiorando (you have to contact them so that they add an notice on the risk of

presence of flocks and the code of conduct to be followed),

- in the tourist offices,

- with accommodation providers (a breeder is in contact with a Gîte de France manager),

- with the various mountain tourism professionals (guides, mountain bike hire

companies, etc.),

- Signs in the car parks of the commune and at the start of the walks,

- national communication campaign and/or on France 3 Drôme Ardèche (e.g. flash-news

after the weather report, short and frequently repeated message on how to behave with

regard to flocks).

Example of an initiative: a group of livestock breeders had tried to put up large metal dogs to

draw more attention to signs that are not read/seen. They gave up because the maintenance

was too difficult, but one of the elected representatives present has kept the idea in mind.

Train intermediaries to disseminate information

- A system of rangers who would be trained and/or come and stay with the livestock

breeders to understand their experience, their issues and the behaviour to adopt with

regard to the flocks, dogs and property rights. They could then relay the information on

the paths and tourist sites during the summer. The question of whether to use civic

services or people recruited specifically for this purpose has not been decided.

Figure 5. Awareness-raising Post-its

10

- Train the animators who intervene in different activities. The RNP Vercors has planned

a 4-day training course on pastoralism in the presence of the wolf for its rangers.

Breeders ask that their point of view be included. The current training course includes

a day with a livestock breeder. It was suggested that the training programme be

communicated to the livestock breeders so that there could be agreement on the

content.

- It seems important to them to define a "standard content" for training relay persons in

general, which integrates the different points of view (interest in the presence of the

wolf/constraints it implies/behaviour to be adopted, etc.) for neutral information and

where the word of each actor in the territory has the same weight. This work could be

carried out with a sub-group of the EU project led by a facilitator in order to reach an

agreement between all parties and to ensure impartiality in the content produced. This

framework could then be disseminated throughout the park.

Education in schools

The meetings of a breeder with a class allow for long-term education. This is important. In the

territorial pastoral path, there is (or should be?) a budget earmarked for these school visits.

4 Conclusions and next steps

Livestock breeders highlighted several points to be taken into account on the different

initiatives and actions that can be put in place:

- an online questionnaire of incidents from the perspective of walker users alone can

have negative consequences by feeding a bias and negative perception of dogs.

- It is important to have objective facts for incidents with both points of view. The

development of this kind of questionnaire should be done together with the livestock

breeders and taking into account this need for objective facts and possibly a survey.

- There is a need for neutral third parties to intervene in conflicts between livestock

breeders and residents/users: how to set this up.

- Communication must be revised with a common message developed together by the

various stakeholders but putting the more general context back into play: the richness

of the fauna in the Vercors with the presence of the wolf, the wolf also being a predator

of the flocks and the need for dogs to protect them, the role of pastoralism on the

landscapes and "rural civic-mindedness" with the behaviours to be had with the dogs

but also more generally on a territory that does not belong to everyone and has its own

codes.

- The interest to also develop common training content to be used for facilitators,

rangers, etc.

11

The next meeting will bring together all the actors in plenary to take stock of the different areas

of work and to identify together the pilot actions that can be financed and the working groups

that will implement them. The meeting should take place in September.

-------------------

Figure 6. Conclusions

Annexe 1 : Miro chart presented in printed form to inform discussion