They were, in anthropologist Mary Douglas' words, âdirtâ, meaning matter out of place.17. These wolves came to Finland at a time when people did not want ...
Finnish and foreign wolves The idea of wolves’ nationality in the 20th century Finland Heta Lähdesmäki, PhD student Cultural History, University of Turku ISCH Conference in Istanbul September 2013
Introduction In my paper I examine Finns’ views on the nationality of wolves in the 20 th century Finland. The human perception of non-human animals having a nationality has not been much studied (by historians) even though we come across this idea frequently. 1 Many species besides humans, both fauna and flora, are understood to possess a spatial belonging. 2 This becomes obvious when species spread and expand their territories. We use terms such as native, endemic or indigenous when we talk about species existing in their original places; whereas species that are originally from somewhere else are called foreign, alien, strangers or invasive.3 By using material related to game management as well as newspaper and magazine writings, I explore Finns’ notions, firstly, of the so called foreign wolves who came from Russia, and secondly, of the Finnishness of the Finnish wolf population. Finally, I observe what the idea of wolves having a nationality is able to tell about the way us humans organize the world both mentally and spatially. The notions of wolves’ nationality are part of the mental wolf image, that is to say, the cultural representation of wolves. Therefore this paper essentially discusses the wolf image Finns had during the 20th century.
1
Coates 2007, 186. See for instance Ducks out of water, passim. People classify animals and plants (biota) according to different attributes. One criterion is adherence to cultural standards of belonging and citizenship. Davis et al. 2011, 153–154. 3 For instance the terms native and alien have been used in botany from the 1840’s onwards. Davis et al. 2011, 153– 154. 2
1
Finnish or foreign? Wolf individual’s nationality By the end of the 19th century In Finland wolves were hunted down almost to extinction. This meant that at the beginning of the 20th century there were only few individuals living in Finland. The number of wolves stayed small until the middle of the 20 th century.4 According to historian Peter Coates problem species’ national citizenship can often be heavily contested. 5 Before wolf conservation began in the 1970’s wolves were not felt Finnish in a way that their presence or existence was appreciated. According to a book on hunting published in 1926 wolf was one of Finland’s most hated predators. 6 Everyone had the right to kill wolves everywhere in the country and the government encouraged Finns to hunt them by paying bounties. 7 I argue that before conservation began the wolves living in Finland were felt as unwanted intruders people wanted to get rid of. Even though there were not a lot of wolves in the country, getting rid of them was difficult. 8 Finns were stuck with their wolves who actually were often of foreign origin: Animals were able to move back and forth across the border between Finland and Russia, and some wolf packs were told to live on both sides of the border. 9 Hunting and fishing magazine Metsästys ja Kalastus (meaning Hunting and Fishing) mentions wolves’ Russian origins when there was reason to suspect it 10, and also books on Finnish fauna and hunting tell about border-crossing individuals. According to a zoological book published in 1955 wolves were able to continue their misdeeds in Finland due to migration from Russian Karelia.11 A guide book for hunters published in 1967 also
4
Aspi et al. 2006, 1561–1562, 1569, 1571. Coates 2007, 188. 6 Ylänne 1926, 238. 7 Keisarillisen Majesteetin Armollinen Asetus.. 6/1868; Keisarillisen majesteetin Armollinen Asetus..45/1898; Metsästyslaki 146/1934; Metsästyslaki 290/1962; Laki metsästyslain muuttamisesta 1038/1975. 8 A book on Finnish hunting and game management published in 1950 states that “[w]olf’s death sentence has been read years ago but the execution has proven difficult. At times there has been reason to assume that we have got rid of the species but suddenly it has again revealed itself, its existence like a mean natural phenomenon you can’t affect.” Järvinen 1950, 202. 9 See for instance Salovaara 1957, 160; Pohjois-Karjalan susiesiintymien biologisesta taustasta, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1962, 293. 10 See for instance Susien esiintyminen Suomessa viimeisinä vuosina, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1926, 157–158; Susia Lounais- ja Länsi-Suomessa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1926, 114–115; Karhuja ja susia paljon liikkeellä, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1927, 341; Susi ammuttu Petsamossa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1934, 187; Raateleva susi saatu ammutuksi, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1934, 372. 11 ”Pohjois-Venäjän asumattomilta tundroilta ja laajoista metsistä niitä virtaa heikentyneen kannan vahvistukseksi”. Suomen eläinkuvasto. Nuorteva 1955, 86. A book on Finnish hunting and game management from that time also mentioned that the wolf population got reinforcements from behind the eastern border. The book told that wolves “move about in the forests near the eastern border where the wolf population gets reinforcements from behind the border”. Järvinen 1950, 205. 5
2
interpreted that the species continued to exist in the country thanks to reinforcements from Russia. 12 Crossing the border might have been easy but newcomers usually faced open persecution in their new homeland. This was the case for instance when a large expansion took place between the years 1959 and 1963. During these years over fifty wolves crossed the Finnish-Russian border.13 Finns reacted to the expansion as an invasion by unwanted intruders. Hunts were organized every year. Even airplanes were used in hunts, and military detachments participated in the struggle to exterminate these “immigrant wolves”.14 By 1963 almost all of the newcomers and their offspring were killed. 15 Individuals who came from Russia or those living on both sides of the border were not, to some Finns, completely Finnish. In my sources they were described as fugitives, strays, foreigners, immigrants and Russian.16 Some of these terms are highly charged (and humanizing) and, in my mind, reveal that these animals were understood to be out of place. They were, in anthropologist Mary Douglas’ words, “dirt”, meaning matter out of place.17 These wolves came to Finland at a time when people did not want wolves to exist in the country. They were dealt with in a similar way as many invasive and alien species are handled even today: They were eradicated if possible. 18 During the second half of the century people started to feel more positively about wolves. Several things caused this change: Firstly, fewer people suffered from the damages caused by wolves because Finland was no longer so strongly an agrarian society. Also animal rights movement and ecocritisism influenced how people felt about wolves. The fact that wolf became a protected species in 1973 demonstrates this change in the wolf image. The species’ presence in Finland was felt more appreciated. Conservation made it possible for wolves to establish territories and proliferate inside the country’s borders and according to legislation wolves had the right to do so. 19 Legislation defined Finland as the species’ ”natural” place and distribution. 20
12
”Vuoden 1930 paikkeilla ei sudesta kuultu juuri mitään, kunnes niitä jälleen 1930-luvun keskivaiheilla alkoi ilmaantua – nähtävästi Venäjän puolelta – Lappiin ja erikoisesti Petsamoon - -.” Ylänne & Mäki 1967, 321. 13 By 1961 wolves had formed packs and established territories almost everywhere near the eastern border. PohjoisKarjalan susiesiintymien biologisesta taustasta, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1962, 290–293. 14 Lentokone apuna susijahdissa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1962, 214; Pulliainen 1972, 82. (armeijan joukko-osastoja) 15 Pulliainen 1972, 82. 16 See for instance Susien esiintyminen Suomessa viimeisinä vuosina, Metsästys ja Kalastus 1926, 157–158, 162 17 Douglas 1966. In Milton 2000, 229. 18 Accordign to Kay Milton eradication is sometimes viewed as a plausible way to solve problems caused by aliens, especially in case of predators. Milton 2000, 239. 19 Asetus suden rauhoittamisesta 749/1973. 20 Euroopan neuvoston direktiivi.. 92/43/ETY; Luonnonsuojelulaki 1096/1996; Lähdesmäki 2011, 38–39.
3
According to Coates, the nationalization of nature is done through the construction of biological belonging and non-belonging. 21 According to the public opinion during the latter part of the 20th century, wolves belonged to Finland. 22 In that way, they were understood as Finnish. Many perceived wolf as a native species that had a right to exist in the country. Even though wolves caused harm by killing livestock and domestic animals, many Finns wanted to protect the species and make sure it was part of Finnish fauna in the future. 23
National population Wolf population’s Finnishness The Finnish wolf population is part of the species Eurasian range and it is connected to the Swedish, Norwegian and Russian wolf populations. 24 Nevertheless, during the 20th century people talked about the Finnish wolf population as a separate unite. Conservation and population management authorities acknowledged the “genetic” link with Russian wolf population, but all the same focused on and talked about national populations. 25 During the second half of the century wolf immigration from Russian Karelia was understood as a nature’s way to look after the Finnish wolf population’s diversity. 26 However, this link was also presented as a negative thing. Some zoological books declared that due to migration Finnish wolves were not truly Finnish. For instance a zoological book published in the 1970s states that the actual domestic population existed in North-West Lapland. The wolves living near (and occasionally on the other side of the) eastern border did not qualify as domestic in this book. 27 Also a book published in the 1980s stated that “all our wolves are now of eastern or western (Estonian) origin”. 28 In this view the place of birth determined wolves’ national identity. 29 If wolves were of Russian descent the current population could not constitute a truly Finnish population.
21
Coates 2007, 26. Teperi 1977, 5; Lähdesmäki 2011, 33, 38. 23 Lähdesmäki 2011, 33–34. 24 Boitani 2006, 319; Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito 1996, tiivistelmä, 1, 8, 9. 25 Suomen suurpetokannat ja niiden hoito 1986, 2, 3, 9, 45, 65; Suurpetokantojen kehitys Suomessa vuosina 1988– 1990 1991, 3, 4, 7, 8; Hirvieläinten, suurpetojen ja muiden pyyntilupajärjestelmän piiriin kuuluvien eläinten valtakunnalliset hoitosuunnitelmat 1995, 20; Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito 1996, tiivistelmä, 6, 16, 18, 34; Lähdesmäki 2011, 23, 27–31. 26 Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito 1996, 34. 27 Pulliaisen mukaan ”Varsinaista kotimaista susikantaa meillä on ollut näihin saakka Enontekiön Tsuukiskurun alueella ja Inarin Lemmenjoen ympäristössä”. Pulliainen 1972, 84. 28 “Nyt sutemme ovat itäistä tai eteläistä (eestiläistä) perua”. Pulliainen 1983, 192. See also an oppinion piece Susia kohdeltava riistaeläiminä, HS Mielipide 3.2.1997. 29 Citizenship according to the place of birth or according to the citizenship of parents. Coates 2007, 7. 22
4
A truly Finnish population was desired by some Finns. During the late 1990s the number of wolves in Russian Karelia was decreasing which meant fewer border crossing individuals. 30 Conservationists, biologists and authorities were worried that the change in wolf mobility could be dramatic for the Finnish population’s future. They wished that the national population would become bigger and therefore independent: If the Finnish wolf population became big enough it wouldn’t dependent on migration in order to be genetically vital. Independent wolf population would also be properly Finnish.31 To many Finns the population was already Finnish enough. Even people whose lives and livelihoods were affected by wolves could feel that the population was Finnish, and that wolf was an animal of which Finns could be proud of. Wolves could be understood to be part of certain regions or even part of the whole country. 32 Anthropologist Kay Milton links the nationality of species under conservation with the notion of responsibility. 33 Therefore, if the wolf population was perceived Finnish it could feel reasonable for Finns to protect it. Dividing wolves into imaginary national groups was also useful because it was a way to divide responsibility between nations.
The place and identity of wolves – Mental and spatial ordering The world is understood spatially. 34 Individual animals as well as populations are divided into different nationalities and national populations based on their location within human geography. These groups are always somewhat imaginary because, as I mentioned earlier, national populations can be connected with each other and the borders between countries are not “real” (or restrictive) to animals in the same sense as they are to humans. The tendency to grant nationality and belonging to animals comes from our need to order and structure phenomena through classification. 35 Nationality is a category that we use in order to make sense of the world. Stuart Hall writes that national identity is an imagined community. 36 Therefore it is understandable to nationalise not only humans, but also nonhuman animals according to their geographical location. 30
Lähdesmäki 2011, 33. Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito 1996, tiivistelmä, 34; Suomeen mahtuu monta sataa sutta, HS Kotimaa 29.1.1997; Lähdesmäki 2011, 33. 32 Lähdesmäki 2011, 51; See for instance an oppinion piece Tietty petokanta säilytettävä, HS Mielipide 27.5.1995. A sheep herder from East Finland who suffered from wolf predation stated in a newspaper article that wolf was a noble animal from which North Karelia could be proud of. Susisodassa syntyi välirauha, HS Kotimaa 23.8.1997; Lähdesmäki 2011, 33–34. 33 If a species is understood as an alien the conservation of it might not be seen as the responsibility for the country’s citizens or government. Milton 2000, 237–238. 34 See for instance Laitinen 2004, 1. 35 Coates has stated similarly. Coates 1998, 191. See also Davis et al 2011, 153–154; Hall 2005 [1999], 82. 36 Hall 2005 [1999], 45–47. 31
5
Mary Douglas states that “[d]irt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements”. 37 Due to mental and spatial ordering some wolf individuals were felt inappropriate and out of place. When hunting these wolves Finns maintained boundaries. 38 In my view, when categorizing wolves as Finnish, Russian, etc, people use power. According to Coates ”[s]ituating nonhuman organisms within the eminently human entities of society, community, race, and nation involves exclusion as well as inclusion, particularly from the nation-state.”39 For instance, the wolves crossing the border during the expansion in the early 1960s were not included into the Finnish wolf population. After crossing the border they did not become Finnish wolves; rather they were classified as intruders that could be excluded and exterminated. Nevertheless, the idea of foreign and intruding wolves can be linked also to the notion of animal agency. When animals break spatial categories, say, when migrating, they – intentionally or unintentionally – use power. I argue that wolves can be seen as active agents when roaming unasked from one country to another. Border crossing individuals came to Finland on their own, without human help or permission. When Finns hunted these intruding, out-of-place wolves they tried to maintain order and control in the physical and mental world.
Conclusions Due to mental and spatial ordering Finns viewed individual wolves during the 20 th century either as Finnish or as foreign and therefore understood them to, in a way, posses a nationality. The location and origin affected how individuals’ nationality was felt. Also the wolf population in the country was felt Finnish in some ways. The way people viewed wolves’ nationality impacted how people treated them. Before the conservation wolves’ were seen as intruders that should be hunted down; after the conservation began wolves were seen as and treated like native animals who belonged to Finland.
37
Douglas 1966. In Milton 2000, 229 Douglas 1966. In Milton 2000, 229 39 Coates 2007, 188. 38
6
The nationality of wolves was not the only or even the main reason why they were killed; Main reason was that wolves are predators and can cause indirect damages to humans for instance when killing livestock. Nevertheless, I argue that the geography of non-human animals is an important factor in the ways in which we understand them and interact with them.
References Asetus suden rauhoittamisesta. Säädöskokoelma 749/1973. Aspi, J.; Roininen, E.; Ruokonen, M.; Kojola I. & Vila, C. Genetic diversity, population structure, effective population size, and demographic history of the Finnish wolf population. Molecular Ecology 15/2006, 1561–1576. Boitani, Luigi: Wolf Conservation and Recovery. In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Eds. David Mech and Luigi Boitani. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2006, 317–340. Coates, Peter: American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive Species: Strangers on the Land. University of California Press, Berkeley 2007. Davis, M; Chew, MK; Hobbs RJ; Lugo AE et al: Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474/2011, 153– 154 . Douglas, Mary: Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge, 1966. Euroopan neuvoston direktiivi luontotyyppien sekä luonnonvaraisen eläimistön ja kasviston suojelusta. Direktiivi 92/43/ETY. Hall, Stuart: Identiteetti. Ed. and translators Mikko Lehtonen ja Juha Herkman. Vastapaino, Tampere 2005. First published in 1999. Hirvieläinten, suurpetojen ja muiden pyyntilupajärjestelmän piiriin kuuluvien eläinten valtakunnalliset hoitosuunnitelmat Metsästäjäin keskusjärjestö, Riistakantojen hoito-työryhmä 1995. Järvinen, A. E.: Turkis- ja petoeläimet. In Suomen metsästys. Kokoomateos metsästyksestä ja riistanhoidosta. Ed. Yrjö Ylänne. Otava, Helsinki 1950, 147–242. Karhuja ja susia paljon liikkeellä, Metsästys ja Kalastus 9/1927. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. Uusi sarja. Vuosi 1927. Helsinki 1927, 341. Keisarillisen Majesteetin Armollinen Asetus metsästyksestä ja otuksen pyynnöstä Suomessa. Suomen Suuriruhtinanmaan Asetus-Kokous 6/1868 Keisarillisen Majesteetin Armollinen Asetus metsästyksestä. Suomen Suuriruhtinanmaan Asetus-kokoelma 45/1898. Kivirikko, K. E.: Suomen selkärankaiset. WSOY, 1940 Laitinen, Riitta: Johdanto tilan kokemisen kulttuurihistoriaan. In Tilan kokemisen kulttuurihistoriaa. Ed. Riitta Laitinen. Turun yliopisto, Turun yliopiston kulttuurihistorian kirjasarja osa 4. Turku 2004, 1–13. Laki metsästyslain muuttamisesta. Säädöskokoelma 1038/1975. Lentokone apuna susijahdissa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 5/1962. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. 51. vuosikerta 1962. Otava, Helsinki 1962, 214. Luonnonsuojelulaki. Säädöskokoelma 1096/1996. Lähdesmäki, Heta: Hallittu ja hallitsematon susi. Valta ihmisen ja suden välisessä suhteessa poronhoitoalueen ulkopuolisessa Suomessa 1990-luvun lopulla. Kulttuurihistorian pro gradu tutkielma. Turun yliopisto 2011. Metsästyslaki. Säädöskokoelma 146/1934. Metsästyslaki. Säädöskokoelma 290/1962.
7
Milton, Kay: Ducks out of water: Nature conservation as boundary maintenance. Natural Enemies. People– Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. Ed. John Knight. Routledge, London and New York 2000, 229–246. Nuorteva, Pekka: Suomen eläinkuvasto. WSOY, Porvoo 1955. Philo, Chris & Wilbert, Chris: Animal spaces, beastly places. An Introduction. Animal Spaces, Beastly places. New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations. Eds. Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert. Routledge, London 2000, 1–35. Pohjois-Karjalan susiesiintymien biologisesta taustasta, Metsästys ja Kalastus 7–8/1962. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. 51. vuosikerta. 1962. Otava, Helsinki 1962,290–293. Pulliainen, Erkki: Susi. In Suomen nisäkkäät II. Ed. Lauri Siivonen. Otava, Helsinki 1972, 81–101. Pulliainen, Erkki: Susi. In Suomen eläimet. Ed. Ilkka Koivisto. Weilin + Göös, Espoo 1983, 188–195. Raateleva susi saatu ammutuksi, Metsästys ja Kalastus 10/1934. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. Uusi sarja. 1934. Helsinki 1934, 372. Salovaara, Hannes: Eläinten maailma I. Otava, Helsinki 1957. Suomen suurpetokannat ja niiden hoito. Luonnonvarainneuvosto, Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 1986. Suomen maasuurpetokannat ja niiden hoito. Suurpetotyöryhmän raportti, Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön julkaisuja 6/1996. Susi ammuttu Petsamossa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 5/1934. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. Uusi sarja. 1934. Helsinki 1934, 187 Susia Lounais- ja Länsi-Suomessa, Metsästys ja Kalastus 3/1926. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. Uusi sarja. Vuosi 1926. Helsinki 1926, 114–115. Susien esiintyminen Suomessa viimeisinä vuosina. Metsästys ja Kalastus. 5/1926. In Metsästys ja Kalastus. Uusi sarja. Vuosi 1926. Helsinki 1926, 157–162. Suurpetokantojen kehitys Suomessa vuosina 1988–1990. Riistantutkimusosaston tiedote 111:1991. Helsinki 1991. Ylänne, Yrjö: Metsästäjän käsikirja. Otava, Helsinki 1926. Ylänne, Yrjö & Mäki, Tauno V.: Metsästyksen taito. Otava, Helsinki 1967
8
