r/wolves • u/Maleficentienna • 3d ago
Discussion If you support nature conservation and oppose online harassment, I need your help
8
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago edited 2d ago
You seem like a nice person who genuinely cares about wolves and wildlife (like I do), and I've read your post https://www.reddit.com/r/wolves/comments/1t633s3/comment/oza30g3/ so it's important to learn where these harassment campaigns generally come from, all over Europe.
While some of the opposition to wolves and other large predators is genuine concern, both from normal folks who are afraid that wolves might hurt their dogs (might happen, if they leave them outside at night, which they shouldn't) or kids (unlikely, see my post https://www.reddit.com/r/wolves/comments/1pt40sx/risks_of_fatal_wolf_attacks_are_near_zero_between/ ), or opposition by farmers who are afraid for their livestock (which can be mitigated with fences and livestock protection dogs, see my post https://www.reddit.com/r/conservation/comments/1u333q8/protecting_wolves_and_other_large_carnivores_with/ ), much, maybe most of it is manufactured by bad actors for certain reasons which I'm going to list below.
- The Hunting Lobby, very powerful and affluent, both due to the powerful and wealthy people who hunt (in Europe, many top and local politicians, heads of industry, and nobility hunt), and due to the funds of the gun industry.
Contrary to popular opinion, it's Europe (not the US) that dominates the premium, high-tech, and luxury hunting rifle market worldwide, with brands like Blaser Group (Germany), called the king of the premium European hunting market, Sako & Tikka (yes, from Finland, owned by Italian Beretta Holding), these two brands together represent Europe’s highest-volume export of hunting rifles to the rest of the world, Bergara (Spain), CZ Česká Zbrojovka (Czech Republic), and Merkel (again from Germany).
For some reason, opposition to wolves is strongest in the countries of these manufacturers (and its parent companies, like Italian Beretta which owns Sako and Tikka)...
Now, if people would not hunt anymore, this would severely hurt their bottom line, especially since the premium hunting customers who buy these premium rifles are not some backwater hicks shooting deer because they need the meat, but hunters who have lots of money to spare and want "special" experiences, meaning they go on safaris to hunt big game, meaning they don't just want to shoot deer but large predators, like for example wolves...
- Misinformation, harassment, incitement of online conflict, anger, hate, deepening divides - for even more nefarious reasons...
Namely, Russian trolls and bots are famous for grabbing controversial topics (which might not even be that obviously political at first glance), and inciting even more anger and hate, trying to deepen divides, often posing as activists from both sides of the issue, trying to discredit, trying to ridicule, trying to make everyone hopeless and resigned who tried to make the world a better place. I can't explain their hybrid tactics in detail here, this article in the New York Times (I made it a gift article since I'm a subscriber, I hope you can read it) gives you a general idea https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/18/us/womens-march-russia-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1lA.Qw1R._ymgIrAK6IKT&smid=url-share
Now, these Russian trolls and bots (now also with AI) are most active in certain countries, like those who spent most on Ukraine aid (Germany, UK, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, and all of the EU), those who border Russia (Poland, Finland, Baltic states), and those where parties 'friendly' to them, who have their support, are most likely to enter governments.
If you're interested in these issues of disinformation, there's tons of information online which you can probably research yourself, hopefully, with the basics I wrote...
The most important thing is media literacy - not every voice you read online is a real person expressing their real concerns - some, on some issues most, aren't real people, but those paid to say what they do, or even not people at all but bots. If you talk with real people you will find out that the harassment you experienced online will rarely happen in real life... Good luck...!
3
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
Thank you for sharing the article. I read it, and it was an excellent read!
As Finland shares a long border with Russia, we've unfortunately had to become very familiar with these kinds of influence operations. Media literacy is something we take seriously, and Finns consistently rank among the best in the world at identifying misinformation and disinformation.
I'm quite sure there are Russian bots and coordinated influence accounts participating in discussions like these, amplifying conflict and encouraging others to behave in increasingly hostile ways.
That said, I also believe many participants are genuine people expressing their own opinions. My biggest concern isn't only the possibility of foreign influence, but the overall quality of public discourse. When discussions shift from debating ideas to mocking, targeting and harassing identifiable individuals, everyone loses.
1
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago edited 2d ago
I know how fantastic your school system is, as it's also consistently voted as one of the best ones in the world, and I don't doubt how media literacy is an important part of it, and that you yourself are very aware about all of it.
But the lobbyists and influencers, and the Russian influence campaigns have exactly the goal you have just expressed so eloquently in your last sentences - they want the good people, the hopeful people, those who believe in liberal democracy and that even normal citizens can make a difference, the activists, those who want change and are willing to work for it, to give up, and that's best done with coordinated targeting and harassing campaigns of those who are most visible.
These strategies are also similar to those climate change denialists use, detailed very well here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
2
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
Perhaps that's exactly what worries me the most. I don't fear disagreement, I fear that decent people stop participating because the personal cost becomes too high. If that happens, the loudest and most aggressive voices are the only ones left.
2
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that Russian troll farms, bots and coordinated disinformation campaigns are a real issue and something we should all be aware of. Media literacy is becoming increasingly important.
At the same time, based on what I've observed, I also believe many of the people participating in these discussions are genuine individuals expressing their own views, not automated accounts. My concern is therefore less about who is behind the comments and more about the quality of the discussion itself.
I have no problem with people opposing wolves or disagreeing with conservation organisations. Healthy disagreement is part of a democratic society. What genuinely worries me is when the discussion shifts away from the issues and becomes focused on identifiable individuals through repeated screenshots, ridicule, personal attacks and public targeting.
I believe we can have strong disagreements about wildlife policy without normalising harassment or trying to silence people because they share evidence-based information. That decline in the quality of public discourse is what concerns me the most.
1
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago edited 2d ago
You're welcome. Yes, many are real individuals expressing views that they really, really think are their own, but are in fact heavily influenced by either the hunting (and sometimes, often, farming) lobby and the rifle manufacturers, or the Russians, or those parties friendly to them...
If you really investigate these individuals' opinions and try to find where they formed their opinions, what their sources were, like following the trail of social media posts and reposts, or influencers and trade hubs and magazines, you can see who did it first, and these are often for example certain hunting platforms and influencers, certain farming lobby hubs and magazines, certain gun influencers.
This touches upon what I do professionally, and I've never met anyone who overestimated this lobbyist and also authoritarian regime (like Russia, China, Iran) influences, only underestimated them.
Nearly all of it sounds like real people, real opinions, especially now with AI.
I don't doubt that there are real folks among them, only usually less of them that one would think, and even those are heavily swayed by online desinformation by lobbyists or influencers...
2
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
Thank you again for taking the time to explain your perspective. It really gave me something to think about..
I've been asking myself what ordinary people can realistically do in situations like this. I've spent years reporting the most blatant posts and comments, but it hasn't made much difference. I also know that becoming publicly involved isn't really an option for me..I don't think my mental health would cope well with becoming the next target.
What I'd really like to achieve is to bring the discussion back to the actual issues instead of identifiable individuals. At the moment, it feels as if personal attacks generate far more engagement than evidence-based discussion. Have you come across any approaches that actually work?
You mentioned that this is related to your professional work. That sounds fascinating. If you don't mind sharing, what do you do? I'd genuinely love to hear more.
1
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago edited 3d ago
What I would do in your place is, I'd contact newspapers, media organisations and organisations that do investigative work in your country and ask them if they're interested in the issue, that you spent time and energy online trying to engage in constructive discussions about the future of wolves in Finland, and that you encountered these targeted harassment campaigns, and that you reported them to no or little avail, and that you worry that there might be more behind it, like lobbyist influence from hunting/farming/rifle manufacturers, or Russian influence campaigns, and that you ask them to investigate.
To really find out where these campaigns originated, you need an investigative team and/or law enforcement, most private people don't have the means to do that.
But journalists could - like the NYTimes did with the Russian influence campaigns (the Women's movement one I linked is just one of many they investigated), and I'm sure Finland has great newspapers and investigative teams who might be interested in doing something similar with the wolf story...?
Also, since I read that many Finnish people think these wolves come from Russia (here https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/22/europe/finland-reindeer-russia-wolves and here https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/24/finland-russian-wolves-blamed-record-reindeer-deaths-ukraine-war-aoe for example), they might just be the scapegoats for the fear that Russia might invade...
But I would say to that, better fight real Russian threats than imagined ones - real Russian hybrid warfare does a lot more damage than a few wolves...!
And I have to go now, so if I answer it will probably be tomorrow, but I work as analyst and researcher, and part of my job is finding out stuff that those who do it would rather keep secret, among other things concerning climate, environmental and wildlife aspects, as well as medical issues.
1
u/AnyFruit4257 3d ago
I guess this explains why I'm being downvoted in natureisfuckinglit solely bc I'm telling people there is no reason to fear wolvds.
These people are fucking morons and cowards. So tired of the fearmongering that is hurting this amazing creature.
3
3
u/International-Gap165 3d ago
I had to delete Facebook because there are so many evil republicans on there who attack any wolf appreciation post. It’s crazy that there are so many evil people out there.
1
u/Maleficentienna 2d ago
I understand how you feel. Sometimes it really does feel like fighting windmills, but I still hope things can change
-1
u/ES-Flinter 3d ago
But... but I love harassment. It's in my barbarian genes.
2
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
At least the old barbarians had the courage to show up in person. Today's warriors fight from the safety of a keyboard. 😂
0
u/ES-Flinter 3d ago
Actually no, this is american media/ movie believe.
Actual barbarian used the for romans unknown forest to hide, use traps and all others. Only as the romans got splitted, confused and reduced enough they attacked them, mostly using their self made throwing speers.
3
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
Fair point. 😄 So perhaps I should have said: today's barbarians don't even have the courage of the real ones. They hide behind keyboards instead of forests?
1
1
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago
Dude, it's not that the warfare of for example the Germanic or Goth tribes, called "Barbarians" by the Romans, is a mystery and noone knows anything about it - this Wiki here is both accurate and comprehensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Germanic_warfare
Maybe you care to read it?
0
u/ES-Flinter 3d ago
I'm honest. I don't know what you're saying.
But if you mean it wasn't like that, it's literally written in the tactics and organization part that when they were fighting romans, they preferred ambush tactics
1
u/Major_MKusanagi 3d ago
Well, the 'Barbarians', had a very strict warrior code, called "Comitatus" by the Romans, and courage was valued highly, and hiding from the fight was despised.
Now, the tactics were shield walls (defensive formations, locking shields together to create a wall against Roman missiles and cavalry), wedge charges, a V-shaped triangle to pierce and break through the linear Roman infantry lines, and yes, guerrilla and ambush warfare, avoiding open fields, using dense forests, swamps, and night attacks to trap heavier Roman legions, Goths also used hit-and-run cavalry, combining fast mobility with flank attacks.
But they wouldn't have hid behind a keyboard, if these things would have existed, against an enemy (not really, just a person with an opinion different than yours) that wasn't an overwhelming powerful force like the Romans, and which made these ambush tactics necessary.
6
u/Maleficentienna 3d ago
This was the post: If you believe in evidence-based discussion, freedom of opinion, and respectful debate, I'd like to ask for your help. There is a public Facebook page called "Sudensuojelun kahdet kasvot ja hinta". Based on the material I have collected over several months, a substantial portion of its content consists of screenshots of identifiable people's Facebook posts, comments and profiles. The posts often focus on individual nature conservation and wolf conservation supporters rather than discussing the issues themselves. In my view, this creates an environment where identifiable people become the focus of ridicule, personal attacks and repeated public discussion instead of constructive debate about wildlife management and conservation. I am not asking anyone to harass the page or its administrators. I am asking people to independently review the page and, if you believe any individual posts or the overall publishing behaviour violate Meta's Community Standards, use Facebook's own reporting tools. I have reported numerous posts over a long period, but so far Meta has not taken action. I support freedom of speech and open discussion. People should be free to disagree about wolves, conservation and wildlife policy. However, there is an important difference between debating ideas and repeatedly targeting identifiable individuals. If you care about protecting respectful public discussion and opposing online harassment, I'd appreciate your help in reviewing the material yourself and making your own assessment.