What is more important - protection of animal predators or support of farmers and fishermen working for our sustainable landscape?

In the Czech Republic and in other EU countries, practically all wild species are protected from the point of view of the EU directive on the protection of wild plant and animal species and their habitats. In addition, each EU country has established specially protected species, the extinction, damage or destruction of their habitat is completely ruled out. In the event of damage, farmers and fishermen are provided with financial compensation.

Such conflicting species include, above all, large carnivores such as bears and wolves, and the fish-eating species cormorants and otters. Beaver protection has a very special position. All these species have significantly increased their range in recent years and there have been very significant conflicts between farmers and fishermen.

In the ecological and environmental protection part, the vision of the objectively determined so-called favorable state of the populations of the mentioned animals in sensitive areas is missing and the problems that may arise in the near future are not taken into account. For the time being, there will probably be a significant discrepancy between the ideas and goals of nature protection, administrative units and farms. The current and forthcoming plans for the care of protected predators are, above all, consistent with their name, and will probably arouse further tensions as the number of animals expands to other territories.

A key measure of the proposed care program for large carnivores in the Czech Republic is an extensive educational and awareness-raising campaign, which should take place simultaneously at three different levels and which aims to change public opinion (see information asymmetry) and reduce the pressure of illegal hunting. It is required to improve the cooperation of nature protection with the Police of the Czech Republic in solving cases of illegal hunting.

There is a need for a more realistic assessment of the possibilities of preventive protection measures against damage, if in the case of a wolf (so far limited areas) it seems to be financially and organizationally demanding, and at the same time not completely effective. In the case of otters (almost the entire territory), preventive measures can be used only sporadically. In the case of bears(in case of sudden occurrence) and beavers, damage prevention is difficult and in the case of cormorants, ravens and wild cats, it is not feasible.

According to breeders, nature protectionists recommendations to use so-called other measures are technically difficult to solve and financially too demanding or unrealistic. The verdict then states that this has not been sufficiently used. However, the implementation of the so-called other measure can also be more costly than compensation for killed animals.

The natural predators of the existing protected selected animals have been reduced in our landscape, man as an end predator has prevented the spread of diseases and the protection has evoked a feeling of security,

ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ АНТРОПОЛОГИЯ: ЗДОРОВЬЕ, СРЕДА И КАЧЕСТВО ЖИЗНИ a loss of shyness. This evokes the question of whether in some cases (territories) it is really a targeted return of wilderness, especially in the cultural landscape, or rather a certain way of monitored subsidized breeding.

On the other hand, sections of the public and most farms in predator areas are recommended to be widely publicized for injured animals as a realistic view of the situation, which, unlike professional predator marketing, has no real chance of success.

Impacts in the social field are mainly the changed lifestyle of many livestock breeders and inhabitants, especially wolf and other affected areas. These are mainly limited possibilities for property protection, restrictions on well-being , living space and freedom of business.

Apart from personal time and financial deposits, the effects are a considerable emotional burden. Experiences with infected animals in the corral — the idea that it is a natural process is not well received. They often show a reluctance to breed sheep, so-called fish for predator, and they often mind the different approach to farmed animals and predators.

The decisions made by conservationists do not always have a positive impact on the state of nature. The extent to which recreation, predators attacks or abandonment of pastoralism reduce the recreational value of the landscape, revenues from services, increase structural unemployment and other adverse events, is a task solved by a territorial institution.

Legislation is a significant variable on the part of nature conservation. Above all, it is a more responsible assessment of the public interest, another public interest that outweighs the public interest. The so-called public opinion, generally has a function of social control in society. It is a completely semantically neutral term when the term public has a different interpretation. Furthermore, the reality of achieving the goal by so-called other means. The issue of taking into account the wording of Act No. 114/1992 Coll. § 56 paragraph 2, especially a) in the interest of wildlife protection and protection of natural habitats, b) in the interest of prevention of serious damage, especially to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, waters and other types of property. From what can the severity of the damage be deduced, for example? Injury, moral damage is also