Decision-makers and managers spend substantial amounts of funding everyday on various interventions aimed at management of the large carnivores, for example different measures to mitigate depredation on livestock, e.g., removal of carnivores and fencing of livestock (see Linnell et al. 1996 for an extensive review). Management of species that occur in low numbers is challenging as relatively small management actions may have a large impact on the population. Management of controversial species is challenging because management actions may trigger public responses that have a large impact on support for political goals (Feral 1995, Okwemba 2004). Large carnivore management involves species that may be both rare and controversial. It is therefore important to study the effects of proposed management actions before they are implemented.Research point to a complexity of interacting socio-cultural (Skogen and Thrane 2008) and psychological factors (e.g. Manfredo 2008; Teel and Manfredo 2010) behind human responses to wildlife. This complexity makes it hard to predict the public response to single management interventions (Hazzah et al. 2009).In order to gain insight on how people view different management actions aiming at reducing human fear for wolves and bears, we asked people in areas with presence of large carnivores (n=391), on their opinion for one or more of a limited number of management actions to be applied in their region. Preference for or against different management actions was captured by nine sub-questions following the question: “what is your opinion on the authorities implementing the following management actions in the area where you live?”. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Should not be implement and 5 = Should absolutely be implemented). The suggested management actions are currently used or discussed in Sweden and ranged from different types of information to carnivore population limits and allowing personal protection like pepper spray and firearms.Based on the responses a Potential Conflict Index, PCI, (Vaske et al. 2010) was calculated. The PCI-values indicate that different types of information, setting a management goal for carnivore populations and making it illegal to dispose of potential large carnivore feed close to houses are more often preferred and have a lower potential for conflict compared to measures as a more liberal use of pepper spray or fire arms. The presentation is suggested for the symposium “Emotions towards wildlife: implications for policy and management and links to the conference subtheme Policy Implementation and Management: Attitudes, trust, and environmental concern.