Rapid change in wildlife populations can challenge managers to promote species conservation while maintaining public support for wildlife. Wolf management during recolonization in Wisconsin, United States demonstrates the complexities of inconsistent management authority, public attitudes, and illegal killing of wolves. State management authority to control depredating wolves oscillated during a period of intense sociopolitical conflict over wolf status under the federal Endangered Species Act. We demonstrate that swings in wolf status led to inconsistent management authority, declining local public support for wolves, and possibly the unintended backlash of more illegal kills and a legislatively mandated public wolf hunt. A new Wildlife Management Matrix illustrates an idealized relationship between lethal control options and perceptions of wildlife. Moderating the sociopolitical drivers of swings in policy over short periods is essential to allow wildlife managers greater flexibility in achieving species-specific goals. To our knowledge, this research provides the first demonstrated link between illegal wildlife killing and management authority under the Endangered Species Act, and suggests that illegal behavior may be moderated with responsible and effective wildlife management programs. We recommend states avoid prescriptive harvest legislation, and we suggest a more incremental shift from federal to state management authority.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Wildlife authorities and conservationists are working to improve attitudes toward elephants (Loxodonta africana) among residents of the Greater Amboseli Ecosystem in southern Kenya; yet information on existing attitudes and their antecedents is lacking. In 2005, we conducted a survey of 569 randomly selected residents of group ranches—communally held lands around Amboseli National Park—to 1) identify intentions to allow elephants in group ranches, 2) examine attitudes toward this behavior, 3) explore underlying beliefs that influence attitudes, and 4) identify socio‐demographic predictors of residents for and against elephants in group ranches. A slight majority (53%) supported elephants in the group ranches and 47% were opposed. Residents who favored elephants in group ranches were more likely to believe that allowing elephants would increase opportunities to see elephants and attract more tourists to visit group ranches. Those opposed believed that it would cause conflict between people, increase dangerous human–elephant interactions, and increase costs to local people. Both groups believed allowing elephants in the group ranches would cause elephants to increase in number, but those in favor gave this outcome a positive evaluation, whereas those opposed felt this was a negative outcome. Women were less positive than men toward allowing elephants outside the park. Information on beliefs and evaluations of outcomes associated with allowing elephants in group ranches can assist stakeholder groups in addressing concerns of local people and developing interventions to facilitate the continued coexistence of people and elephants. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.