No abstract

No abstract

On 19 August 2002 an infant was fatally injured by a black bear (Ursus americanus) in Fallsburg, New York. Based on the social amplification of risk theory, we anticipated that media coverage of the incident would affect perceived bear‐related risk among residents in New York's black bear range. We compared results from a pre‐incident mail survey (March 2002; n = 3,000) and a post‐incident telephone survey (September 2002; n = 302) of New York residents in the same geographic regions to determine whether perception of personal risk (i.e., the perceived probability of experiencing a threatening encounter with a black bear) had changed as a result of the infant death. Additionally, we performed content analysis of news stories published between 19 August and 19 September 2002 (n = 45) referencing the incident. The proportion of respondents who believed the risk of being threatened by a bear was acceptably low increased after the incident (81% pre‐incident vs. 87% post‐incident), corresponding with an increase in print media coverage of black bears during the month following the incident. The majority of media coverage noted the rarity of human fatalities caused by black bears. Stability in risk perception may have been reinforced by media coverage that uniformly characterized the risk of a bear attack as extremely low. Alternatively, existing perceptions of black bear‐related risk may have been reinforced by the short‐term nature of media coverage after the incident. The fatality did not serve as a focus event that motivated stakeholder groups to promote change in wildlife management policy. Additional bear‐related fatalities, however, could create the impetus for a change in risk perception via a social amplification of risk. Wildlife managers should be aware of potential media effects on risk perception and recognize the potential for risk communication to improve the congruence between actual and perceived risk.

Fruit loss to birds is a long-standing and costly problem for many producers. We conducted a survey of Honeycrisp apple, blueberry, cherry, and wine grape growers in California, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Washington to estimate costs of bird damage and benefits of bird damage management. We also assessed grower perceptions of impacts on profits and effectiveness of bird management techniques. Current yield-loss estimates provided by growers and market price data were used to monetize current bird damage in each crop and growing region. Data on expected damage without management were used to estimate the benefits of bird damage management as it is currently being employed in the different crops and growing regions. We estimated that current bird damage costs per hectare ranged

No abstract

No abstract

Inclusion of wildlife in the concept of One Health is important for two primary reasons: (1) the physical health of humans, domesticated animals, and wildlife is linked inextricably through shared diseases, and (2) humans' emotional well-being can be affected by their perceptions of animal health. Although an explicit premise of the One Health Initiative is that healthy wildlife contribute to human health, and vice versa, the initiative also suggests implicitly that wildlife may pose threats to human health through zoonotic disease transmission. As people learn more about One Health, an important question surfaces: How will they react to communications carrying the message that human health and wildlife health are linked? In the absence of adequate relevant research data, we recommend caution in the production and dissemination of One Health messages because of possible unintended or collateral effects. Understanding how and why individuals perceive risks related to wildlife diseases is essential for determining message content that promotes public support for healthy wildlife populations, on the one hand, and, on the other, for identifying messages that might inadvertently increase concern about human health effects of diseased wildlife. To that end, we review risk perception research and summarize the few empirical studies that exist on perceived risk associated with zoonoses. We conclude with some research questions that need answering to help One Health practitioners better understand how the public will interpret their messages and thus how to communicate positively and without negative collateral consequences for wildlife conservation.

As stakeholder attitudes, values, and management preferences become increasingly diverse, managing human‐wildlife conflicts will become more difficult. This challenge is especially evident in Massachusetts, USA, where furbearer management has been constrained by passage of a ballot initiative that outlawed use of foothold and body‐gripping traps except in specific instances involving threats to human health or safety. Without regulated trapping, beaver (Castor canadensis) populations and damage attributed to them have increased. To develop an understanding of public attitudes regarding beaver‐related management issues, we surveyed a random sample of Massachusetts residents in the spring of 2002 within 3 geographic regions where beaver are prevalent, as well as all individuals who submitted a beaver‐related complaint to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in 1999 and 2000. We found that respondents held generally positive attitudes toward beaver. Respondents who experienced beaver‐related problems tended to have less favorable or negative attitudes toward beaver than people who did not experience beaver damage. Attitudes toward beaver became increasingly negative as the severity of damage experienced by people increased. We believe continued public support for wildlife conservation will require implementation of strategies that are responsive to changing attitudes of an urban population and within social‐acceptance and biological carrying capacities.