Attitudes to Wolves and Wolf Policy Among Ojibwe Tribal Members and Non-tribal Residents of Wisconsin's Wolf Range

Abstract

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) policy is dynamic and involves multiple stakeholders.Attitudinal surveys have historically measured stakeholder attitudes, although Native American views have rarely been studied systematically. We sent a mail-back questionnaire to members of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Ojibwe) to assess attitudes toward wolves and Wisconsin wolf policy. We compared their responses to a sample of non-tribal residents of Wisconsin's wolf range. Tribal respondents held significantly more positive attitudes toward wolves, were more supportive of protective policy, and were less supportive of a public wolf harvest than non-tribal respondents. Multivariate analyses revealed several demographic factors associated with observed differences in attitudes; the most frequent and strongest predictor was whether or not a respondent was a tribal member. Ojibwe perspectives deserve attention in future wolf policy and may influence a possible wolf harvest, especially given Ojibwe treaty rights in the Great Lakes region.

Pendulum Swings in Wolf Management Led to Conflict, Illegal Kills, and a Legislated Wolf Hunt

“…We acknowledge that other factors such as species identity and life history (e.g., large felids vs. rodents, K‐ vs. r‐selected species), cultural traditions (e.g., Shelley et al . ), experience (Kaltenborn et al . ), emotions (Vaske et al .…”

“…1998), and education (Shelley et al . ) can influence acceptability of wildlife management actions. However, to illustrate an idealized interaction between changes in wolf management authority and public attitudes toward lethal control options we assume that perceptions of wildlife populations and risk of human–wildlife conflict can be used to identify a range of management actions that would be acceptable to different groups (e.g., the residents of Wisconsin; Figure ).…”

“…; Shelley et al . ). Sociopolitical forces can reinforce conflict and trigger intractable debates, such as conflict over gray wolf, Canis lupus , management (Messmer et al .…”

“…However, other residents want further protections for the wolf (e.g., Shelley et al . ). This would call for a cautious and tempered approach to wolf harvest design to avoid litigation and sociopolitical conflict.…”

Predators and the public trust

“…An early meta‐analysis of 37 data sets spanning 1972–2000 showed attitudes towards wolves correlated negatively with age, rural residence, and agricultural occupation; and positively with education, income, and living outside wolf range (Williams et al , ; see for Europe more recently, Dressel et al , ). People active near wolves expressed more negative attitudes than those more insulated by distance, livelihoods, or pro‐wolf world‐views (Naughton‐Treves, Grossberg & Treves, ; Karlsson & Sjöström, ; Heberlein & Ericsson, ; Shelley, Treves & Naughton‐Treves, ). Recent reviews confirmed that attitudes to wolves were more positive outside wolf range than inside it, both in the U.S.A. and in Europe (Bruskotter et al , ; Dressel et al , ).…”