Changes in attitudes toward wolves before and after an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence from Wisconsin's wolf range

Abstract

SUMMARYIn many areas, wildlife managers are turning to hunting programmes to increase public acceptance of predators. This study examines attitudes measured before and after a hunting and trapping season (wolf hunt) in Wisconsin (WI), USA, and casts some doubt on whether such programmes actually promote public acceptance. In Wisconsin, attitudes toward wolves (Canis lupus) were recorded before and after the inaugural regulated wolf hunt. Measuring longitudinal changes is particularly important in assessing management interventions. The attitudes of 736 previous respondents were resampled in 2013. Changes in individual responses to statements about emotions, behavioural intentions, beliefs, and attitudes toward wolves and wolf management between 2009 and 2013 were assessed using a nine-item scaled variable called ‘tolerance’. Although the majority (66%) of wolf range respondents approved of the decision to hold the hunt, the results indicate a negative trend in attitudes toward wolves among male respondents and hunters living in wolf range, both before and after the state's first legal hunt, suggesting that hunting was not associated with an increase in tolerance for the species after one year. Tolerance levels among female respondents remained stable throughout the study period.

Patchy distribution and low effective population size raise concern for an at‐risk top predator

“…Furthermore, a growing body of evidence supports the notion that public education about the ecological benefits of carnivores can help increase tolerance and improve coexistence with top predators (Bruskotter & Wilson, ; Bruskotter et al ., ). Despite these strides, wolf recovery remains contentious, with some studies suggesting decreased tolerance in areas where restored populations are now exploited (Treves & Bruskotter, ; Chapron & Treves, ; Hogberg et al ., ).…”

Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design

“…For a pertinent example, after wolf-killing had been legalized or made easier (liberalized), wolf population growth in two U.S. states slowed over and above the number of wolves killed (Chapron and Treves, 2016a,b), notwithstanding a lively debate (Chapron and Treves, 2017a,b;Olson et al, 2017;Pepin et al, 2017;Stien, 2017). Four separate lead authors studying different datasets about the same Wisconsin wolf control system have now inferred that poaching rates or intentions rose with liberalized wolfkilling policies (Browne-Nuñez et al, 2015;Hogberg et al, 2015;Chapron and Treves, 2017a,b). Also, disappearances of radiocollared wolves rose substantially when liberalized killing policies were in place, in a competing risks framework (Treves, 2019a) citing (Santiago-Ávila, 2019).…”

When is it legal to hunt strictly protected species in the European Union?

“…Ecological research has highlighted several biological perturbations in hunted populations (Bischof et al, ; Keehner, Wielgus, Maletzke, & Swanson, ; Krofel, Treves, Ripple, Chapron, & López‐Bao, ; Maletzke et al, ; Swenson et al, ; Wielgus, Morrison, Cooley, & Maletzke, ). Similarly, while evaluations on how hunting impacts tolerance toward species are still limited, the few available studies indicate hunting has negative rather than positive impacts on the population demographics of hunted species (Browne‐Nuñez, Treves, MacFarland, Voyles, & Turng, ; Chapron & Treves, , ; Hogberg, Treves, Shaw, & Naughton‐Treves, ; Naughton‐Treves, Grossberg, & Treves, ; Treves, Naughton‐Treves, & Shelley, ) or that tolerance cannot be promoted by legal hunting alone (Suutarinen & Kojola, ). As Member States have the burden of showing that derogation is justified, it is likely they would be required to produce more convincing evidence (CJEU, , ).…”