Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a National Park

Abstract

Successful wildlife management often depends on public acceptance of wildlife control methods. We explored the acceptability and amount of consensus among local residents, park staff, and visitors for coyote (Canis latrans) management in Cape Breton Highlands National Park of Canada (NPC). We collected data near Cape Breton Highlands NPC, where there has been an increase in human–coyote conflict. Local residents were mailed a questionnaire (n = 578; 72% return rate) in 2011. Park staff completed the questionnaire (n = 124; 85% return rate) during 2011 and visitors were interviewed on trails and given a mail‐back questionnaire during 2011 and 2012 (n = 375; 51% return rate). The Potential for Conflict Index was used to examine differences in acceptability among the 3 groups. Acceptability of different management options was evaluated for 3 situations: 1) a coyote crossed the trail; 2) a coyote approached a person; and 3) a snarling coyote approached a person. All 3 groups tended to prefer nonlethal management options, but as the scenarios increased in threat level, lethal and more invasive options became more acceptable. Understanding which management options were more acceptable in different contexts facilitates informed decision‐making when humans and coyotes come into conflict. Contrasting public(s) views against those of managers highlighted situations whereby problems might occur. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.

Attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and the acceptability of killing big cats in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: An application of the Potential for Conflict Index2

“…For example, to measure differences in normative tolerance within and between scuba drivers and snorkelers (Vaske et al 2013), to assess people's acceptability of regulatory policies in private forests (Poudyal et al 2015), to measure users' opinions toward wild boar management approaches (Frank et al 2015), attitudes among livestock breeders toward livestock predation by pumas (Palmeira et al 2015), and attitudes toward implementation of management actions to reduce fear of brown bears and wolves (Frank et al 2014). The use of PCI 2 provided a better understanding of both the mean responses and the level of consensus in each sample (Sponarski et al 2015). PCI 2 's graphic approach allows managers to: (a) determine the similarities and differences among interest groups, (b) enhance communication interventions, and (c) discuss the acceptability of management actions among interest groups (i.e., compensation schemes for livestock losses, alternative sources of income, relocate the predator).…”

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

“…2014; Sponarski et al. 2015; Liordos et al. 2017), which all in turn have ethical and emotional underpinnings (Nelson et al.…”

Meten van het draagvlak voor de aanwezigheid en het beheer van everzwijnen in Vlaanderen: Deelrapport 1: Bevraging van de belanghebbendenorganisaties

“…Bovenstaande sluit aan bij wat we in de literatuur vinden over de maatschappelijke aspecten van soortenbeheer: de voorgestelde maatregelen kunnen vaak controversieel zijn en er zijn zowel respondenten die ze acceptabel vinden als respondenten die ze niet acceptabel vinden (Jacobs et al, 2010;Liordos et al, 2017;Sponarski et al, 2015). Als beleidsmakers deze conflicten willen aanpakken, moeten ze verder gaan dan de louter technische aspecten van het beheer.…”

“…In hoofdstukken 4, 5 en 6 maken we daarnaast ook gebruik van de PCI of Potential for Conflict Index (Liordos et al, 2017;Sponarski et al, 2015;Vaske et al, 2010;Vaske et al, 2006). Deze index laat toe om in het kader van bevragingen op een grafische manier twee dimensies tegelijkertijd weer te geven.…”

“…We zouden bijgevolg per sector met een soort gemiddelde score per type maatregel kunnen werken. Dit in tegenstelling tot wat regelmatig in de literatuur gevonden wordt, namelijk dat de voorkeur, wenselijkheid of acceptatie voor een bepaalde maatregel afhangt van de doelstelling waarvoor deze ingezet wordt of van de context waarin deze ingezet wordt (Jacobs et al, 2010;Liordos et al, 2017;Sponarski et al, 2015).…”