Political affiliation predicts public attitudes toward gray wolf (Canis lupus) conservation and management

Abstract

Controversial wildlife conservation and management, such as that involving gray wolves (Canis lupus), can be symbolic of broader social conflicts. We conducted an online survey (N = 420) to determine factors shaping public attitudes toward wolf management among residents of Washington state, United States. We used 12 Likert-type statements to form a single latent construct that represented attitudes toward wolf management in a multi-use landscape and fit a simple structural equation model to identify demographic predictor variables. The strongest predictors were that voters self-identifying as Democrats were more likely to hold positive attitudes toward wolves and management to conserve them than those identifying with other political parties (standardized latent variable coefficient = 0.585) and women were more likely than men to hold negative attitudes (−0.459). Older respondents were also more likely to hold negative attitudes (−0.015) and respondents who tried to stay informed about wolf issues were more likely to hold positive attitudes (0.172). Perceived links between wildlife management issues and political ideology may exacerbate community disagreements, hindering coexistence between rural livelihoods and wolves. We recommend appropriate framing and messengers to account for this linkage and improve communication of policy and promote science-based decision-making.

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

“…This recommendation aligns with Macon (2020), who proposed that through performance payments, agencies can ensure that they are accurately paying for achieving conservation goals instead of the ex-post compensation, which pays for dead livestock and does not reward the landowner for living with carnivores. Such economic incentives could be generated from public or private sources and awarded to trusted rancher organizations for disbursement (van Eeden et al, 2021a). We further recommend that more work be done to understand the intangible costs ranchers could face as they engage in programs to coexist with wolves.…”

“…Yet, these species may also disrupt rural livelihoods by increasing economic liability and creating fear among some residents, thereby inciting social conflict between those who wish to conserve biological diversity and those making a living in carnivore habitat (Redpath et al, 2013;Frank, 2016;Manfredo et al, 2017). In order to address this conflict, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies tasked with wildlife management often reimburse rural residents for their losses and promote non-lethal strategies for mitigating carnivore impacts (Linnell et al, 2010;Ravenelle and Nyhus, 2017;van Eeden et al, 2018;Macon, 2020).…”

“…In addition to ecological methods, researchers have utilized interdisciplinary studies that engage sociology and psychology to understand the human-dimensions of interaction with wildlife and what would motivate ranchers to participate in various management measures (Manfredo, 2008;Kansky and Knight, 2014;Hill, 2015;Nyhus, 2016;Drinkhouse, 2018). Non-lethal approaches can reduce livestock damage (Kansky and Knight, 2014;Scasta et al, 2017;van Eeden et al, 2018) and reimbursing all or some of the costs associated with limiting carnivorestock encounters (cost-sharing) is presented as one way to motivate ranchers to coexist with carnivores (Bruskotter, 2013;Drinkhouse, 2018;Frank et al, 2019). However, our understanding about rural people's perceptions of cost-shared mitigation strategies and why certain mitigations are adopted over others is limited (Dickman, 2010;Kansky and Knight, 2014).…”

“…Here, we extend knowledge on rancher participation in nonlethal measures by investigating the perspectives of ranchers toward participating in cost-shared, non-lethal strategies. This study forms part of a broader project that seeks to increase participation in existing coexistence programs and determine the feasibility of establishing new programs (van Eeden et al, 2021a).…”

“…Some ranchers lease public lands to graze their livestock and large private ranches also provide open spaces that can be used by wildlife including wolves (Macon, 2020). Historically, ranchers sought to reduce predation risk by lethally removing carnivores (Treves and Naughton-Treves, 2005), but with the changing lifestyles and demographics of the U.S. population, killing of wolves is no longer preferred by the public as a wildlife management tool (George et al, 2016;van Eeden et al, 2021b). Real and perceived contention over lethal control have resulted in conflicts over approaches to wolf management and polarization of attitudes toward wolves (Mazur and Asah, 2013;Treves et al, 2005).…”