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

Abstract

Potential impacts to rural livelihoods by large carnivores, such as gray wolves (Canis lupus), increase economic liability and fear among residents, resulting in social conflicts over wildlife issues. Strategies have been developed to promote non-lethal predator management in rural communities, but there is limited understanding of why ranchers choose to participate in such programs. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 45) of ranchers in Washington state, United States, asking open-ended questions to explore their perspectives on conflict mitigation. Interviews were analyzed using Grounded Theory. Ranchers mentioned five broad types of mitigation strategies: state agency intervention (i.e., calling the state agency in charge of wolf management to request either compensation or lethal wolf removal), biological measures (e.g., use of guard animals), physical measures (e.g., fences), human interference (cowboys and cowgirls), and indirect measures (e.g., husbandry practices). Motivations for participating in non-lethal mitigation strategies included previous positive interactions with wildlife agency officials, an understanding of the importance of wolves to the ecosystem, and clearly outlined guidelines on how to deal with wolf interactions. Barriers that hindered rancher participation included disdain for regulation both regarding the Endangered Species Act and the state's requirements for accessing damage compensation, which were perceived to be extensive and over-reaching. Negative attitudes toward wolf recovery included fear of wolves and perceived damage that wolves inflict on rural lives and livelihoods. Ranchers' motivations and perceived barriers for participating in mitigation strategies included sociopolitical and economic factors. Thus, we suggest that in addition to mitigating economic loss, wildlife managers address the intangible social costs that deter ranchers' participation in mitigation strategies through continued dialogue.

Expanding and Evaluating Public Satisfaction with Wildlife Governance: Insights from Deer Management in Indiana, USA

“…But contact with every individual can be expensive and impractical for state agencies to implement at a large scale (Caudell and Vaught 2019). Engaging with key leaders of organizations, social groups, or communities can build capacity and impetus for local wildlife management (Raik et al 2008), facilitate the diffusion of management techniques and information within communities (Valente and Davis 1999;van Eeden et al 2021), and shift control over management to local groups, which may enhance public trust in government agencies (Redpath et al, 2017;Bogezi et al 2021). In the absence of direct contact with individuals, agency staff should form relationships with relevant social leaders.…”

“…In the absence of direct contact with individuals, agency staff should form relationships with relevant social leaders. Leaders can represent physical communities, stakeholder groups, or other organizations, but should ideally have a working and trusting relationship with target individuals, like that between County Extension agents and farmers or ranchers (Bogezi et al, 2021). Both the cost-effectiveness of this strategy and how agencies are shifting their internal and public-facing cultures, values, and services require further evaluation.…”

Multidisciplinary engagement for fencing research informs efficacy and rancher-to-researcher knowledge exchange

“…While the process that we engaged in was specifically to orient research for fencing as a tool to reduce wildlife conflicts, lessons learned from our experience are relevant to the emerging field of fence ecology as well as the development of other conflict prevention strategies. Conflict prevention suffers from a knowledge-action gap (Ruppert et al, 2021), whereby many practices that are researched have unknown adoption rates and why they are adopted is not well understood (Bogezi et al, 2021). The adoption of conflict prevention strategies can be stifled by tensions between interest groups with disparate views on how large carnivores should be managed, therefore the need to improve transparency and credibility to achieve shared outcomes is crucial to reducing the knowledge-action gap.…”

“…Many strategies, including fencing, have been designed and evaluated by researchers and conservationists. Though significant efforts exist both in the US and worldwide, the design and evaluation process typically lacks producer input, opinion, and adoption information (Lozano et al, 2019;Bijoor et al, 2021;Bogezi et al, 2021). Many conflict prevention strategies do not integrate agricultural expertise and impact on production systems (Miller et al, 2016), nor local relevance and technical feasibility from communities (Bijoor et al, 2021).…”

Movement Choices of Persecuted Caracals on Farmlands in South Africa

“…Understanding carnivore habitat selection on farmlands has the potential to limit livestock losses by assisting farmers in livestock management decisions. For example, season-specific information on areas preferred by carnivores can help farmers rotate livestock into areas that are less frequented by predators while also achieving more efficient monitoring of livestock and improving grazing conditions ( Constant et al 2015 ;Bogezi et al 2021 ).…”