Social process in grizzly bear management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy

Richie, Lauren I.; Oppenheimer, Joel; Clark, Susan G.

doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9160-z

Cited by 24 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across their North American range, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) occupy a special place in human imagination, as icons of nature's rugged and raw power, strength, intelligence and maternal love, but also as representations of safety risks and economic costs of living with carnivores (McFarlane, Stumpf-Allen, & Watson, 2007;Richie, Oppenheimer, & Clark, 2012). These representations are shared and amplified through news stories, and have the potential to influence human perceptions, attitudes and actions toward conservation efforts (Bombieri et al, 2018;Kaczensky, Blazic, & Gossow, 2001;Sakurai, Jacobson, & Carlton, 2013;Stemple III, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From human invaders to problem bears: A media content analysis of grizzly bear conservation

Hughes

Foote

Yarmey

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across their North American range, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) occupy a special place in human imagination, as icons of nature's rugged and raw power, to representations of safety risks and economic costs of living with carnivores. Different bear representations can also be found across news media, from controversial and sensational descriptions of attacks, tragic events and conflicts, to scientific accounts of conservation research. News media certainly has the power to pique curiosity, spark debate, or elicit emotional responses through framing and repetition of content. In turn, news stories can influence how people might interpret and internalize information about grizzly bears. Using media content analysis, we examined newsprint stories on grizzly bears across their North American range between 2000 and 2016, to understand message framing and attention cycle, as well as attitudinal expression and representative anecdote conveyed to the readership. We found that human–bear conflict stories are over‐reported compared to other narratives, where a single incidence garners more attention than a story about new scientific findings. We also found articles that included hunting frames largely originated in Alberta, likely due to the threatened species listing and hunting moratorium. Attitudinal expressions included ecological, negative or neutral, and moral sentiments toward bears. The most common representative anecdote conveyed to the readership reflected the dire state faced by grizzly bears. The bear eco‐gossip expressed in the articles we reviewed, which included clear protagonists and antagonists and the occasional man‐bites‐bear surprise, appears to be the diet of manufactured information fed to the public. Results of our study can help scientists and conservationists understand how news media portrays grizzly bears to the public and how this might influence public sentiment toward their conservation, but also identifies the roles that scientists, conservationists and journalists together can play in crafting effective, factual and engaging news stories about bears.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From human invaders to problem bears: A media content analysis of grizzly bear conservation

Hughes

Foote

Yarmey

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A dearth of social science on attitudes related to grizzly bears in the American West makes quantifiable answers to this question challenging. The few studies that explore public perceptions of brown bears in various geographies suggest general support for their conservation, concern for risks to bears rather than from bears and that conflict is rooted in issues of governance and land-use conflict more than direct humanbear interactions (Decker et al, 2006;Clark and Slocombe, 2011;Richie et al, 2012;Parker and Feldpausch-Parker, 2013;Bruskotter et al, 2016;Heeren et al, 2017;Karns et al, 2018). Kellert's (1994) summary of research from the 1980s and 1990s suggests broad support for grizzly bears and willingness to adapt to them (Jope and Shelby, 1984;McCool and Braithwaite, 1989).…”

Section: Do Stakeholders Consider Risks Tolerable?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Lute

Carter

2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-carnivore coexistence is an oft-stated goal but assumptions about what constitutes coexistence can lead to goal misalignment and undermine policy and program efficacy. Questions about how to define coexistence remain and specific goals and methods for reaching coexistence require refining. Co-adaptation, where humans adapt to carnivores and vice versa, is a novel socioecological framework for operationalizing coexistence but has yet to be comprehensively examined. We explored co-adaptation and two additional coexistence criteria through analysis of three case studies involving large carnivores in the American West, each addressing differing approaches on how and what it means to coexist with carnivores: Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) in Arizona and New Mexico, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and coyotes (Canis latrans) throughout the American West. We used a multiple case study design that analyzed within and across cases to understand coexistence broadly. For each case, we asked (1) are landscapes shared in space and/or time, (2) is co-adaptation occurring and (3) do stakeholders consider risks tolerable? To identify whether coexistence criteria are met, we investigated peer-reviewed published articles and news media and conducted key informant interviews. We found clear evidence to support land-sharing between humans and coyotes and limited spatial overlap between humans and grizzly bears and Mexican gray wolves. Co-adaptation was variable for wolves, possible with bears and clearly evident with coyotes. Tolerable risk levels are likely achievable for bears and coyotes based on the available literature assessing risk perceptions and tolerance. But disagreement regarding risk management is a driver of conflict over wolves and persistent barrier to achieving coexistence among diverse stakeholders. Patterns in coexistence criteria did not emerge based on taxonomy or geography but may be influenced by body size and behavioral plasticity. The common key to coexistence with each considered carnivore may be in more equitable distribution of costs and benefits among highly diverse stakeholders. Better understanding of these three coexistence criteria and innovative tools to achieve them will improve coexistence capacity with controversial carnivores on public and private lands in diverse American West contexts and beyond.

show abstract

“…While Alberta's grizzly bears are valued as a charismatic species symbolizing the rugged beauty of the wilderness, they also elicit fear, present safety risks, and sometimes negatively impact livelihoods (Black, 1998;McFarlane et al, 2007;Gibeau, 2012;Richie et al, 2012). Further complicating this are the different types and intensities of human land use across each BMA, including residential developments, Indigenous communities, forestry, agriculture, mineral and petroleum industries, and recreational use (Festa-Bianchet, 2010;Statistics Canada, 2013;Alberta Environment and Parks, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes understanding the problem perspectives from the people expected to live with large carnivores and implement desired management actions Clark and Slocombe, 2011;Hughes and Nielsen, 2019). Arguably then, the challenges to grizzly bear conservation success are more about decision-making processes and issues of legitimacy, power, trust, and respect rather than people's attitudes toward bears (Clark et al, 2008;Rutherford et al, 2009;Gibeau, 2012;Richie et al, 2012;Clark and Vernon, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problem Perspectives and Grizzly Bears: A Case Study of Alberta’s Grizzly Bear Recovery Policy

Hughes

Yarmey

Morehouse³

et al. 2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since their threatened species listing in 2010, grizzly bear recovery has been a controversial policy issue in Alberta, Canada particularly because this charismatic carnivore represents a diverse set of values, both positive (e.g., an icon of beauty and the wilderness) and negative (e.g., a safety threat and economic risk to peoples' livelihoods). Previous human dimensions research on grizzly bear conservation has accounted for the values and attitudes different groups of people hold for these bears, as well as their views on conflict mitigation strategies. However, the conservation literature is more limited in assessing the perspectives different people hold for grizzly bear conservation in a policy context. Arguably, understanding the policy landscape in which carnivore conservation occurs is important to achieve desired goals and objectives for species and the people expected to live with them and implement policy action. Using a case study approach between 2012 and 2014 and borrowing from the policy sciences problem-oriented framework, we identify the dominant problem perspectives in Alberta's grizzly bear recovery policy using document review and interviews with participants from government, the natural resource sector, and environmental non-governmental organizations. We identify that ordinary and constitutive problem perspectives share common features across participants in this study, including frustrations with lack of policy clarity, implementation inefficiencies and committed political and financial action, and perhaps even more important, the challenges in policy decision-making and governance. We discuss the importance of meaningful engagement of people who live with large carnivores and the impacts of conservation policy, which is applicable to both a local and global scale, as success in large carnivore conservation must include the people who will ultimately implement conservation action.

show abstract

Social process in grizzly bear management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

From human invaders to problem bears: A media content analysis of grizzly bear conservation

From human invaders to problem bears: A media content analysis of grizzly bear conservation

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Problem Perspectives and Grizzly Bears: A Case Study of Alberta’s Grizzly Bear Recovery Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About