Using policy goals to evaluate red wolf reintroduction in eastern North Carolina

Serenari, Christopher; Cobb, David T.; Peroff, Deidre M.

doi:10.1080/10871209.2018.1444827

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Long-term sustainable large carnivore policy will likely require better ways to equitably distribute risks and resources across the spectrum of stakeholders. Additionally, an important aspect of Carter and Linnell (2016;p575) definition of coexistence is that it be "governed by legitimate institutions, " which was beyond the scope of this analysis but is addressed in other studies (Serenari et al, 2018;Serenari and Taub, 2019).…”

Section: Conclusion and Management Implicationsmentioning

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

Section: Conclusion and Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Lute

Carter

2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing from Sandström and Pellikka (2008) and Lamb (2005), we attend to input legitimacy and the normative justifiability of red wolf recovery and a conservation reliance approach. Life on North Carolina's rugged Albemarle Peninsula (AP) is distinct from other places in the state (Mansfield 2001, Serenari et al 2018. The red wolf recovery context mirrors other studies that explore the nexus of human assumptions about nature and resource management preferences.…”

Section: Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This domain emphasizes input and output legitimacy, focusing on information on which decisions are made about red wolf recovery and the necessary condition of shared beliefs (Hoelting et al 2013). Divergent value orientations toward large canids, contested science that authorizes the program, and elements of efficiency are salient to the red wolf case (Serenari et al 2018).…”

Section: Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mainland reintroduction of red wolves to North Carolina began in 1987. It was soon after met with local opposition that has steadily grown into a spirited grassroots resistance movement (Serenari et al 2018). Recent examination of the social landscape indicates varying degrees of support for the program among local residents, with many large landowners and hunters most displeased with recovery efforts, as well as questioning the science and decision-making underpinning recovery (Responsive Management 2017, Serenari et al 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting the legitimacy of wolf recovery

Serenari

Taub

2019

Wildlife Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous human dimensions research has examined people's attitudes and knowledge toward grizzly bears and other species, as well as their support or opposition to conservation strategies (McFarlane et al, 2007;Ebbin, 2011;Young et al, 2015;Slagle et al, 2017). Despite understanding attitudes and preferences for action, disputes around the design and implementation of conservation policy persists, in Alberta and elsewhere (Serenari et al, 2018). Given that policy is intended to help achieve specific goals in the interest of the public good, conservation practitioners increasingly recognize the importance and central role that different people play in conservation (Chase et al, 2002;Gibeau, 2012;Bixler, 2013;Nastran, 2015).…”

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

Using policy goals to evaluate red wolf reintroduction in eastern North Carolina

Cited by 14 publications

References 24 publications

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Predicting the legitimacy of wolf recovery

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About