May 17, 2021 at 1:11 p.m.
Local study shows acceptance of wolves in five rural towns
Opinion may hinge on experience with wolves
Local study shows acceptance of wolves in five rural towns
"I have extensive survey experience and wanted to do a wolf public opinion survey for 12 years," she said. "I began this project wondering about the differences I might discover in towns with varying amounts of time, different habitats and intensity of conflict between wolves and humans. As it turned out, I am more impressed with the similarities rather than the differences."
The towns involved in the survey were carefully chosen. Four towns had a wolf presence. Those were the Town of Hansen in Wood County, the Town of Russell in Lincoln County, the Town of Maple in Douglas County and the Town of Alvin in Forest County. The Town of Richwood in Richland County was selected as the control and was selected for the purposes of comparison, Groskopf said. Few wolves have become established in that area of southwest Wisconsin.
The towns were chosen specifically for their attributes, Groskopf stated in her methodology. They were considered for their true rural nature as well as the length of time wolves had occupied the town and the degree of conflict that was experienced. Variations between the towns was intentional, she said, in order to capture possible differences.
In the background work of her study, Groskopf purported social acceptability of wolves was paid no attention in early wolf recovery in the state. It was believed by state managers at the time, she said, that wolves would simply occupy large tracts of public land with little to no human presence.
"The concept of social acceptability as it relates to wolf numbers was not on the radar," she said. She also provided a quote from L David Mech from his book "Wolf Island: Discovering the Secrets of a Mythic Animal."
"Each time the proposed delisting has been blocked in court by protectionist groups arguing legal technicalities. This continued full protection for flourishing wolf populations creates a real problem, not only for farmers and ranchers, who are generally hostile to wolves, but also for the wolves themselves. Because when wolves proliferate where they conflict with people, they will be killed - legally or not... We.... Envisioned that once recovery numbers had been met, the wolf would be delisted and where necessary, their numbers controlled, like those of bears, deer, geese and other wildlife," he wrote.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released a study in 2014 in preparation for the second attempt to revise the 1999 wolf management plan, Groskopf said. In this study, respondents classified themselves as either urban or rural. In that study, she reported, 40% of rural wolf range respondents rated their feelings towards wolves as unfavorable or very unfavorable. Thirty-eight percent said their feelings were favorable or very favorable, and 22% were neutral.
When it came to number of wolves in that DNR study, respondents in rural wolf range largely (47%) said they would like to see fewer or no wolves on the landscape, with 24% stating they wanted the same number. Sixteen percent of those rural respondents wanted more or many more wolves, according to the study. This was just one method of analysis used in the DNR study. At the time of this study, Groskopf pointed out, the minimum wolf count was much less than today. At that time the minimum count was estimated to be 809, as opposed to 1,200 today.
Groskopf felt a study of true rural attitudes toward wolves was needed and had never been done in Wisconsin. With that, she embarked on her study, randomly sampling from each town. The survey was short and designed to be simple, including a self-addressed stamped envelope for easy return of the results.
The sample consisted of every other name on the registered voter list obtained from the county clerk or town clerk. Responses varied from 48.8% in the Town of Hansen to 35.5% in the Town of Alvin.
The first question asked whether the respondent wanted to see fewer wolves, the same number, more, or if they had no opinion. In the Town of Hansen, 76.4% said they wished to see fewer wolves. In the Town of Russell, that number was 63.3%. Respondents in the Town of Maple showed 65.7% would like to see fewer wolves on the landscape. The Town of Richwood sample brought back 46.7% of respondents wishing to see fewer wolves. In the Town of Alvin portion of the survey 72.7% were in favor of fewer wolves.
The number of respondents in each town wishing to see the same amount of wolves ranges from 9.1% in Alvin to 15.2% in Russell. The numbers wishing to see more wolves in the landscape were fairly low as well: Hansen - 2.5%, Russell - 5.1%, Maple - 12.2%, Richwood - 10.0% and Alvin 13.6%.
Respondents were also asked, based on their response to the first question, whether or not they had an "ideal" number of wolves they would like to see. They were able to choose between a variety of numbers, indicating which they felt would be most ideal, based on their own experiences.
Groskopf's study pointed to respondents' level of experience with wolves when it came to whether or not they had an opinion about how many wolves should be on the landscape. In Richwood, where there is little wolf presence, one quarter of respondents selected "no opinion" about whether there should be fewer, more, or the same number of wolves on the landscape. In towns with a wolf presence, however, it seemed as though respondents in other towns "had largely made up their mind," Groskopf said. In Hansen only 6.7% had no opinion. In Alvin, that number was 4.5%. Russell's results showed 11.3% with no opinion and 12.2% in Maple.
In Maple, she stated, seven of the 12 who selected "no opinion," had no experience with wolves and were unaware of any conflicts. Of Maple residents wishing to see fewer wolves on the landscape, 50 had at least some experience with wolves.
In general, Groskopf said, the study results showed the more favorable rural respondents felt about wolves, the less experience they had with wolves.
"This research has the potential to provide more detailed and targeted information about the feelings of rural residents who are exposed to wolves regularly toward the wolf management program in Wisconsin," she concluded. "With new committees being formed to again attempt a revision of the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan by next year, this information is critical to appropriate decision-making." Groskopf said the survey results show having abundant wolf populations may not seem acceptable to those living in wolf range. Instead, she said, it may be better to look at quality of habitat and prioritize that over sheer numbers.
Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.