Does large carnivore policy matter?

Does large carnivore policy matter?

Erik Olson of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources posed this question with research he unveiled at last month’s Great Lakes Wolf Symposium in Ashland. He wondered whether large carnivore policy would build more tolerance for those who were somewhat intolerant to having a species such as wolves close by.

“How people feel about large carnivores can be critical in determining the success of conservation efforts,” he wrote in his abstract. “In some cases, people’s attitudes towards large carnivores are more influenced by policies than the species themselves.”

Conservation practices and policies normally focus on the species in question and how to effect whatever end point biologists would like to see for that species, whether it is to increase their numbers, increase their territory, maintain sustainable populations, or some other end goal. Olson said what was not looked at was how those conservation decisions and policies affected local people, either directly or indirectly. He expected that conservation policies directly affected tolerance of large carnivores such as wolves.

He said there are two general hypotheses that are related to policies and tolerance. One is that policies that reduce protections for wolves when they are biologically recovered will result in increased tolerance for the species. That is the empowerment hypothesis.

The other is the devaluing policy signal hypothesis. This hypothesis came out more recently. It states that removing protections for wolves signals devaluing of wolves to the public, Olson said. That, in turn, results in an increase in tolerance. He said he wanted to expand on that research using information and data he collected in his research about policy and tolerance in Wisconsin. 

He said one of the classes he teaches was the inspiration for the paper on which he was reporting. He said that policy can influence tolerance, which in turn can influence conservation success. As he was coaching his students that they could ask questions and go out and “do science,” and that there was no permission needed to do that, he realized this was one are into which he wanted to look further himself.

He created a six-page questionnaire sent out to people in the Chequamegon Bay area. It was focused on perception of rules regarding a number of different topics. He was particularly interested in some anticipated changes to tolerance related to possible policy scenarios, he told those assembled at the symposium.

The study he did was done in 2015-16, while wolves were back on the Endangered Species List (ESL) after being delisted and having two wolf harvest seasons. He used a cluster analysis that could be clustered into different groups based on how they answered the questions. This revealed a positive cluster, a negative cluster, and a large group that was somewhere in the middle.

He then looked at how the different clusters of people responded to proposed policy changes. If the wolf were delisted, responses showed, those with an overall negative view of wolves agreed that their tolerance would increase. Those who were in the positive cluster said their tolerance would not increase. The ambivalent, or middle, group indicated a mix of the two.

“I think what’s really important is that you see the negative cluster said that their tolerance would increase across all scenarios,” Olson said, with his data point display indicating these same results.

The second scenario Olson explored was one where the state would simply have management authority to kill wolves that were attacking livestock and pets. The third scenario would be holding a regulated hunting and trapping season for wolves. The mean difference between scores of the negative group and the positive group was the highest under this scenario out of all of the proposed scenarios, he said. 

He also did an analysis to determine if any demographic variables made a difference in responses. He looked at gender, age, hunter identity, ownership of livestock and experience with loss of livestock. Under every scenario, the highest model was those who had lost livestock to wolves. Hunter identity came in on the top in the second scenario, state lethal authority. Olson said, this showed that even if people were generally assigned to a specific cluster and stated their expected tolerance would increase, and even if people were outside of that cluster and identified as a hunter or a producer having experienced a livestock loss, they were still more likely to say their tolerance would increase under these scenarios.

Olson said it did seem that there was a correlation between policy changes and tolerance of the generally intolerant. Hunter identity, or an affected-producer identity were especially important in affecting those shifts in tolerance. Interestingly, he said, looking at the shift in tolerance without the clusters identified, one would not see a pattern. Understanding these different groups, then, was specifically important. 

He also looked at how long it would take for these changes to take place once policies were changed. He said the cognitive hierarchy suggests behaviors change quickly and attitudes change more slowly. This could lead to a lag in tolerance change. He also felt the lack of stability in the Great Lakes listing status had also likely changed tolerance for wolves in the region. Conservationists, then need to balance both conservation objectives and preferences of local people. Short-term and long-term priorities also must be balanced with setting policy. His research suggested that the fulcrum of that balance must shift over time as the status of the species changes and/or the preferences of local people change.

Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].