SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predator control in the United States Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Attitudes toward predator control in the United States

Ajay Singh

Kristina Slagle

Jeremy Bruskotter

Robyn Wilson

COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

‹#›


UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS


Agenda:

• Background/Context

• Research aims

• Methods

• Results

• Implications

‹#›




Context: Predator Control inthe US

‹#›




Predator control timeline

1913• Institutionalized

predator control

1931• Nat’l Animal

Damage Control Act

• Severe declines

1964 • Leopold Report

1995• USDA WS draws

criticism

‹#›




What drove this shift? Research in the 30s-40s Popular publications in the 60s Ultimately shaping public attitudes?

‹#›




Attitudes toward predators mixed in 70’s(Kellert 1985a; Kellert 1985b)

But what about toward predator control?

General preference for non-lethal(Arthur 1981; Bruskotter et al. 2009; Reiter et al. 1999)

Lethal acceptable in context

(Decker et al. 2006; Messmer et al. 1999; Treves and Martin 2011)

‹#›




Research aims

‹#›




1. Quantify American's views on predator control

2. Quantify the perceived humaneness of specific damage management practices

3. Determine if American's views regarding predator control have changed since 1995*

‹#›




Methods

‹#›




Online probability sample

Qualtrics survey software

Stratified sample: NRM, WGL,

rest of U.S.

Weighted post-hoc

‹#›




• Acceptability• 8 statements

• Humaneness• 5 lethal control• 4 non lethal control

• Randomly assigned subsets of each

Wildlife Damage Management includes a number of activities designed to help prevent and mitigate the damage to personal property that is sometimes caused by wildlife. We are interested in your opinions regarding who should be responsible for such damages and what types of actions are acceptable to prevent or mitigate damages caused by predators such as wolves, bears, coyotes, or mountain lions.

‹#›




Link sent Feb 7 to 2,020 potential respondents (open 11 days)

Non respondents after 3 days received email

Phone calls to nonresponse to email

Response: n = 1,287 (64%)

‹#›




Results

‹#›




Weighted social and demographic characteristics of 2014 respondents relative to national data.

Percent / Mean

Variable National Data 2014 Survey

Age a

18-29 22.1% 21.5%

30-44 26.0% 26.0%

45-59 27.5% 27.5%

60+ 24.4% 24.9%

Gender (% Female) a 50.8% 50.9%

Bachelor’s degree or higher a 28.5% 26.0%

Household Income (% under $50,000) a

47.0% 44.0%

Household size a 2.6 people 2.7 people

Political ideology b

Conservative 38% 46%

Moderate 34% 32%

Liberal 23% 22%

Experienced wildlife damage in past 5 years

NA 13%

Hunted (at any time in the past) NA 37%

Hunted big game (in the past 3 years)

NA 9%

‹#›




It is acceptable to remove predators that prey on livestock

It is acceptable to use small and big game hunting as a tool to control wildlife that do crop damage

Wildlife control is acceptable if there is evidence that wildlife damage is the cause of economic loss

It is unacceptable to remove native predators that prey on threatened and endangered species

Predator control is unacceptable

Wildlife populations should not be managed by humans

The careful use of poisons is an acceptable method to control wildlife populations

Farmers have the right to control wildlife that are damaging their crops

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

60%

60%

53%

31%

17%

18%

18%

62%

62%

60%

53%

31%

11%

22%

14%

67%

2014 1995 % agree or strongly agree

‹#›




Comparisons of agreement with statements about the control of wildlife in 1995 and 2014.

Item Year n Mean t-valuedf (t-

test)

Predator control is unacceptable

1995 606 2.411.14

1370.792014 767 2.47

Wildlife populations should not be managed by

humans

1995 600 2.374.34*

1315.522014 718 2.63

The careful use of poisons is an acceptable method

to control wildlife populations

1995 600 2.19

-0.501386.

272014 788 2.16

Farmers have the right to control wildlife that are

damaging their crops

1995 600 3.64

2.81*1383.

702014 909 3.80

‹#›




Percentage of respondents who rated a wildlife damage management practices as “very” or “completely” humane in 1995 and 2014.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71%

57%62%

75%

20%

10%

18%

9%14%

53%50%

37%

55%

7% 7% 5% 7% 8%

1995

2014

‹#›




Average ratings of the humaneness of wildlife damage management practices in 1995 and 2014.

Management Practice Year n Mean t-value

Fertility control1995 600 4

10.75*2014 870 3.36

Guard dogs-animals1995 600 3.67

6.04*2014 794 3.3

Chemical repellents1995 600 3.66

13.55*2014 853 2.82

Scare devices1995 600 4.03

9.33*2014 805 3.47

Poisons for predators1995 594 2.27

8.43*2014 856 1.77

Leghold traps1995 606 1.73

2.572014 872 1.59

Fumigation or gassing of dens1995 600 2.1

7.16*2014 892 1.68

Neck snares1995 600 1.72

1.272014 909 1.65

Shooting animals from aircraft1995 594 1.89

-0.532014 855 1.92

*Sidak-Bonferroni adjusted p-value (n = 9, p = 0.05), significant at p < 0.006. Humaneness measured on a scale of “Not at all humane” (1) to “Somewhat humane” (3) to “Very humane” (5).

‹#›




Implications

‹#›




People both idealistic and pragmatic

Increasing skepticism

Lower humaneness = better justification

Expect better innovation

‹#›




Thank you!Acknowledgements: Robert Schmidt for his insights into implications

Thanks to School of Environment and Natural Resources for continued financial support.

[email protected]

[email protected]

‹#›




Humaneness scale: Not at all humane Somewhat humane Fairly humane Very humane Completely humane

Word variations

Documents

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predator control in the United States Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson