The Human Side of Predator Management

By Michele Beucler, Staff Biologist Planning & Human Dimensions

Idaho Fish and Game is responsible for management of wildlife on behalf of the people of the state so doing our best to find out-as objectively as possible-what people think about their wildlife is part of the job. The following describes some of the most recent research on Idaho attitudes toward predator management.

Wolf management is not rocket science.

In some ways it's harder.

What makes wolf management difficult is the values, attitudes, and emotions people have about wolves. In a way, Fish and Game managers are mediators, seeking reasonable "agreements" between wildlife and people. They are challenged with finding solutions that protect wildlife and reflect peoples values.

Building a rocket isn't easy, but at least rocket scientists are dealing with an exact number of non-living pieces and parts that they can see. Wolf managers, on the other hand, are dealing with packs of clever animals that can travel great distances, take down animals 10 times their own size, and be seen only by pawprints, kill sites, and poop piles.

The question is: how does Fish and Game reflect peoples' values when there are so many different feelings about wildlife? There is a growing field of research called "human dimensions of wildlife" that is improving managers' understanding of people's values, attitudes, and emotions about wildlife. Human dimensions studies are rooted in psychology, sociology, political science, and economics. And, when put together with biology and ecology, human dimensions can help Fish and Game make reasonable decisions about managing wildlife.

Fish and Game has used human dimensions research to develop a reasonable approach to managing wolves in Idaho that will be acceptable- maybe not ideal, but acceptable-to most Idahoans.

First, let's look at people's basic values towards wildlife. In human dimensions, values are considered the foundation of people's beliefs, attitudes, and ultimately their behaviors. Each of us holds our basic values from early childhood, we have few of them, and they typically don't change much during our lifetimes. In a 2005 study of 20 western states (815 people in Idaho), Colorado State University researchers noted four basic values people hold toward wildlife:

Utilitarians: believe that wildlife should be used and managed for people's benefit. Half of Idaho adults fall into this group and they tend to be men, have children at home, live in small cities such as Lewiston, and were raised in towns like Mountain Home.

Mutualists: believe that people and wildlife should live together in harmony. About one in five adult Idahoans are mutualists. They tend to be women, live in medium-sized cities such as Idaho Falls, and were raised in small cities such as Twin Falls.

Pluralists: hold both Utilitarian and Mutualist views depending on the circumstance. For example, a woman might support her husband's hunting and gladly feed the healthy meat to her family, yet she can't stand the thought of killing an animal herself. Pluralists represent one-fourth of adult Idahoans, are equally men and women, tend to live in small cities such as Lewiston and have been raised in a town the size of Mountain Home.

Distanced: simply are little connected to or interested in wildlife at all. In Idaho, only one in 10 adults would be classified as distanced. They tend to be women, and tend to currently live and have been raised in a city the size of Idaho Falls.

Next, let's look at Idahoans' attitudes about controlling predators in order to make more game animals to hunt. Attitudes arise from values but, unlike values, a person's attitudes can change. A 2004 survey of 828 Idahoans showed that people feel differently depending on which predator is being controlled. In general, more people feel that reducing wolves and reducing bird predators such as magpies and gulls is acceptable compared to reducing bears and mountain lions, coyotes, and raccoons and foxes.

The researcher then used a statistical procedure called "cluster analysis" to group Idahoans based on their attitudes about reducing the numbers of predators in order to produce more game animals. The researcher described three different groups:

The Pro-Reduction Group: generally are supportive of reducing predator populations in order to increase game populations. They represent 31 percent of adult Idahoans, are more likely to be active hunters and/or anglers, and three quarters are male.

The Anti-Reduction Group: generally are opposed to reducing predator populations in order to increase game populations. They represent 34 percent of adult Idahoans, tend to live in urban areas, are more highly educated than the other two groups, and nearly two-thirds of them are female.

The Neutral Group: well, they're neutral. They represent 35 percent of adult Idahoans, and tend to be in between the other two groups in demographic factors except that they do tend to have more children at home than the other two groups.

What is immediately obvious that the Idaho public is evenly divided into these three groups. What's more, the Pro-Reduction and the Anti-Reduction groups are completely opposite in their attitudes! Again, here lies the challenge before Fish and Game-to make decisions that are reasonable and acceptable to two large groups of people who feel so differently about predator control.

Most Idahoans support the idea of managing wolves, but their final opinion may depend on just how and to what extent wolves will be managed. A 2007 survey conducted by Fish and Game (1,444 people) looked at differences in attitudes among big game hunters, Idaho citizens who do not hunt (nonhunters), and livestock owners.

Most of the respondents thought destroying wolves that are threatening livestock and pets was acceptable. However, big game hunters and livestock growers tended to be more supportive of reducing wolf populations to produce more big game for hunting than were nonhunters. Almost half of the nonhunters in this survey thought controlling wolf populations for big game was unacceptable (15 percent was neutral, and 40 percent was supportive), and it appeared that nonhunters were comfortable with more wolves in Idaho than were big game hunters and livestock owners. Nonhunters also were more likely than big game hunters and livestock owners to travel to see wolves and one in five indicated he or she would hire a guide to do so.

Finally, it is helpful to make the distinction between cognition, or knowledge and reasoning, and emotion. Emotions about wolves are complex, and one person can feel many emotions at the same time. For example, a woolgrower may admire the size and cunning of wolves and at the same time feel angry when they threaten his sheep. A backcountry hiker may be giddy with anticipation of seeing a wild wolf, and at the same time feel a bit frightened with uncertainty of when and where it will happen. An elk hunter may feel frustrated that elk aren't where they used to be, and at the same time have deep respect for how a pack of 100-pound wolves can take down a 750-pound elk. And, even the most avid of wolf supporters likely turns an eye when an elk finally succumbs to wolves, as if watching the tenacity to survive of both elk and wolf reminds him of his own vulnerabilities.

No values, attitudes, or emotions about wolves are right or wrong-they are just different. The challenge for Fish and Game managers isn't to decide which are right or wrong or to agree with some and disagree with others.

Fish and Game's challenge is to find that intersection of biology, ecology, and human dimensions; to mediate agreements between wildlife and people; and to respect emotions and make cognitive choices about how to manage Idaho's wildlife. Fish and Game managers are confident that the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan will guide decisions that protect wildlife and reflect Idahoans' values. Some decisions will be less-than-ideal for many Idahoans, but they must be acceptable to most.