Utah Stakeholders' Attitudes Toward Selected Cougar and Black Bear Management Practices Author(S): Tara L

Home , Bear hunting

Utah Stakeholders' Attitudes toward Selected Cougar and Black Bear Management Practices Author(s): Tara L. Teel, Richard S. Krannich and Robert H. Schmidt Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 2-15 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784630 . Accessed: 12/03/2014 08:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions X HumanDimensions

2 ATTITUDES TOWARD COUGAR AND BEAR MANAGEMENT Utah stakeholders attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices

Tara L. Teel,Richard S. Krannich,and RobertH. Schmidt

AbstractWe examinedUtahns' attitudes (n=901) towarduse of recreationalhunting to manage blackbears (Ursus americanus) and cougars (Puma concolor), use ofhounds to huntthese species,and thepractice of bearbaiting. Independent variables included urban versus ruralresidence, gender, educational attainment, age, durationof in-stateresidence, and stakeholdergroup classification. Most Utahns disapproved of the cougar and blackbear managementpractices examined. Differences inresponses were associated with sociode- mographiccharacteristics and withparticipation in wildlife-relatedrecreation. The fol- lowinggroups were less opposedto theselected practices than their counterparts: rural residents,men, those with lower levels of education, longtime residents, younger respondents,and hunters.Survey analyses can helpwildlife managers identify areas of contro- versywhere public involvement and educationalefforts might be prescribed.

Keywords attitudes,black bears, cougars, predator management, stakeholders, survey, Utah

Predatormanagement is one of the more contro- practices are publiclyunacceptable regardlessof versialcomponents of wildlifemanagement (Mess- the contextin which theyare used. For example, mer and Rohwer 1996). Predatorshave been man- animalprotection activists tend to believe thatcer- aged for numerous purposes, includingreducing tain techniques (e.g., trapping)are fundamentally losses to domesticlivestock, protecting game popu- wrong because they are inhumaneand can hurt lations,and eliminatingthreats to human safety individualanimals (Schmidt 1990). Evidence of (Grange1949, Leopold 1933,Schmidt 1986,Wagner debate over specificpractices can be foundin the 1988,Gilbert and Dodds 1992,Messmer and Rohw- increasingnumber of recentballot initiatives aimed er 1996). However,these justificationsare not uni- at banningsuch managementstrategies as hunting versallyaccepted. Public approvalof specificpred- and trapping(Loker and Decker 1995,Minnis 1998). atormanagement practices often depends on which Due to the controversialnature of predatorman- of thesemotives is behindtheir use (Manfredoet al. agementissues, it is importantto determinepublic 1998,Manfredo et al. 1999,Messmer et al. 1999,Reit- attitudesregarding the topics before policies are er et al. 1999). As an example,certain lethal control developed,implemented, or revised. techniquesmay be more acceptable when preda- Managing specific predator species such as tors threatenhuman health and safety(Zinn et al. cougars (Puma concolor) and black bears (Ursus 1998). Additionally,some predator management americanus) has been a focusof widespread public

Addressfor Tara L. Teeland RobertH. Schmidt:Department of Fisheriesand Wildlife,Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322- 5210, USA;present address for Teel: Human Dimensions in NaturalResources Unit, College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480,USA; e-mailfor Teel: tteel~lamar.colostate.edu. Address for Richard S. Krannich: Departmentof Sociologyand Institutefor Social SciencesResearch on NaturalResources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-0730,USA.

WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15 Peerrefereed

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 3 controversyand debate duringthe 1980s and 1990s agement programsthat consider human prefer- (Fultonet al. 1995, Loker and Decker 1995, Carter ences alongsidewildlife population dynamics. 1998, Manfredoet al. 1998, Peyton 1998). Recre- ational huntingis a major source of mortalityin Conceptual background cougar and black bear populations (Ross and The goal of our research was to determine Jalkotzy1992), and contributesto increasedphysio- Utahns'attitudes toward selected cougar and black logical stressfor individualanimals (Harlow et al. bear managementtechniques. An attitudemay be 1992). Althoughthese and other argumentsare definedas an evaluation,or"an index of the degree emphasized by those who oppose hunting,some to which a personlikes or dislikesan object,where traditionaluser groupsargue that these largepreda- 'object' is used in the genericsense to referto any torsare suppressingungulate populations and that aspect of the individual'sworld" (Ajzen and Fish- cougarand bearpredation may pose a seriousthreat bein 1980:64). For this study,the attitude-object to the livelihoodof livestockranchers and the safe- becomes the specificpredator management prac- ty of people and pets livingon the edge of the tice being evaluated. Numerous variables are urban-ruralinterface (Beier 1991,Mansfield andTor- thoughtto at least indirectlyinfluence attitudes in res 1994, Blackwell1995, Bolgiano 1996). In addi- thiscontext (Ajzen and Fishbein1980). While the tion,many people who huntcougars or bearsobtain most influentialof these tend to be beliefsabout satisfactionfrom doing so and are concernedthat an the attitude-object,these variables may also include enjoyableform of recreationwill be takenaway if sociodemographic characteristics. Despite evi- theirhunting opportunities are eliminated(Califor- dence to indicate that the influenceof external nia Departmentof Fishand Game 1991). variablessuch as sociodemographicson attitudesis Using hounds to hunt large predatorsis a prac- weak and indirect(Ajzen and Fishbein1980, Don- tice thathas caused some concern among certain nellyand Vaske 1995),their impact (or lack thereof) stakeholdergroups. Althoughthis practice is regu- may be worth notingin the attemptto build an lated,it is being reevaluatedby manymanagement overallmodel forattitude prediction. agencies in the United Statesand Europe (Califor- More specifically,in termsof the implicationsof nia Departmentof Fish and Game 1991,Beck et al. thisstudy, the examinationof potentialdifferences 1995). Concern foranimal welfare (relative to the in attitudesdue to the influenceof selected exter- dogs and the hunted species) has substantially nal variablesmay aid in the constructionof a model impactedpublic attitudestoward this practice (Pey- thatcan laterbe used to predictpublic sentiment ton 1998). Proponentsof the use of hounds argue and reactionsregarding the proposed implementa- thatpredators, especially cougars, cannot be hunt- tion of a givenpredator management practice. By ed successfullyby othermeans and that"hounding" identifyingwhich factorsare correlatedwith atti- reduces impactson nontargetindividuals by allow- tudes towardthe practice(s) in question,resource ing a more selectiveharvest (Beck et al. 1995). managerswill be in a betterposition to determine Bear baitingis anothertopic thathas generated futureattitudes toward similar practices. In turn, extensivedebate. Supportersclaim thatbaiting is because attitudesinfluence behavioral intentions, needed to increase huntersuccess and to enable whichimpact behaviors (Ajzen and Fishbein1980), more selectivityin harvestof specificage and gen- identifyingor predictingattitudes toward manage- der groups(Beck et al. 1995). Opponentscontend mentpractices can enable betterprediction of pub- thatattracting bears to feedingstations violates the lic behaviorsin the formof reactionsto the imple- standardsof "fairchase" and may contributeto mentationof those practices.This informationcan bears seekinggarbage and other"human handouts" be veryuseful in allowingmanagers to predicta (Beck et al. 1995). priori thereaction to proposedpractices and there- Wildlifeagencies face manychallenges in manag- by identifythe need (or the lack thereof)for public ing large predators. Managers increasinglyare involvementand communicationefforts to alleviate asked to identifytechniques that are not onlyeco- potentialsources of controversythat could lead to logicallysound and cost-effectivebut also accept- such actionsas ballotinitiatives. able to variouspublics. Consequently,it is impor- A review of recent literaturepertaining to atti- tant that managers learn about public attitudes tudes towardpredator (and, more broadly, wildlife) towardpredator management and use thisinforma- managementrevealed patterns relative to sociode- tion to develop and implementoutreach and man- mographiccharacteristics and stakeholdergroup

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15

identity.For example,residents of ruralareas tend nonconsumptiveusers who do not hunt or fish, to be more supportive of traditionalforms of particularlybirdwatchers and backpackers,tend to wildlifemanagement (e.g., trappingand hunting), oppose such practices(Kellert 1976). Withinthe whereas urbanresidents are more likelyto oppose nonrecreational(or nonuser)group, there is a diver- these practicesand supportanimal rights(Kellert sityof attitudesconcerning wildlife-related issues, 1984,Richards and Krannich1991, Manfredoet al. makingit difficultto identifya broad orientation. 1997). Similarly,gender is a correlateof people's Giventhis notion, it mayprove useful to dividethis attitudestoward wildlife management. Women groupinto subgroupsusing other variables such as tendto be moresupportive than men of protecting knowledge of wildlife-relatedissues and level of animalsfrom suffering (Kellert 1976, Richardsand interestin the resource (e.g., see Dahlgren et al. Krannich1991). Theyare morelikely than males to 1977,Zinn and Manfredo1996). be "animal activists,"associated with the animal rights and animal welfare movements (Hooper Study purpose 1994). In contrast,men tendto be moresupportive Our analysisfocused on Utahns'responses to sev- of traditionalwildlife management practices and eral surveyitems regarding predator management. less involvedin animal rightsmovements (Kellert Specifically,we examinedattitudes toward hunting 1976, Kellertand Berry1987, Hooper 1994, Man- cougars and black bears, using hounds to hunt fredoet al.1997). these species, and bear baiting.We made compar- Educationis anotherfrequently cited correlateof isons among various stakeholder groups (e.g., attitudestoward wildlife-related issues. Those with huntersand nonconsumptiveusers) who mayfeel lower levels of education (i.e., without a college differentlyabout wildlifeissues based on theirpat- degree) tend to be less likelythan theirwell-edu- ternsof involvement in wildlife-relatedactivities. In cated counterpartsto become involvedin "animal addition,we examined sociodemographiccharac- activism"(Hooper 1994). Not surprisinglythen, teristics,including current geographic location these less educated groupsare typicallymore sup- (i.e., urbanversus rural residence), gender, age, edu- portiveof hunting,trapping, and relatedpractices cational attainment,and durationof residence in (Kellert 1976). In termsof the influenceof age, Utah as potentialcorrelates of attitudestoward the youngerindividuals (i.e., particularlybetween the selected predator management practices. The ages of 18 and 29) tendto oppose these traditional broad expectationbased upon evidence in the lit- practicesand to show moreof an interestin animal erature (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Donnelly welfare considerationsthan their older counter- and Vaske 1995) was that differencesin attitudes parts (i.e., particularlythose over 65; Kellert1976; based upon these selected characteristicsexist but Fultonet al. 1995). While durationof residenceis that theirinfluence on attitudestoward predator not as typicalin the literatureas some of the other managementis relativelyweak. We expected resi- variablesmentioned here, there is evidence to sug- dentsof ruralareas, men, those withlower levels of gest that longtimeresidents of a state or area are education,older respondents,longtime residents of more likelythan newcomers to supporttraditional Utah,and huntersto be more supportivethan oth- formsof wildlife management (e.g., see Smith1997, ers of the practicesexamined in thisstudy. Zinn and Andelt1999). The reasoninghere results partlyfrom the supposed "ruralbackground" that is more common among longtimeresidents (Smith Methods 1997), and the decreased tolerancefor and height- Data collection ened knowledge of local wildlife-relateddamage A computer-assistedtelephone interviewing sys- that can resultfrom living in a given area for an tem facilitateddata collection.We used dispropor- extendedperiod of time(Zinn and Andelt1999). tionatestratified sampling as the primarysampling Patternsalso are evident based on stakeholder procedure.This methodallowed foroverrepresen- group classification. For example, hunters and tation of rural areas for the purpose of accurate anglers are typicallymore supportiveof certain comparisonof urban-and rural-residentresponse managementpractices such as trappingand preda- patterns. Interviewswere completed by placing tor controlthan are other types of wildlifestake- calls to a representativesample of residentialtele- holders(e.g., wildlife viewers; Lohr et al. 1996;Man- phone listings,with one-half representing residents fredoet al. 1997; Brooks et al. 1999). In contrast, of the 4 Wasatch Front metropolitancounties

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 5

(Davis,Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber) and one-halfrep- >10 yr). We also identified5 mutuallyexclusive resentingresidents from the 25 remainingnon- groups of stakeholders:hunters (defined as those metropolitancounties. We statisticallyweighted who huntbig game,upland game, or waterfowland cases afterdata collectionto allow generalizations may participatein other activities,such as fishing to be made to the stateas a whole (Babbie 1990). and nonconsumptiverecreation), anglers (defined We conducted interviewswith individualswho as those who fish and may participatein other were >18 years old and whose birthdateshad forms of wildlife-relatedrecreation, but do not occurredmost recently,thereby avoiding the over- hunt),nonconsumptive users (those who partici- representationof a particulargender or age group pate only in nonconsumptiveforms of wildlife- (Krannichand Cundy1987). If the desiredindivid- related recreation,such as wildlifeviewing), non- ual in a particularhousehold was unavailable,or participantswith high levels of interestin wildlife there was no answer,we made up to 5 callback (respondentswho do not participatein any of the attempts,after which we selected a replacement. above activitiesand who selected >5 on a 0-10 We made calls on weeknights(with exceptions if response scale to a question ratingtheir level of someone needed to be reachedduring the day) and interestin wildlife),and nonparticipantswith a low duringthe day and evening on the weekends to or neutrallevel of interestin wildlife(defined as increasethe likelihoodof findingpeople at home. respondentswho do not participatein the above Overall,we obtained 901 completed interviews activitiesand who answered <5 on the wildlife fromthe generalpublic sampleout of 1,332 eligible interestquestion). participants contacted, providing an overall responserate of 67.6%. The urban-area(67.3%) and Data analysis rural-area(68.0%) responserates were similar.Time We analyzeddata usingSPSS? forWindowsTm 6.0 and fundingconstraints precluded our abilityto (Norusis1993). Due to our use of disproportionate conduct testsfor nonresponse bias. However,we stratifiedsampling in which residentsof ruralareas feel that our high response rates help to mitigate were overrepresented,responses were weightedto concernsin thisarea. allow for accurate comparisonsat the statewide level. We used the initial,unweighted data set con- Measurementprocedures tainingapproximately equal numbers of respon- We measured the predator managementvari- dents fromeach geographiclocation for compar- ables-representing attitudes toward hunting isons involvingdifferences between urban and cougars and black bears, use of hounds to hunt ruralresidents. For all othercomparisons, we used these species,and the practiceof bear baiting-by the data set thatwas weightedto accuratelyrepre- using a 0 to 10 intensityrating scale. We asked sent the stateas a whole. Weightingof the urban- respondentsto indicatetheir levels of approvalfor area responses to adjust for the disproportionate thepractices by choosinga numberbetween 0, rep- stratificationin the samplingdesign resultedin a resentingstrong disapproval, and 10, representing substantialincrease in the weighted number of strongapproval. This approach gave the respon- cases reportedfor analyses based on the weighted dent enough choices to accuratelyrepresent varia- data set. While this approach more accurately tion in attitudeswhile minimizingthe level of diffi- reflectsthe probabledistribution of responsesand culty associated with the response task by the natureof associationsamong variablesfor the providinga familiarrating system (Converse and statewidepopulation, it also has some effecton sta- Presser1986). Usingan approachthat provided for tisticalsignificance tests, since the likelihood of measurementon a continuousor intervalscale also obtaininga small probabilityvalue increaseswith facilitatedthe use of statisticalprocedures that the numberof cases. Howeverthe originalsample require measurementusing quantitative(rather size was already quite large, and the effectof thancategorical) scales (Labovitz1967). increased numbers of cases is attenuatedwhen We categorized respondentsaccording to geo- samples are large. Consequently,in this case the graphiclocation (urban versus rural), gender (male artificialincrease in case numbersresulting from versus female), educational attainment(college weightinghad onlyminor effects on calculationof educated versusnot college educated),age (under probabilityvalues, although probability values that 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 or older), were near to the criticalvalue (P=0.05) fordesig- and durationof residencein Utah (1-10 yrversus natingstatistical significance should be interpreted

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15 with some caution. We used oc=0.05 to determine users; nonparticipants(the 2 initialgroups based statisticalsignificance for all analyses. on interestin wildlifewere combined) served as We used independentsamples t-testsand one- the referencecategory. way analysesof variance(ANOVA) to examine differencesin mean attitudestoward predatormanagement practices across levels of the socio- Results demographicand stakeholdergroup variables.We We examined2 sets of relationshipsamong vari- used Tamhane'spost hoc testfor pairwise compar- ables of interest.First we testedthe significanceof isons when ANOVAresults were significant(Noru- relationshipsamong sociodemographic characteris- sis 1993). We selected thisprocedure because Lev- tics and selected predatormanagement practices. ene's test indicated that the equal variances We followed this by examiningmultivariate rela- assumptionwas violatedin all cases. We examined tionshipsto aid in buildingan overall predictive hypothesizedrelationships through bivariate analy- model forattitudes toward predator management. ses and multivariatetechniques to determinehow the overall complex of independent variables Bivariate relationships helped to predict each of the individualattitude Overall attitudes toward predator manage- variables. More specifically,we applied ordinary ment. Great variabilityin patternsof response least squares multipleregression, using scale and existed,as evidenced by large standarddeviations dichotomous,or dummy,variables and the entry associatedwith response variables (Table 1). While method for selection of variablesto be included average attitudestoward all practices suggested (i.e., all independentvariables were entered into opposition,respondents expressed less opposition the regressionsimultaneously based on the notion forthe general activities of cougar and bear hunting that,from theory, we expected all variablesto be than for the controversialpractices used to hunt important;Morgan et al. 2001). We used the weight- these species. Utahnsexpressed little approval for ed data set formultiple regression analyses. A "test usinghounds to huntcougars. They expressedthe regression"run using weighted and nonweighted greatestamount of disapprovalfor bear baiting,fol- data revealed no major differencesin results,fur- lowed by use of hounds to huntblack bears. It is therjustifying the focuson resultsderived from the importantto note thatresponses to mostpredator weighteddata, which more accuratelyrepresented managementitems formed a bimodal,and in some the stateas a whole. cases a trimodal,distribution. In otherwords, large We created 3 dummyvariables to replace the percentagesof respondentsselected values at the stakeholdergroup variable (using one less thanthe extremeends, or on eitherside, of the 0-10 scale, numberof originallevels as the guidelinefor the which resultedin a mean close to 5. This finding number of variables that need to be created in suggeststhat an interpretationof the resultsbased dummyvariable regression, Zar 1996). These rep- solely upon mean levels of response would be resented hunters,anglers, and nonconsumptive unwise. A more appropriateapproach, which we used in subsequentsections, accounts forthe percentages of respondentswho selected certainval- Table 1. Mean levels of responseby the Utah public to items ues or,more generally, who expressedapproval ver- measuring attitudes toward selected predator management practices,1 998. sus disapproval. Geographic location. While neithergroup of Practicea n b SD respondents expressed much approval for the Cougar hunting 826 4.40 3.25 selected predatormanagement practices, rural-area Using houndsto huntcougars 810 3.50 3.33 residentswere less opposed than urban residents Bear hunting 827 3.96 3.22 to cougar hunting,using hounds to hunt cougars, Using houndsto huntbears 810 2.87 3.04 and bear baiting(Table 2). This is evidenced by Bear baiting 841 2.28 2.71 greatermean responsevalues and greaterpercent- ages of respondentswho selected a value above 5 a Variables representingattitudes toward selected predator on the 10-pointscale than were associated with managementpractices were coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. urban residents.All mean values were below the b Numbers representunweighted cases, which were dis- scale midpointexcept forthat representing average played here to allow foreasier interpretation. rural-residentresponse to cougar hunting. In this

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bear management * Teel et al. 7

Table 2. Utah public attitudestoward selected predatormanagement practices across levels of geographiclocation, 1998.

Residency Rural Urban Practicea nb x % Approval % Disapproval n x % Approval % Disapproval t P Cougar hunting 403 5.10 48 38 423 4.20 34 50 3.98 <0.001 Using houndsto huntcougars 392 4.13 34 54 418 3.33 22 63 3.27 0.001 Bear hunting 405 4.20 34 48 422 3.89 30 54 1.37 0.170 Using houndsto huntbears 394 3.18 23 65 416 2.78 18 71 1.79 0.074 Bear baiting 408 2.65 16 71 433 2.17 11 77 2.44 0.015

a Variables representingattitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices were coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. Approvalis representedby the selectionof a value greaterthan 5.0, whereasdis- approval is representedby the selectionof a value less than 5.0 on the responsescale. b Sample sizes varygreatly due to the use of statisticalweighting procedures. lattercomparison, the mean value of 5.10 would bears. Only9% ofwomen approvedof bear baiting, suggestthat rural residents tended towardambiva- comparedto 16% of men. In fact,even the practice lence. However,48% of respondentsin thiscatego- thatgained the mostapproval, cougar hunting, was ryexpressed approval, whereas 38% expresseddis- approvedby only29% of women and 45% of men. approval,resulting in a mean close to the midpoint. Education. Consistent with previously dis- This illustrationagain highlightsthe importanceof cussed results,mean values for both groups of avoidingsole reliance on mean levels of response respondentswere below 5.0 forall practices.Those to interpretattitudes toward these predatorman- with greaterlevels of education expressed more agementpractices. Resultsfor comparisons across disapprovalfor the selected predatormanagement levelsof geographic location based on bear hunting practices than their less educated counterparts and using hounds to huntbears did not differsta- (Table 4). Over 50% of those witha college degree tistically. expressed disapproval for cougar hunting,com- Gender Womenmore strongly disapproved of all pared to 44% of those withlittle or no college edu- predatormanagement practices under considera- cation. Similarly,58% of the respondentswho had tion than men (Table 3). Mean levels of response a college degreedisapproved of bear hunting,com- for men and women were below the scale mid- pared to 49% of those without such a degree. point in all cases, and average levels of approval Slightlygreater percentages of respondentsin both were particularlylow in response to the practices education categories selected a value below 5.0, of bear baiting and using hounds to hunt black representingdisapproval, for using hounds to hunt

Table 3. Utah public attitudestoward selected predatormanagement practices across levels of gender,1998.

Gender Male Female Practicea nb x % Approval % Disapproval n x % Approval % Disapproval t P Cougar hunting 919 4.95 45 39 860 3.98 29 54 6.44 <0.001 Using hounds to huntcougars 911 4.18 35 53 840 2.93 16 68 8.02 <0.001 Bear hunting 914 4.43 37 46 861 3.61 26 58 5.42 <0.001 Using houndsto huntbears 903 3.25 27 66 844 2.61 12 72 4.46 <0.001 Bear baiting 925 2.54 16 79 889 2.12 9 84 3.33 0.001

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15

Table4. Utahpublic attitudes toward selected predator management practices across levels of education, 1998.

Education Littleor No College CollegeDegree Practicea nb x % Approval% Disapproval n x % Approval% Disapproval t P Cougar hunting 1210 4.70 40 44 565 4.07 32 51 3.86 <0.001 Usinghounds to huntcougars 1192 3.89 29 56 555 2.93 19 68 5.86 <0.001 Bear hunting 1213 4.21 34 49 556 3.66 27 58 3.39 0.001 Usinghounds to huntbears 1193 3.19 22 65 549 2.41 15 76 5.31 <0.001 Bear baiting 1238 2.45 13 73 572 2.09 10 79 2.75 0.006

a Variablesrepresenting attitudes toward selected predator management practices were coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. Approval is representedby the selection of a valuegreater than 5.0, whereasdis- approvalis representedby the selection of a valueless than 5.0 on theresponse scale. b Samplesizes vary greatly due to theuse ofstatistical weighting procedures. cougars, and even greater levels of disapproval 80% of those 65 and older disapprovedof using were expressed for using hounds to hunt bears. hounds to hunt bears, compared to only 62% of Finally,only 10% of thosewith a college degree,and respondentsunder 25 (Table 6). Similarly,38% of 13% of those with less education,approved of the this latterage group approved of bear hunting, practiceof bear baiting. whereas only25% of those in the 55-64 age group Age. Based on mean levels of response,all age did so. categoriestended toward disapproval of the preda- Duration of residence. Mean levels of response tor managementpractices in question (Table 5). toward cougar hunting,using hounds to hunt While therewere no significantdifferences for the cougars,and using hounds to hunt bears differed cougar huntingvariable, all other practices were significantlyacross levels of durationof residence associated with differencesin mean levels of (Table 7). Respondentswho had lived in Utah for response by age. Somewhat surprisingly,respon- more than 10 years tended to express less disap- dents in the under-25category tended to express provaltoward the practicesthan relative newcom- less disapprovalthan all of the othergroups. As an ers to the state. For example,53% of newer resi- illustration,83% of those in the 55-64 categoryand dents,compared to only45% of longtimeresidents,

Table 5. Mean levels of responseby the Utah public foritems representing attitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices across levels of age, 1998.

Age Under25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Practicea n b x c n x n x n x n x n x F Cougar hunting 292 4.80A 398 4.45A 382 4.33 A 281 4.61 A 216 4.15A 209 4.60A 1.32d Using hounds to huntcougars 270 4.37A 396 3.47 B 373 3.67AB 271 3.30 B 223 3.07 B 219 3.51 AB 4.70* Bear hunting 284 4.44A 396 4.18AB 380 4.22AB 273 3.68AB 225 3.56 B 215 3.82AB 3.23e Using houndsto huntbears 267 3.72 A 391 3.26AB 378 3.21 AB 275 2.62 BC 222 2.00 C 212 2.31 C 12.00* Bearbaiting 290 2.94A 403 2.56AB 380 2.45AB 283 2.11 BC 228 1.61 C 229 1.96BC 8.19*

a Variables representingattitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices were coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. b Sample sizes varygreatly due to the use of statisticalweighting procedures. c Means withdifferent letters differ statistically (P < 0.05, Tamhane'spost hoc testfor pairwise comparisons). d P = 0.251. e P = 0.007. * P< 0.001.

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 9

Table 6. Distributionof responsesby the Utah public to itemsrepresenting attitudes toward hunterstended to express selected predatormanagement practices across levels of age, 1998. a less disapproval than other categories of re- Age spondents. For the prac- Under25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ tice of using hounds to Practiceb %A %D %A %D %A %D %A %D %A %D %A%D hunt cougars, noncon- Cougar hunting 38 41 39 46 33 49 38 46 36 51 41 45 sumptiveusers expressed Using hounds to significantlyhigher mean huntcougars 33 47 25 61 25 57 25 65 20 70 24 65 levels of disapprovalthan Bear hunting 38 50 34 52 31 47 32 55 25 55 29 59 the other stakeholder Using houndsto huntbears 29 62 21 63 21 63 17 72 10 83 16 80 groups. Similarly,noncon- Bear baiting 17 68 14 71 12 74 10 78 6 84 1 1 83 sumptiveusers expressed the highestlevels of dis- a Distributionis displayedas percentagesof respondentsin each of the following2 cate- approvalfor bear baiting, gories:A = Approval,D = Disapproval. Approvalis representedby the selectionof a value with 83% of respondents greaterthan 5.0, whereas disapprovalis representedby the selectionof a value less than 5.0 on the responsescale. in this group selectinga b Variables representingattitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices were value below 5 on the 0 to coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. 10 response scale (Table 9). While results were not definitiveacross all disapprovedof cougar hunting. Seventy-oneper- dependent variables,it was clear relativeto the cent of thosewho had livedin Utahfor a maximum practiceof bear baitingthat nonconsumptive users of 10 years disapprovedof using hounds to hunt tended to express more disapprovalthan nonpar- cougars, whereas 58% of longtime residents ticipantswith low levels of interestin wildlifewho approved. Finally,74% of newcomers expressed in turnexpressed more disapprovalthan hunters. some level of disapprovaltoward using hounds to huntbears, compared to 67% of respondentswho Multivariaterelationships had lived in the statefor more than 10 years. Multiple regressionresults indicated that only Stakeholdergroup. We found statisticaldiffer- 8-19% of the variance in attitudestoward the ences across categoriesof the stakeholdergroup selected predator management practices was variablefor all predatormanagement practices of explained by the complex of independentvari- interestto thisstudy (Table 8). Post hoc testsindi- ables. The significantpredictors of attitudestoward cated that huntersdiffered significantly from all cougar hunting (R2 = 0.15, P? 0.001) were educa- otherstakeholder groups in termsof mean levelsof tion,geographic location, and participationin hunt- response toward the practices. Not surprisingly,ing (Table 10). Individualswith little or no college

Table 7. Utah public attitudestoward selected predatormanagement practices across levels of durationof residence,1 998.

Durationof residence 10 Yearsor Less Greaterthan 10 Years Practicea nb % Approval % Disapproval n x % Approval % Disapproval t P Cougar hunting 322 3.99 32 53 1,446 4.60 38 45 -3.05 0.002 Using houndsto huntcougars 297 2.70 17 71 1,442 3.76 27 58 -5.60 <0.001 Bear hunting 318 3.77 26 56 1,448 4.09 33 51 -1.63 0.102 Using hounds to huntbears 306 2.59 14 74 1,433 3.02 21 67 -2.37 0.018 Bear baiting 315 2.25 12 79 1,492 2.36 12 74 -0.61 0.540

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 0 WildiffeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15

Table 8. Mean levels of responseby the Utah public foritems representing attitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices across stakeholdergroups, 1 998.

Stakeholdergroup Nonconsumptive Nonparticipants Nonparticipants Hunters Anglers Users withhigh interest a withlow interest Practiceb nc kd n x n x n x n x F Cougar hunting 401 6.61 A 398 3.83 B 642 3.70 B 145 3.79 B 238 3.87 B 68.80* Using hounds to huntcougars 407 5.95A 379 3.15B 636 2.53C 147 2.91 B 228 2.83 B 86.81* Bear hunting 409 6.09A 392 3.22B 647 3.23B 145 3.48B 231 3.78B 67.81 Using houndsto huntbears 396 4.71 A 386 2.56B 635 2.08B 145 2.69B 230 2.51 B 54.66* Bear baiting 414 3.43A 395 2.10BC 662 1.66B 149 2.26BC 239 2.23C 29.37*

a Nonparticipantswere divided into2 categories,those withhigh interestand those with low interestin wildlife,based their responsesto a question askingthem to ratetheir overall level of interestin wildlifeon a scale rangingfrom 0 (no interest)to 10 (more interestin wildlifethan in anythingelse). b Variables representingattitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices were coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. c Sample sizes varygreatly due to the use of statisticalweighting procedures. d Means withdifferent letters differ statistically (P < 0.05, Tamhane'spost hoc testfor pairwise comparisons). P < 0.001. education,those livingin ruralareas, and hunters that representingthe angler stakeholdergroup. tended to express less disapprovaltoward cougar Nonhunterswere moredisapproving than hunters, hunting. nonconsumptiveusers expressed more disapproval Predictorsof attitudestoward using hounds to than those who did not participatein noncon- huntcougars (R2=0. 19,P

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 11

Table 10. Multipleregression analysis results for models aimed at predictingattitudes toward duration of residence in selected cougar managementpractices, from a 1998 surveyof the Utah public.a the state,and stakeholder group (i.e., a classifica- Unstandardized Standardized Independentvariable coefficient(b) SE coefficient(B) P tionscheme based on participationin wildlife-relat- Cougar huntingmodelb ed recreation activities). Nonparticipant(constant) 5.979 0.604 < 0.001 Hunter 2.336 0.232 0.304 < 0.001 These characteristicshave Angler -0.248 0.222 -0.032 0.265 been identifiedfrequently Nonconsumptiveuser -0.285 0.199 -0.042 0.153 in the literaturepertain- Education -0.444 0.157 -0.064 0.005 ing to attitudes toward Durationof residence 0.288 0.192 0.034 0.133 wildlifeand wildlife-relat- Geographiclocation -0.782 0.172 -0.101 < 0.001 ed issues (e.g., Kellert Gender -0.281 0.156 -0.044 0.071 1976,Kellert 1984, Kellert Age 0.004 0.047 0.002 0.926 and Berry1987, Richards Hounds to huntcougars modelc and Krannich1991, Hoop- Nonparticipant(constant) 5.074 0.622 < 0.001 er 1994,Fulton et al. 1995, Hunter 2.474 0.236 0.314 < 0.001 Angler -0.020 0.229 -0.087 0.931 Lohret al. 1996,Manfredo Nonconsumptiveuser -0.415 0.204 -0.059 0.042 et al. 1997, Brooks et al. Education -0.702 0.160 -0.098 < 0.001 1999, Zinn and Andelt Durationof residence 0.777 0.202 0.087 < 0.001 1999). However, based Geographiclocation -0.708 0.176 -0.088 < 0.001 on empirical evidence Gender -0.507 0.160 -0.076 0.002 from attitudinalresearch Age -0.120 0.047 -0.057 0.012 (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Donnellyand Vaske a Variables representingattitudes toward selected predatormanagement practices were 1995), our expectation coded on a scale rangingfrom 0 = stronglydisapprove to 10 = stronglyapprove. b R2 = 0.145; adjusted R2 = 0.141; F8 1749 = 37.11; M SE = 330.17, 8.90; P< 0.001. was that these variables c R2 = 0.186; adjusted R2 = 0.182; F 8 1721 = 49.1 1; M SE = 447.34, 9.1 1; P < 0.001. would not have a strong, directimpact on attitudes toward predatormanage- regressioncoefficients for the hunterand noncon- ment. Our researchconfirmed this expectation in sumptiveuser classifications,as well as the age,edu- thatthe complex of independentvariables consid- cation,and geographiclocation variables, were sta- ered here generallyleft most of thevariation in atti- tistically significantin the model to predict tudes toward each of the selected predatorman- attitudestoward using hounds to huntbears (R2= agementpractices unexplained. As an illustration, 0.14, P<0.001). As with the other regressions, amountof explainedvariance in each of the attitu- results relative to the direction of relationships dinalmeasures given by regressionanalyses ranged were similar to those obtained in the bivariate from 8 to 19%. analyses. Finally,hunting, participation in noncon- These findingsindicate a need for additional sumptive wildlife-relatedrecreation, geographic research to uncover other,more importantante- location, and age were predictors of attitudes cedents of attitudestoward predator management. towardbear baiting(R2 = 0.08,P? 0.00 1). We recommendthat those interestedin such an endeavorconsider an examinationof more relevant predictorvariables such as thoseidentified by attitude Discussion theory.As an example,theTheory of Reasoned Action In additionto probingthe attitudesof Utah resi- (Ajzenand Fishbein1980) would suggestthat beliefs dents towardpredator management practices, we about the outcomesof predatormanagement prac- also examinedvarious theoretical relationships that ticesand the evaluationof those outcomes would be mightaid in buildinga model to predictattitudes muchbetter predictors of attitudesthan sociodemo- toward those practices. More specifically,the graphicvariables. Similarly, wildlife value orientations hypothesizedmodel contained the followingpre- (e.g.,Fulton et al. 1996) wouldbe worthexamining in dictors:geographic location (i.e., urbanversus rural the contextof this model aimed at predictingatti- residence), gender, age, educational attainment, tudestoward predator management practices.

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 WildlifeSociety Buletin 2002, 30(l):2-15

Table11. Multipleregression analysis results for models aimed at predictingattitudes toward literatureon wildlife-relat- selectedblack bear management practices, from a 1998 surveyof the Utah public.a ed attitudes.For example, urbanresidents tended to Unstandardized Standardized Independentvariable coefficient(b) SE coefficient(B) P be more opposed than theirrural counterparts to Bearhunting modelb Nonparticipant(constant) 5.067 0.603 < 0.001 predator management Hunter 2.083 0.231 0.275 < 0.001 practices outlinedin this Angler -0.701 0.224 -0.090 0.002 study.Men expressedless Nonconsumptiveuser -0.609 0.201 -0.091 0.002 opposition than women Education -0.293 0.157 -0.042 0.063 to all of the management Durationof residence 0.118 0.193 0.014 0.542 practices. Additionally,as Geographiclocation -0.267 0.172 -0.035 0.120 anticipated, respondents Gender -0.106 0.156 -0.017 0.497 with lower levels of edu- Age -0.104 0.047 -0.052 0.026 cational attainmentand modelc Houndsto huntbears longtimeresidents of the Nonparticipant(constant) 4.481 0.582 < 0.001 statewere less opposed to Hunter 1.775 0.223 0.244 < 0.001 Angler -0.265 0.214 -0.036 0.217 predator management Nonconsumptiveuser -0.526 0.192 -0.083 0.006 practices outlinedin this Education -0.518 0.151 -0.079 0.001 study. Durationof residence 0.362 0.187 0.045 0.053 Results based on the Geographiclocation -0.367 0.166 -0.050 0.027 age variable were some- Gender -0.053 0.150 -0.009 0.726 what differentfrom what Age -0.287 0.045 -0.150 < 0.001 we expected. In most Bearbaiting modeld comparisons,the younger Nonparticipant(constant) 4.050 0.527 < 0.001 age groups, particularly Hunter 0.900 0.202 0.139 < 0.001 the under-25 category, Angler -0.380 0.195 -0.057 0.051 the least Nonconsumptiveuser -0.643 0.173 -0.113 < 0.001 expressed Education -0.187 0.136 -0.032 0.171 amount of opposition. Durationof residence 0.121 0.171 0.017 0.480 While empiricalevidence Geographiclocation -0.472 0.150 -0.072 0.002 is lacking, this pattern Gender -0.036 0.137 -0.007 0.791 could reflecta greaterten- Age -0.210 0.040 -0.124 < 0.001 dencyamong the younger age groupsto getinvolved a Variablesrepresenting attitudes toward selected predator management practices were in traditional forms of on from0 = to 10 = coded a scale ranging stronglydisapprove stronglyapprove. wildlife-related recre- b R2= 0.136; adjustedR2 = 0.132; F8 1747= 34.49; M SE = 306.75,8.89; P <0.001. ation, such as hunting, C R2 = 0.135; adjusted R2 = 0.131; F8, 1719= 33.56; M SE = 271.07, 8.08; P< 0.001 d R2 = 0.076; adjustedR2 = 0.072; F8, 1787 = 18.31;M SE = 126.21,6.89; P< 0.001. which could be more physically and time restrictivefor older age Despite thelack of explainedvariance associated groups,and which could contributeto more posi- with prediction,results indicate that Utah resi- tive attitudestoward traditional management prac- dents'attitudes toward the 5 predatormanagement tices such as predatorcontrol. Somewhatconsis- practices examined here are significantlyinflu- tent with this notion,Utah hunterswere indeed enced, in a statisticalsense, by sociodemographic much less opposed, on average,than other stake- and stakeholdergroup classifications.This would holder groups to the practices examined in this suggest that,while these selected predictorvari- study.In fact,the huntergroup was the only one ables do not have a strongimpact on attitudes,their that exhibited some form of approval,although identificationmay stillbe usefulin the contextof slight,for some of the practices.While our data did creatingan overall predictivemodel. Relativeto not indicate that therewas a significantlygreater the hypothesizeddirection of significantrelation- percentageof huntersin the youngestage groupto ships,except forage, resultstend to confirminitial explain a greatertendency toward approval,this expectationsand thereforesupport evidence in the possibilityshould not be ruled out because we

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 13 asked only about actual (as opposed to intended) ticularlywhen it is expressedin the formof oppo- participationin huntingover the last 3 years(a rel- sition. ativelyshort time frame). In anyevent, because our At the same time,the resultsindicate varying reasoning is not fullyvalidated, further research degreesof oppositionamong portions of the popu- would be usefulin determiningwhy the younger lation,with levels of approval(i.e., only expressed age groupswere unexpectedlymore supportiveof by hunters)and disapprovaldifferentiated by stake- the predatormanagement practices examined in holder group affiliationand sociodemographic this study. An understandingof youngerrespon- attributes.Understanding differences among stake- dents'overall beliefs about predatormanagement, holdergroups and among segmentsof the popula- which are the directantecedents to the attitudes tion that are differentiatedby social and demo- thatwe identified(Ajzen and Fishbein1980), would graphiccharacteristics in attitudestoward predator likelyprove especiallyuseful toward this end. managementissues maybe helpfulto wildlifeman- On average,the Utah public expressed disap- agers. By determiningwhich groups approve of proval forthe predatormanagement practices we particularmanagement practices or, in the case of studied. While severalof the mean values seemed our findings,which groups express less opposition, to suggesttrends toward ambivalence (i.e., because and which ones express more,agency personnel theywere close to the neutralpoint of the scale), maybe in a betterposition to decide where public these values should not be used as the sole indica- educationefforts should be directed.Given limited torsof attitudes.The reasonfor this is thatbimodal fiscalresources among most statewildlife manage- (and in some cases trimodal)response distributions ment agencies for such programs,this concentra- were evidentwith manyof the indicatorsused in tion of resourcesto providegreater efficiency may thisstudy. In otherwords, because responsestend- be desirable. As an example,if policy-makersfeel ed to clusteraround both of the extremeends of thatparticular predator management practices are the 0-10 scale forseveral of the attitudinalitems, it necessary but find that certain groups are more would not be wise to relygreatly on a mean that likelyto be in oppositionthan others, they may be may not account for that tendency. Despite our able to addresssome of the concernsand alleviate inabilityto draw clear conclusionsfrom mean val- some of the controversysurrounding these issues ues, examiningfrequency distributions for each (presumably before policy is implemented) by item confirmed the finding that most Utahns usingthat information to guide public involvement expressedvery little approval for predator manage- and public educationefforts. ment. On the other hand,this informationmay prove more usefulin recognizingwhich traditionalman- Implicationsfor wildlifemanagement agementpractices are no longer appropriate. In Policy-makersshould not ignore the fact that a otherwords, if most members of the generalpopu- large percentageof Utah's population appears to lationoppose particularforms of predatormanage- disapprove of many traditionalforms of predator ment,as was thefinding in thisstudy, managers may management. Findingssuggest that the steadily be betterserved to pursue other,more acceptable emerging"protectionist" paradigm (Pacelle 1998), practices. While this is not to say that approval exemplifiedin the wave of ballot initiativesban- should be the drivingforce in the selection of ning such practices as bear baiting across the appropriatemanagement strategies, it is something nation,may not only be firmlyestablished now in thatmust be consideredalong with such aspects as the general population of Utah but may even be technique effectiveness,cost, etc. And if most presentamong hunters and othertraditionally sup- membersof the public are opposed to certainprac- portivegroups. This mayindicate a need to revise tices,education alone is likelyto prove ineffective. existingpolicy or incorporatesuch public senti- Thus, these findingsindicate the need to at least mentinto future predator management policy deci- consider and researchother options for predator sions to avoid the riskof unsuccessfulimplementa- management. tionof practices like those outlinedin thisstudy. In Futureresearch should additionally focus on con- other words, because the success of many tradi- sideringunder what circumstancesthe practices tionalwildlife management strategies is increasing- examined in this study would potentially be ly based on public approval,it is riskyfor wildlife deemed more acceptable by membersof the gen- resourceagencies to ignorepublic sentiment,par- eralpublic. Whilewe foundthat most Utahns were

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2002, 30(1):2-15 generallyopposed to such practicesas bear baiting, BROOKS, J.J., R. J.WARREN, M. G. NELMS,AND M. A. TARRANT.1999. this does not suggestthat bear baitingis inappro- Visitorattitudes toward and knowledgeof restoredbobcats priatein all situations.For example,it may in fact on CumberlandIsland NationalSeashore, Georgia. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 27:1089-1097. be moreacceptable ifapplied in the fallas opposed CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1991. Sections 265, to the spring,when cubs are present.Additionally, 365, 366, 367, 367.5 Title 14, CaliforniaCode of Regulations it may be viewed as more appropriateif used in regarding:Bear hunting. Final environmentaldocument, areas wherebears are knownto have enteredzones Sacramento,California, USA. CARTER,C. N. 1998. Fiscal effectsof voterinitiatives to ban cer- of humanhabitation (e.g., seeking food or garbage), tain methodsof bear and cougar hunting:Oregon's experi- where they may be seen as more of a threatto ence. HumanDimensions of Wildlife 3:29-41. human safety. These examples underscore the CONVERSE,J. M., AND S. PRESSER. 1986. Surveyquestions: hand- importanceof measuringlevels of public accept- craftingthe standardizedquestionnaire. Sage, Thousand abilityin the specificcontext of how the practices Oaks,California, USA. researchon this DAHLGREN, R. B., A. WYWIALOWSKI,T' A. BUBOLZ, AND V L. WRIGHT. will likelybe used. Further topic 1977. Influenceof knowledgeof wildlifemanagement prin- of context,particularly with respect to predator ciples on behavior and attitudestoward resource issues. management,would prove usefulin thatit would Transactionsof the North AmericanWildlife and Natural enable managersto determinein what situations ResourcesConference 42:146-155. theymay stillbe able to implementpractices that DONNELLY,M. P, ANDJ. J. VASKE. 1995. Predictingattitudes toward a proposed moose hunt. Societyand NaturalResources 8: are not acceptable to moststakeholders. generally 307-319. FULTON,D. C., J. PATE,AND M. J. MANFREDO.1995. Projectreport: Acknowledgments.We would like to thankthe Colorado residents'attitudes toward trappingin Colorado Utah Division of WildlifeResources for providing (Project Report no. 23). Project Report for the Colorado the financialsupport for this study. Special thanks Division of Wildlife. Human Dimensions in Natural ResourcesUnit, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, USA. to Alan Clarkand Dana Dolsen of the Divisionfor FULTON, D. C., M. J. MANFREDO, AND J. LIPSCOMB. 1996. Wildlife theirassistance in studydesign and planning. We value orientations: A conceptual and measurement would also like to express our gratitudeto the fol- approach. HumanDimensions of Wildlife 1: 24-47. lowing people who aided with data organization GILBERT,F F, ANDD. G. DODDS. 1992. The philosophyand prac- and spent long hours in conducting telephone tice of wildlifemanagement. Krieger, Malabar, Florida, USA. GRANGE,W B. The to abundance. CharlesScrib- interviews:Brian Eisenhauer, Catherine Groseclose, 1949. way game ner's Sons,New York,New York,USA. BrianAdams, Amy Brennan, Holly Jeffcoat, Candace HARLow,H. J.,E G. LINDZEY,W D. VAN SICKLE,AND W A. GERN. Kolos,Wendy Sanborn, Liz Schulte,Kelly Sinner, Lex 1992. Stressresponse of cougars to nonlethalpursuit by Watts,and MichelleWeidner. Finally, we thankDr. hunters.Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:136-139. TerryMessmer for reviewing earlier versions of this HOOPER,J. K. 1994. What do animalactivists want? (And how manuscript. shouldwildlife managers respond?). Proceedingsof theVer- tebratePest Conference16:320-326. KELLERT,S. R. 1976. Perceptionsof animalsin Americansociety. Transactionsof the North AmericanWildlife and Natural Literaturecited ResourcesConference 41:533-545. AJZEN, I., AND M. FISHBEIN. 1980. Understandingattitudes and KELLERT,S. R. 1984. UrbanAmerican perceptions of animalsand predictingsocial behavior. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, the naturalenvironment. Urban Ecology 8:209-228. New Jersey,USA. KELLERT,S. R., ANDJ. K. BERRY. 1987. Attitudes,knowledge, and BABBIE, E. 1990. Surveyresearch methods. Wadsworth, Belmont, behaviors toward wildlifeas affectedby gender. Wildlife California,USA. SocietyBulletin 15:363-371. BECK, T. I., D. S. MOODY,D. B. KOCH, J.J. BEECHAM, G. R. OLSON,AND KRANNICH,R. S., ANDD. T. CUNDY. 1987. Utahresidents' opinions T BURTON. 1995. Sociologicaland ethicalconsiderations of about wildlifeand wildliferesource management:project black bear hunting. Pages 119-132 in J.Auger and H. L. summaryreport. Institutefor Social Science Research on Black,editors. Proceedingsof the fifthwestern black bear NaturalResources, Utah StateUniversity, Logan, USA. workshop. BrighamYoung University, 22-25 February1994, LABOVITZ,S. 1967. Some observationson measurementand sta- Provo,Utah, USA. tistics.Social Forces 46:151-160. BEIER, P 1991. Cougar attackson humansin the UnitedStates LEOPOLD,A. 1933. Game management.University of Wisconsin, and Canada. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 19:403-412. Madison,USA. BLACKWELL, B. H. 1995. Utah statusreport. Pages 39-46 in J. LOHR,C., W B. BALLARD,AND A. BATH. 1996. Attitudes toward Augerand H. L. Black,editors. Proceedingsof the fifthwest- graywolf reintroduction to New Brunswick.Wildlife Society ern black bear workshop. BrighamYoung University,22-25 Bulletin24:414-420. February1994, Provo, Utah, USA. LOKER,C. A., ANDD. J. DECKER. 1995. Colorado's black bear hunt- BOLGIANO,C. 1996. Why are cougars killingpeople? Theories ing referendum:What was behind the vote. WildlifeSociety and implications.Wild Earth6:46-49. Bulletin23:370-376.

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Attitudestoward cougar and bearmanagement * Teel et al. 15

MANFREDO, M. J.,D. C. FULTON, AND C. L. PIERCE. 1997. Under- WAGNER,F.H. 1988. Predatorcontrol and the sheep industry. standingvoter behavior on wildlifeballot initiatives:Col- Regina,Claremont, California, USA. orado's trappingamendment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife ZAR,J. H. 1996. Biostatisticalanalysis. Third edition. Prentice- 2:22-39. Hall,Upper Saddle River,New Jersey,USA. MANFREDO, M. J.,H. C. ZINN, L. SIKOROWSKI,AND J. JONES. 1998. ZINN, H. C., ANDM. J. MANFREDO.1996. Projectreport: societal Public acceptance of mountainlion management:A case preferencesfor mountain lion managementalong Colorado's study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby foothills areas. FrontRange (Project Reportno. 28). ProjectReport for the WildlifeSociety Bulletin 26:964-970. Colorado Divisionof Wildlife. Human Dimensions in Natural MANFREDO, M.J., C. L. PIERCE, D. FULTON,J. PATE, AND B. GILL. 1999. ResourcesUnit, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, USA. Public acceptance of wildlifetrapping in Colorado. Wildlife ZINN,H. C., M. J. MANFREDO,J. J. VASKE,ANI) K. WrrrMANN.1998. SocietyBulletin 27: 499-508. Using normativebeliefs to determinethe acceptabilityof MANSFIELD,T. M., AND S. G. ToRuES.1994. Trendsin mountainlion wildlifemanagement actions. Society& NaturalResources depredationand public safetythreats in California.Proceed- 11:649-662. ingsof theVertebrate Pest Conference16:12-14. ZINN,H. C., ANDW. F ANDELT.1999. Attitudesof FortCollins, Col- MESSMER, T. A., AND F C. ROHWER. 1996. Issues and problemsin orado,residents toward prairie dogs. WildlifeSociety Bulletin predationmanagement to enhance avian recruitment.Pages 27:1098-1106. 25-30 in K.G.Wadsworth and R. E. McCabe, editors. Issues and problems in predationmanagement to enhance avian recruitment. WildlifeManagement Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. MESSMER, T. A., M. W BRUNSON, D. REITER, AND D. G. HEWITT.1999. UnitedStates public attitudesregarding predators and their ...... _ .. managementto enhance avian recruitment.Wildlife Society Bulletin27:75-85. MINNIS, D. L. 1998. Wildlifepolicy-making by the electorate:an overview of citizen-sponsoredballot measures on hunting and trapping.Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:75-83. MORGAN, G. A., 0. V GRIEGO, AND G. W GLOECKNER. 2001. SPSS forWindows: An introductionto use and interpretationin research. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, New Jer- sey,USA. NORUSIS,M. J. 1993. SPSS5 forWindows?: Base systemuser's guide,release 6.0. SPSS Inc.,Chicago, Illinois, USA. PACEILE, W 1998. Forginga new wildlifemanagement paradigm: TaraTee! (center) received a B.S. in 1997 and an M.S. in 1999 Integratinganimal protection values. Human Dimensionsof in fisheriesand wildlifeat UtahState University. She is cur- Wildlife3:42-50. rentlypursuing a Ph.D. in humandimensions of natural inter- PEYTON, B. R. 1998. Definingmanagement issues: dogs, hunting resourcesat ColoradoState University. Her professional ests includewildlife damage human-wildlife and society.Transactions of the NorthAmerican Wildlife and management, interactions,wildlife policy, and attitudesand valuestoward NaturalResources Conference 63:544-555. naturalresources and theirmanagement. Richard S. Krannich REITER, D. K., M. W BRIJNSON,AND R. H. SCHMIDT. 1999. Public (left)is professorof sociology and forestresources and director attitudestoward wildlifedamage managementand policy. of the Institutefor Social Science Researchon Natural WildlifeSociety Bulletin 27:746-758. Resourcesat UtahState University. In 2000 he was therecipi- RICHARDS, R. T, AND R. S. KRANNICH. 1991. The ideologyof the entof the D. WynneThorne Researcher of theYear Award at animal rights movement and activists' attitudes toward UtahState University. He completeda Ph.D. in sociologyat wildlife. Transactionsof the NorthAmerican Wildlife and PennsylvaniaState University in 1980. His researchinterests NaturalResources Conference 56:363-371. addressthe social dimensions of a broadrange of environmen- talquality and naturalresource management topics. Robert H. Ross, P.I., AND M. G. JALKOT7.Y. 1992. Characteristicsof a hunted Schmidt(right) is a certifiedwildlife biologist and associate pro- population of cougars in southwesternAlberta. Journal of fessorin the Department of Fisheriesand Wildlife at UtahState WildlifeManagement 56:417-426. Universityand is a memberof the Jack H. BerrymanInstitute for SCHMIDT, R. H. 1986. Community-leveleffects of coyotepopula- WildlifeDamage Management. His interestscover the spec- tion reduction.Pages 49-65 in J.Cairns, Jr., editor. Commu- trumof wildlifepolicy, management, and ecology. Robert nitytoxicity testing. American Society forTesting and Mate- receivedhis Ph.D. in biologicalecology at the Universityof rials,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Californiaat Davis. SCHMIDT, R.H. 1990. Animalwelfare considerations in predator management. Pages 33-37 in G. A. Giusti,R.M. Timm, and Associateeditor: Bright R.H.Schmidt, editors. Predator management in northcoastal California:proceedings of a workshop. Universityof Califor- nia Hopland Field Station,10-11 March 1990,Hopland, USA. SMITH, M. D. 1997. Environment,development, and land-useatti- tude differencesbetween newcomersand longer-termresi- dentsof highamenity rural communities in the RockyMoun- tainWest. Dissertation,Utah StateUniversity, Logan, USA.

This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:55:36 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions