Evolution of People -Wildlife Relations

Evolutionof People-Wildlife Relations

ANAGING INTERACTIONS between people and wildlife is the primary focus of wildlife management. The role of human values and behaviors has been recognized by wildlife managers since the inception of the profession, early in the 20th century. Only since the mid-rgyos, however, have the human dimensions of wildlife management become an organ- ized field of study, and not until more recently did they become a formally recognized aspect of wildlife management practice. In comparison, the biological dimensions have been at the core of wildlife management since its beginning. The traditional lament of wildlife biologists-that wildlife management is IO% managing wildlife and go% managing people (Fazio and Gilbert rg86:3)-is recognition that in practice the human dimensions of wildlife management are an integral compo- nent of wildlife management, one for which wildlife managers historically have not been adequately trained. In this book we take steps toward preparing wildlife managers to consider people’s beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and activities as a formal part of managing wildlife. We view the human dimensions as natural and intriguing core elements of wildlife management. What do we mean by the term lzulnan dinzensions? We define the huvnalz dinzensions of wildli,fe nzu.lzugenzentin this way: how people value wildlife, how they want wildlife to be managed, and how they affect or are affected by wildlife and wildlife management decisions. The human dimensions field seeks to understand human traits and looks at ways to incorporate that understanding into wildlife management planning and actions. The term human diwlensions covers a broad set of ideas and practices, including economic and social values, individual and social behavior, public involvement in management de- j j G ,< c. G ’ i, ’ i - p ,p! cision malting, and communication. Those topics and others are covered in this text. .:t ,J L’

This chapter was contributed by Daniel .I. Decker, 1.1 FOUNDATIONS FORVALUINGWILDLIFE Tommy L. Brown, and Wildlife management is based on human values. It exists because wildlife are viewed as William F.Siemer. a resource for people. When landowners practice management on their own lands, it reflects their personal values. When a state agency undertakes management on behalf of its citizens, it reflects community or social values in that state. North Americans’ view of Social and Community Values wildlife-our belief in their value for us-motivates wildlife management at all levels. That is the premise of any study of the human dimensions of wildlife management. During the last quarter-century many writers have addressed the nature of wildlife values (e.g., Shaw and Zube 1980, Decker and Goff 1987, Gray 1993), but the subject can be traced back to the classic Greek philosophers (Petulla rg87)! We won’t dwell on ’ the evolution of philosophical arguments about nature and our relations with it, nor will we exhaustively review the eras of human-wildlife interaction in Europe and North America and their profound impact on the fate of wildlife populations. Several textbooks present the historical underpinnings of the wildlife management profession (Bailey et al. 1974, Reiger 1975, Trefethen 1975, Shaw 1985, Anderson 1991, Gray 1993, Bolen and Robinson 19g5), so we will give only a brief overview as background. Understanding the philosophical and experiential foundations of society’s interest in wildlife can help one appreciate how human-wildlife interactions and human values have shaped wildlife management. Historical insight may be essential to interpreting current situations where segments of society hold different values and the interplay between them creates challenges for wildlife managers. Here we will only scratch the surface of the complex story behind wildlife values in our amalgamated North American culture. Wildlife have been the subject of religious, cultural, recreational, economic, and scientific concern. Human interactions with wildlife can be intimate or vicarious, con- crete or sentimental. The situations influencing human interests in wildlife in North America have changed markedly, and although some interests have grown in imhor- tance and others have diminished, the same constellation of interests persists among segments of American society. Those interests reflect several basic value orientations toward wildlife.

1. I. I Native American Values Before Europeans arrived in North America, Native Americans relied extensively on wildlife, both for subsistence and as a focus of their spiritual life and culture. Though the reliance f&r subsistence has diminished, wildlife continue to play important roles for many Native Americans (see Chapter 17). Scholars have devoted relatively little attention, however, to contemporary Native American attitudes, values, and behaviors related to wildlife. Lack of information is more than an academic problem. It can contribute to misunderstanding, distrust, and open conflict when wildlife management agencies are faced with issues that involve tribal lands or Native rights to natural resources (McDonald and McAvoy 1997, Krech rggg, Martin 1999, Davis 2000). Despite the bleak situation generally, there are examples of concerted effort to consider Native American values, as reflected in Chapter 17.

1.1.2 New-American Values Wildlife were of tremendous practical and cultural significance for Americans of Euro- pean descent, who carried with them to the New World the Judeo-Christian concept of People-WildlifeRelat

stewardship or domination over nature. They perpetuated in North America a long- standing cultural assumption of Western society-that humans are superior to other ‘elements of nature (Campbell rggr, Diamond 1997). The scientific revolution in Europe during the period of early North American settle- ment strengthened that philosophy. Science was, and still is, seen as the business of re- vealing the secrets of nature, largely for the purpose of controlling it for the benefit of . humans. It was, and still is, the systematic and disciplined approach to dominance over nature. The assumption of superiority and the goal of dominance suited the needs of early European settlers, who faced the task of “taming,” 0; at least coexisting with, a seemingly unbounded wilderness. The wilderness has been tamed, but the goal of dominance is still strongly embedded in North American culture (Petulla 1987). Though the idea. of human domination over nature existed for some time in Europe, most people did not in fact have the legal right to exercise domination of wildlife. In Europe wildlife laws largely prohibited common people access to wildlife. Such’ rights were reserved for the privileged classes. In the New World, however, there were few such constraints. Mammals, birds, and fish were hunted and trapped at will, for food and fiber, and harassed as needed, to pre- vent crop depredation or threats to people and domesticated animals. Wildlife were so abundant, and the struggle of the early immigrants for survival was so consuming, it is unlikely that many European colonists considered the effects of their activities on wildlife populations for anything but utilitarian purposes. Imagine the situation 300 to’400 years ago. Wildlife were a primary source of food and fiber for explorers and missionaries, for the settlers who followed, and, through the intermediaries of trappers and “market hunters,” for village and city dwellers. Wildlife were essential, and at the same time wild animals were competitors for livestock and crops. Some were even threats to human health (e.g., rabid animals) and safety (e.g., large predators) as settlers pushed into the wilderness to carve out livelihoods. The harsh conditions of life in early America reinforced the Western belief that to survive, humans had to dominate nature, and specifically wildlife. What other choice did they have? If they did not dominate nature, they would be dominated by it-that was the reality of daily survival in the New World for many people. Although conditions have changed remarkably over the last IOO to 150 years, the North American view of wildlife today has been deeply shaped by past relationships with wildlife. It’s part of our culture.

1.2 USE AND ABUSE The many values of wildlife for American society, and the depth of feeling many Americans have for wildlife, have directed the evolution of wildlife management. Conditions for wildlife that prevailed in North America for perhaps IOO centuries changed relatively quickly with the influx of Europeans. Between the mid-17th and late Social and Community Values 19th centuries American wildlife populations declined markedly. The demands of an expanding nation for food, fiber, and habitat resulted in staggering overexploitation during the I~OOS, overwhelming the natural processes that had previously allowed wildlife to prosper. Throughout our history wild animals have simultaneously been considered vermin and an important resource, depending on the situation and species. We are still facing that paradox. The massive westward migration of Americans, fueled by the discovery of gold in California and the prospects of land for farming and ranching throughout the nation’s midsection during the mid and late I~OOS, created population pressures that adversely affected wildlife. The plights of such western species as American bison and pronghorn antelope are well-known examples of exploitation almost to the point of extinction. Wildlife populations also plummeted in the East, where the combined effects of ~ subsistence use (hunting, trapping, g gathering eggs), market hunting, % and habitat changes took a toll. Elk, s moose, beaver, white-tailed deer, black bear, most species of waterfowl, and wild turkey were in severe decline or extirpated in extensive areas of the East and Midwest. There were some who recognized early in American, history the need for protection of species, but suc- cesses in passing protective laws were sporadic, and such laws were difficult to enforce. The enforce- ment problems reflected disparities in values; while some pedple were +a situations where they could worry about shrinking wildlife populations, others needed to harvest wild- rican bison were among life to feed their families or remove animals that threatened crops and livestock. pecies that suffered over- Controversies arising from protection versus consumption values have had a long his- citation during the 19th IfY. tory, though they have only recently become a focus of scientific study by human dimensions specialists.

1.3 RISE OF PUBLIC CONCERN The impact of human development and activity on North American wildlife during the 19th century did not go unnoticed. Concerns about the plight of wildlife were expressed through political avenues (laws) and legal avenues (litigation). Those concerns height- People-WildlifeRelations ened after the American Civil War and became. social and political movements during the late 1800s and early rqoos.

1.3.~ Common Origins, Difirent Paths

During the late 1800s a conservation movement began that greatly influenced how American society later institutionalized its views toward -wildlife. Public articulation of two important views of nature and America’s natural resources, especially its rich wildlife heritage, emerged during the late 1800s and then congealed by the early rgoos. One was articulated by sustainable-use advocates, “progressives” like Pinchot and Roosevelt: the other, by naturalists and preservationists, “romantics” like Hornaday and Muir (Lutts 1990). Although the sustainable-use and preservationist perspectives have been at odds on specific issues over the last century, the originators of the broad conservation movement in the late 19th century-the early sparkplugs for reforming how Americans interact with nature and wildlife-often embodied both those worldviews. The conservation movement was brought about by people who valued America’s natural resources for a.variety of reasons. They saw the need for melding sustained used and preservation, depending on the-circumstances. For example, George Bird Grinnell established the hunting- oriented Boone and Crockett Club and the first Audubon Societies. The Boone and Crockett Club, of which Pinchot was a member, was instrumental in the passage of the Yellowstone Park Protection Act and the establishment of Glacier National Park and the Bronx Zoo (to preserve western big-game species that they feared would soon become extinct without special protection). Early activists like Grinnell were pragmatists; they promoted use where it could be reasonably sustained and preservation where it was essential.

2.3.2 Activist Perspectives and Personalities In the last decade of the 19th century the sustainable-use and preservation perspectives Gflord Pinch& (r865-1946), were personified by Gifford Pinchot and John Muir, respectively. Pinchot was a forester, first chief of the U.S. Forest Service,photographed in educated in France and politically connected to Theodore Roosevelt. He became a driv- 1g.u. Pinchot sought to intro- ing force for scientific resource management in the United States. Muir was the founder due scientiJic knowledge and ra’tional planning into of the Sierra Club, which gave voice to the idea of preserving a part of the natural envi- naturalresource monage- ronment in an unaltered state for eternity. ment and use. Both perspectives reflected concern about the same set of circumstances-the acceler- ated exploitation of public resources for private gain and the pressures on natural resources caused by a growing population. Both perspectives tied a philosophy of nature with political action to influence the management of public resources. Because of the difference in philosophical underpinnings, however, the movements took separate paths. Pinchot’s concern was not so much to preserve the natural environment in an unaltered condition. He wanted to rationalize the flow of natural resources and bring order to their use by the growing nation. In doing that, he worked tirelessly for the conservation and wise use of the public’s natural resources. Pinchot sought to introduce scientific knowledge and rational planning into government. He called for the government to control public resources and curtail their exploitation by individuals and corporations. That conservation position had not previously had significant support but gained a pow- ’ erful pblitical and popular following early in the 20th century. Pinchot’s views toward resources, combined with the progressive political theory of the period, led to the passage of several pieces of legislation-such as the establishment of the National Forest System-that are still the foundation of natural resource policy in the United States. Pinchot was also instrumental in the establishment of forestry as a profession and the inclusion of the study of forestry in colleges and universities. The wildlife profession can trace its roots back to a forestry tradition. While Gifford Pinchot, Bernard Fernow, and other pioneers of professional forestry were busy bringing scientific knowledge and rational planning to the forest, John Muir was inspired by the natural order of wild places and was gai’ning followers who shared his values. Muir was a fervent believer in the need to protect wilderness. Muir wandered the wilderness and wrote about its virtues and the need to preserve it. He was a prolific and popular writer. In addition to writing several books, he published in such popular magazines as Century and the Atlantic Monthly. Muir put his faith in the natural world. “Climb the mountains and get their good tidings,” he wrote. “Nature’s peace will flow into you as the sunshine into the trees. The winds will blow their freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves” (Muir rgoq6). Muir founded the Sierra Club, and the influence of his writ- ings on Americans’ opinions was instrumental in the creation of Yosemite National Park, the Grand Canyon National Monu- ment, and the National Park Service to protect the parks and Ihn Muir (7838-7g74), wilder- provide for their enjoyment by. generations- of Americans. ?sspreservation advocate and During the same period that areas of unique beauty were being protected, other areas under of the Sierra Club, pho- graphed by Edword Hughes were being identified for their potential to yield renewable natural resources. By 1892 1902 the U.S. Congress had created what would become the National Forest System;a system People-WildlifeRelations of areas managed scientifically to provide for human needs. But Congress had also established a system of national parks, where humans would be merely visitors viewing nature’s wonders, with no resource extraction permitted. Those actions codified the difference in the views of Pinchot and Muir, symbolizing a values tension among those who advocate conservation: the sustainable use of natural resources versus the preservation of natural resources with minimal human interven- tion. Those two perspectives remain widely held to this day. The challenges that can arise from those two worldviews are well illustrated by contemporary problems in wildlife management. Today the wildlife profession, heavily in- vested in scientific wildlife management to sustain use of wildlife, faces a crucial challenge. A decreasing proportion of American society is use-oriented in its relationship with nature and wildlife. The great strides made in understanding the biological dimensions of wildlife management are essential yet insufficient to guide policy and management as shifts occur in society’s values and expectations for wildlife management. Understanding the human dimensions-how society values wildlife, why different people value wildlife differently, and what factors define the relationship of wildlife to society-is also essential for decision malting about the fate of wildlife and their habitats.

1.3.3 An Important Outcome Although at times advocating different outlooks, Muir and Pinchot called attention to the need to sustain the richness and diversity of the nation’s wildlife resources. The articulation of the two worldviews in popular forums raised public consciousness of the unique role of wildlife in our heritage. Moreover, it helped society see that America was on the brink of losing major elements of that heritage through abuse and neglect. As a result, an era of renewed protectionism emerged as part of the wildlife conservation movement by the late 18oos. State agencies were created with mandates to manage wildlife that generations of citizens could use and enjoy. Protective laws were passed, and actively enforced, that restricted harvest and harassment of the scarce wildlife that remained in many places. Habitat protection and improvement also became imperatives for wildlife conservation. Those actions were soon followed by propagation and stocking programs to give nature a “helping hand.” Reflecting the dominant values of the times, protection and restoration efforts were typically limited to species popular for hunting. Public interest in restoring wildlife, catalyzed and fueled by some public figures of the late 1800s and early rgoos, like Teddy Roosevelt and later Ding Darling, broadened to the point that conservation, or “wise use,” of wildlife resources became an element of a popular political movement. Federal and state governments responded by passing laws reflecting the values behind the -expressed interest of American society (see Kallman 1987, Gray I 9 93, or Bean and Rowland 19 9 7 for discussion of key legislation). Social and Community Values 1.4 ERA OF SCIENTIFIC WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT During the early decades of the 20th century the work of naturalists-observation and description-evolved to include more experimentation with habitats and wildlife populations. Scientists wanted to understand the biological foundation for wildlife management. Those who wanted to manipulate wildlife populations for specific purposes or improve habitat asked questions about the relationships of such populations with their environments. The emerging field of ecology was a source of insight for them. The fields of wildlife science and wildlife ec’ology grew out of those pursuits. -~ I- _ The era of scientific wildlife management had been born, z i institutionalized by universities, governments, and profes- i sional societies (Gill 1996). It seemed possible, through the : use of science and a systematic approach to obtaining and : i applying knowledge, to achieve the lofty goals of conserva- : Z tion. In fact, it had become a national imperative. ; In 1933 Aldo Leopold, a student of Pinchot, provided an := $ enduring foundation for the art and science of wildlife i management with his landmark book GaMzeManagement. 5 The concepts he articulated prevailed for decades. Leo- pold’s definition of game management-“the art of making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use” (rg33:3)-was a reflection of the time. His use of the words game, crops, and use plainly indicates the utilitarian, agricultural focus of wildlife management. That focus was to dominate wildlife management for about 40 years. By applying the biological and ecological understandings of the day to the production of wildlife, Leopold’s Game Management put wildlife husbandry on a level similar to that of agriculture and forestry. The scientific knowledge rele- vant to wildlife management, forestry, and agriculture was primarily biological. Until relatively recently, little attention was given to the social sciences as part of the scientific basis A/do leap/d (1886--1948) re- for wildlife management. Gawle Management was the cornerstone for the scientific foun- viewing bird study skins in his dation of wildlife management; as such, it firmly established the field’s dominant biologi- University of Wisconsin office in 7942 cal orientation, an orientation that persists to this day (Decker et al. 1987). GnMze Management was the standard university text for wildlife management for over 40 years. It influenced the philosophy of most aspiring wildlife professionals who were pioneers during a significant period of growth and development in the history of wildlife conservation and management. During this period The Wildlife Society was established to promote science, education, and professionalism in wildlife biology and management. E.-“-is:, People-WildlifeRelations

The advent of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson) and the establishment of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cooperative wildlife research units at land-grant universities across the United States were instrumental in develop- ing a cadre of well-trained wildlife biologists. The creation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service research centers, together with the increasing research capacity at universities and in state wildlife agencies, resulted in an extensive research effort to meet the biological information needs of wildlife conservation and management. The research did not, by and large, consider human dimensions. The focus was the biological science needs of management; social science was not on the research agenda. For example, it was not until rgg8 that the first social scientist was hired as an assistant leader in a cooperative wildlife research unit, at the University of Minnesota. Most wildlife research focused on game species. Funds that supported the “science” of wildlife management, as well as the practice, originated mostly from hunters, through self-imposed taxes and license fees. Hunters were interested in sustainable yield, con- sumptive use, and harvest. Wildlife science and management evolved to serve their interests. The relationship had a predictable influence on what was studied and on the nature of management programs. Management goals stressed production of game species for use, consumption, or harvest. Game and exploited species remained the nearly exclusive focus of wildlife management for I.decades after Leopold wrote Gavne Management. That utilitarian bias in wildlife management has profoundly affected the public perception of the wildlife management profession and created barriers to public support of wildlife agencies.

1.5 ERA OF BROADENING PERSPECTIVE The perspective of wildlife management eventually broadened. Decker et al. (1992) traced the development of wildlife management by reviewing a series of textbooks, from Leopold’s Gawle Management, published in 1933, through those published during the 1980s. They examined many definitions of wildlife management and concluded that Giles, in Wild& Management, provided the most useful concept of contemporary wildlife management: “the science and art of making decisions and taking actions to manipulate the structure, dynamics, and relations of populations, habitats, and people to achieve specific human objectives by means of the wildlife resource” (rg78:4). Giles portrayed wildlife (not just game species) populations, habitat, and people as a triad in which each element was vital and interactive. He encouraged a systems approach in which management activities are viewed as interactive and wildlife management itself is seen as a system within society. Giles also reminded us that “animals exist, with or without humans: but the wildlife resouze is a human construct” (Ig78:q). Giles’s proposal that “management of people” in their relationship to wildlife should be viewed as a subsystem brought the human dimensions front and cerlter. He Social and CommunityValues a&nowledged the biological emphasis of traditional wildlife management and sug- gested a more comprehensive paradigm. He noted: “In the past, wildlife managers have been poorly educated (if at all) to deal with the human dimensions of the devel- oping science of wildlife management. They have been disinclined, for many reasons, to work with the human subsystem. Many still harbor the false notion that little factual information is known about people-management processes” (rg78:2rr). Giles went on to advise: “Wildlife management, when done well, is a sensitive bal- ancing of populations, habitats, and people. These three elements must coexist in the minds of managers and those involved in the management agency. In all cases, if this triad is out of balance, the user will be poorly served, or even hurt” (Ig78:xI-2). The conceptual framework of wildlife managers was broadening during the rgyos to include the human dimensions. Wild& Management was an important step in that process. It sought to help managers consider how the small but growing body of research on the human dimensions could be incorporated into their practice. In the late 1970s and early 1980s professionals in public wildlife agencies started to grapple in earnest with the human dimensions of wildlife management. At that time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded a landmark study of Americans’ attitudes about animals, including wildlife. The first national survey of its type, conducted by Stephen Keller-t of Yale University, it yielded important insights for the wildlife management profession. Kellert’s (1980) typology of IO general orientations Americans have toward animals (see Chapter 2) aided managers greatly when it was first introduced and remains a useful conceptual tool to this day. Over the last 25 to 30 years several related phenomena have occurred that reflect the broadening perspective. Although not focused on wildlife per se, the National Environ- mental Protection Act of rg6g made explicit the expectation for citizen review and input on any federal projects with potential for environmental impacts. It brought people di- rectly into federal decision making on key environmental issues. The human dimensions became explicit. Many states followed the federal government’s lead and enacted their own state-level versions of the NEPA. Those federal and state actions generally reflected the growth of public interest in all aspects .of their environment, including wildlife. Growing public interest in wildlife has been the impetus for broadening the funding for wildlife programs in some states (e.g., Arkansas, Missouri, Oregon, and Virginia), leading to expanded programs. Many of those new programs had a nongame focus, sig- naling a break from the near-exclusive attention previously given to game animals. The diverse stakeholders for contemporary wildlife management are impressing on agencies their desire to be involved in decision making, and they are making their interests known. Citizen participation in wildlife management decision-making processes has grown and evolved. Nationwide, more stakeholder values are routinely considered in policy and management decision making (Cortner 1996). Agencies mandated to meet public needs and desires for their wildlife resources have had to learn how to reconcile diverse, and often opposing, needs and expectations. Many People-WildlifeRelations

agencies have instituted new models for dealing with differences in human values. The “expert” model worked when there were few stakeholders to consider and therefore few discrepancies in values. The wildlife professional was able to mediate the differences or even impose his or her own values. That model became largely dysfunctional ‘by the 1990s.

1.5.1 Evidence of Growth of Societal Interest The American public’s interest in wildlife grew markedly during the last 20 years of the 20th century. Although it’s difficult to enumerate precisely, two sources illustrate the trends in that interest. Dunlop (1988) reported the number of wildlife-associated organizations to be 56 in 1945,300 by the mid-rg7os, and over 400 by the mid- 1980s. The Conservation Directory of the National Wildlife Federation also yields some evidence of that growth. In 1982 it listed go wildlife-related organizations, with slightly over 8.5 million members. By rgg7 those numbers had more than doubled-212 organizations, with well over 20 million members. Moreover, people have been seeking more knowledge about wildlife and have contributed more to causes or actions to benefit wildlife. At least 34 U.S. magazines are currently devoted largely to wildlife topics. They have an estimated 7.2 million paid subscrip- tions (compiled from Anonymous rgg7 and Holm 1997). Among them are nine children’s magazines, with a combined circulation of 1.5 million. In rgg6 about 12 million Americans age 16 or older spent about $395 million on wildlife magazines. Wildlife professionals realized that wildlife were valued in m lany u rays as both current and fun Ire t resources, and they trie ,d to :ategorize those values. A significant early attempt by King (1947) has historic importance; it has been cited frequently over the last half-century. We present King’s classification In igg6 about 40% of Ameri- cun adults participated in below with some commentary that further documents the growth of interest in wildlife. one or more wildlife-related More-current classifications based on scientific approaches (e.g., Kellert 1980) are cov- recreuiionactivities, such US ered in Chapters 2 and 3. hunting, bird watching, 01 wildlife photography.

1.5.2 King’s Classijication of Wildlife Values Although King’s categories of wildlife values overlap and interrelate with one another, they provide a good introduction to the wide range of wildlife values experienced in contemporary society: Socialanh Community Values Recreational values. Wildlife has a recreational value for pedple who pursue a sport or a hobby in which wildlife is a principal or contributing attraction. Hunters, bird watchers, wildlife viewers, photographers, and those who camp, hike, canoe, or otherwise use an area because wildlife are present are placing a recreational value on wildlife. Roughly 77 million Americans 16 years or older (40% of the adult population) participated in wildlife-related recreation activities in 1996. In Canada 85% of adults participated in such activities in 1996 (EC Iggg). An indication of the recreational value wildlife has for Americans is the amount of money they spend on related pursuits. In 1996, 14.0 million Americans participated in hunting and spent $5.2 billion on hunting-related trips. In addition, 62.9 million participated in wildlife watching and spent $9.4 billion on related trips (USFWS 1997). Those expenditures pro- Thousands ofMissouri residents vide a conservative estimate of the importance Americans place on wildlife activities. ottend Eagle Days events in Had it been necessary, people would have paid more rather than forgo the activities (see Missouri. During these popular events the Missouri Department Chapter 4 for more on economic value). For example, in Colorado about half the pheas- of Conservation provides spot- ant hunters surveyed said they would be willing to pay $30 a day to hunt (Remington et ting scopes and interpretive staffso that any resident can al. 1996). view and /tarn about the large When participants make the expenditures indicated above to receive the recreational winter congregations of bald value of wildlife, there’s a commercial value as well, in Icing’s classification, since the ex- Fag/es. penditures are made in restaurants, motels, and other retail establishments. Commercial values are discussed later in this section. Wildlife is also of recreational value to American children. In Igg6,45% of those six to 15 years old (38.9 million children) engaged in nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation, 15.4 million participated in wildlife-focused activity around the home, and 8.3 million participated in wildlife watching elsewhere (USFWS 1997). Research tells us that childhood experiences form the basis for wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors expressed over a lifetime (Magnuson-Mar&son and Page 1986; Kidd and Kidd Ig8g,IggG).

Aesthetic values. Because people appreciate, respond to, and are inspired by the beauty of wildlife, it has an aesthetic value. This value may overlap with wildlife’s recreational value. Wildlife may be aesthetically enjoyed in the field, as part of a recreational experience, or in the home, theater, or art gallery. They provide a quality of life beyond that gained through recreation of mind and body. Rolston (1987) describes aesthetic wildlife experiences as those where one temporar- ily leaves culture and society to enjoy wildlife as they exist in the wild. Observing their People-WildlifeRelations movements, spontaneity, and grace, along with their struggles, provides a special form of excitement to the observant human. Beyond that, Rolston points out, wildlife are symbols. The bald eagle is an American symbol, expressing freedom, power, grace, and lofty alertness. Migrating Canada geese are widely appreciated as symbols of the change of seasons from summer to fall and from winte; to spring; people stop what they’re doing to listen to the goose music from overhead (Leopold Igs3:177). Syinbolic use of wildlife is frecluent in our language, litera- ture, and art. We use wildlife to improve our visual environment. We decorate our homes with furnishings and art that picture wildlife; representations of waterfowl aye particularly notable. The popularity of the federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp illus- trates the aesthetic value of wildlife. In 1934 the U.S. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, requiring waterfowl hunters to buy a stamp every year (the proceeds are used to acquire and manage waterfowl habitat). The stamps quickly at- tracted the attention of artists; each year over 2000 artists compete to have their artwork chosen for the stamp. The stamps and prints of the original artwork have become valu- able collectible items, as have state waterfowl stamps and prints. By rggs sale of federal waterfowl stamps had generated over $500 million in revenues.

Educational values. The educational value of wildlife is profound. Paul Sheppard, a human ecologist, theorized that “the human species emerged enacting, dreaming, and thinking animals and cannot be fully itself without them” (Igg6:4). He argued that “the human mind is the result of a long series of interactions with other animals” (Igg6:rs), and “first swallowed in substance, then swallowed in thought, they were finally incorporated in psychic structure” (Sheppard Igg6:38). Wildlife play important educational roles in our everyday lives, starting in our in- fancy. For example, the ability to classify objects is one of several basic cognitive skills that lay the foundation for more complex mental faculties. Very young children often develop classification skills through the activity of naming animals. Sheppard (1996) sug- gested that after naming parts of the body, parents quickly move to naming animal forms as a way to facilitate language development in their children. In that way, most of us owe part of our intellectual development to wild and domestic animals. Many people, especially youths, are interested in learning about wildlife and their habits. Government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and schools capitalize on that interest by making wildlife the focus of countless educational activities and programs (see Box 1.1). Wildlife have been used to teach subjects as diverse as science, math, read- ing, and art. Natural resource management professionals are particularly interested in wildlife education as a way to develop environmentally responsible citizens. They recognize that wildlife have value as “the vehicle that takes youth and adults alike into the broader Social and Community Values arena of environmental education” (Hair and Pomerantz rg’Qrg7). Wildlife education experiences can increase knowledge of the natural world, and they have the potential to do much more. As part of a comprehensive environmen- j tal education program, wildlife education experiences “can Wildlife Education in Missouri help us scrutinize our treatment of the environment and .ln 1976the citizens of Missouri approved a constitutional amendment force all of us to take responsibility for our actions” (Hair that gavethe income from a sales tax of one-eighth of 1% to the and Pomerantz rg87:2oq). Missouri Department of Conservation for conservation, management, . Scientific research on wildlife has added to our collec- and education programs. The Department hired 14 full-time conser- tive knowledge in fields such as ecology, pharmacology, vation educationconsultants to provideeducational services to physiology, and mechanical engineering. Wildlife of all schools,colleges, and universities(Palladino 1983) and five naturalists to provideinterpretive services at naturecenters and in schoolsacross forms have been used in pioneering experiments in medi- the state(Wylie 1983). It alsomade available free curriculum materials cine and space. People learn how to react more intelli- and supportservices to kindergartenthrough eighth-grade teachers. gently to their environment by studying responses of TheMissouri Department of Conservationbased its educational other animals to environmental variation. materialson ecologicalconcepts and a sustainable-usephilosophy. Staff membersworked closely with educationprofessionals and the Biological values. The biological value of wildlife lies in the stateboard of educationto designmaterials compatible with statewidecurricula and educationobjectives. The outdoor education ecological services they render. Pollination, dispersal of skillsunit quicklybecame a popularaddition to physicaleducation plant seeds, nutrient cycling, and predation are just a few classes(Riley 1983). of the innumerable examples of natural processes to which TheDepartment developed an expansivefree lending library of wildlife contribute (Talbot 1987). Unlike the other values of filmsand slideshows that addressednatural history, outdoor ethics, wildlife, the biological value is not human-focused. Rather, and wildlifemanagement (Keefe 1983). By1983 it wassupplying free educationalmaterials, training workshops, and supportservices to the value is to the whole biosphere or specific parts of it. 13,000teachers, and by 1987about 70% of the state’selementary Wildlife contribute to the functioning of ecosystems, and schoolteachers were enrolled in the Department’seducation pro- the values to humans are the services and products that we grams(Siemer et al. 1987). derive from the ecosystems. Those types of values have Thewillingness of citizensto paythe tax and devotea substantial been called functional values, referring to their ecological shareof it to educationdemonstrates the strongeducational value of function (Andrews and Waits 1978). wildlifefor Missourians. Most of us give little thought to the functional roles of wildlife in natural communities. Yet the magnitude of those roles becomes strikingly apparent when one exam- ines human activities such as agriculture or forestry. Pimentel et al. (1997) provided one such example: Vari- 011sspecies of wildlife are insect predators and thus serve as a biological control on populations of insects that cause damage to agricultural crops and trees; in 1996 wildlife control of crop and forest pests had a worldwide economic value of about $17 billion.

Teochers gather at a local environmental education center with their familiesfor training in the use of classroom materials developed by Sociocultural values. The sociocultural values .of wildlife the Missouri Department of Conservation. comprise the benefits accruing to the community as a whole because of the presence of wildlife. What people say, People-Wildlife Relations do, and commemorate demonstrates the sociocultural value of wildlife. The importance to us is evident in informal conversations, newspaper stories, national and state symbols, and place names-Turkey Hill Road, Buffalo Run Creek, Deer Park Estates, and so on. Local hunting and trapping traditions provide an example of the sociocultural value of wildlife. In rgg4 wildlife agency directors were surveyed and asked if their state or province contained “socioculturally important” hunting or trapping traditions, defined as traditions that had become significantly interwoven into the culture of the participants, as evidenced by broad family and community involvement, customs, celebrations, and other manifestations outside actual hunting or trapping field activities (Brown et al. 1995). The directors listed about 80 such traditions, mostly related to furbearer trapping, deer hunting with firearms, turkey hunting, waterfowl hunting, and archery deer hunting. Sociocultural research has documented the importance of those traditions as “cen- tral life interests” for people whose lives and communities revolve around activities that are tied to natural resource uses (Muth et al. 1996). The directors of agencies in many southern states reported quail (bobwhite) and dove hunting as socioculturally important hunting traditions. The quail-hunting tradition, which extends back to the late 19th century, developed as “a recreation for the leisured and privileged classes” (Marks rggr:r7r) and is still strongly associated with private landownership or ownership of hunting rights on private lands. The cultural importance of quail hunting is evidenced by the development of special breeds of hunting dogs, quail-hunting preserves and plantations, a quail-hunting literary tradition, and quail- hunting organizations and events, among other things (Marks rggr). Mdurning dove hunting also has a lon, 0 tradition and sociocultural importance ampng rank-and-file hunters in many southern states. Dove-hunting seasons generally open in early September, marking the end of summer. In many places the opening day of dove season is a community event, “heralded by advertisements and articles in the local paper and on radio” (Marks rggr:rSg). Dove hunting is often undertaken by groups of hunters who take up shooting positions in agricultural fields. Such gatherings, called dove shoots, are cherished events that are part of the fabric of the rural South. Marks (IggI:I8g-go) d escribed some of the cultural details of a southern dove shoot: Previous to the event, landowners harvest some fields, leaving weed seeds and spilled grain to attract large flocks of doves. For some landowners, cultivation and harvest practices are de- liberately inefficient and contrived to corner the local dove population. Then on opening day, the landowner or sponsor prepares a feast or barbeque and invites neighbors, acquaintances, friends, and friends of friends. Labor day festivities, socializing, barbeques, and dove shoot-, ing are likewise linked in the seasonal rituals by which employers or agribusinessmen host their workers and celebrate the turn from the summer’s heat toward the coolness of fall.

Commercial values. Wildlife have commercial value of two types. First, local and regional economies benefit from the money wildlife recreationists spend on food, lodging, and fuel while on hunting and wildlife observation trips and on the equipment they buy Socialand CommunityValues from sporting goods stores, camera shops, and other merchants. In some rural areas where game or unusual bird species are available, tourists who visit to hunt or observe wildlife make a significant contribution to the local economy. Second, wildlife provide employqent and income to people who operate guide services and shooting preserves and to landowners who lease their lands for hunting. In Texas about 11,300 landowners leased their lands for hunting in 1989-90 (derived from Adams et al. 1992); the average gross income from the leases was $6446.

l.G INTEGRATING HUMAN DIMENSIONS Although people like Pinchot and Muir took different paths, the ideas they represented were vital to a holistic conservation paradigm. Both the conservationist and the preservationist have always been a part of wildlife management, in different proportions at different times and places. Achieving an appropriate balance is a dynamic enterprise that necessitates an understanding of the human dimensions of wildlife management. This book is intended to help fttture wildlife managers deal effectively with the complex social and human behavioral context they will face as they work to meet society’s evolving mandate for wildlife management. Understanding sociocultural changes that affect society’s perspectives about wildlife is an important aspect of comprehensive, ef- fective wildlife management. Wildlife management in North America experienced many changes during the 20th century. Some were enthusiastically embraced by the wildlife profession, and others were simply endured. Such changes notwithstanding, the longevity of some important concepts, philosophies, and principles of wildlife management is remarkable. They include ideas such as carrying capacity, compensatory mortality, harvestable surplus, ecological succession, competition, habitat, and edge effect. Those and many other basic ideas were first presented by Leopold in Game Management. The operative concepts in wildlife management are remarkable also for being uni- dimensional; most of them are biologically derived or referenced. Organismal biology, population dynamics, community ecology, and other fields of biology and applied ecology have traditionally informed wildlife management. One notable exception is the umbrella concept of the entire wildlife management enterprise: conservation, or “wise use.” That concept, which has motivated management of the wildlife resource since the days when Gifford Pinchot and Teddy Roosevelt champi- oned it, is not a biological principle. It’s an ethical principle, a uniquely human construct. It clearly indicates the human roots of wildlife management, the profession’s very reason for being. Although the biologically oriented conventions of wildlife ma?agement have served the profession well over most of its brief history, they don’t fully prepare today’s managers to deal with the diverse range of wildlife values and value conflicts expressed in contemporary society. Over the past two decades the human dimensions have emerged People-Wildlife Relations as widespread and often primary considerations, yet that is seldom reflected in the training that wildlife students receive (Hodgdon in press). Fortunately, both human dimensions knowledge and management experience have developed to a point where the human and biological dimensions ran be integrated in a comprehensive approach to wildlife management. The ideas we will explore in the following chapters should help you have a successful and enjoyable career in wildlife management in the zIst century. E

I. The field of human dimensions of wildlife management seeks to understand how people value wildlife, how they want wildlife to be managed, and how they affect or are affected by wildlife and wildlife management decisions. 2. Wildlife management is based on human values. A review of the philosophical and experiential foundations of society’s interests in wildlife reveals much about how human values have shaped wildlife management in North America. 3. Modern wildlife management in North America was preceded by an era of unregu- lated resource exploitation. During that period many wildlife populations thought to be inexhaustible (e .g., passenger pigeon, American bison, white-tailed deer, beaver) were exploited heavily, resulting in regional extirpation or even extinction. 4. The impacts of overexploitation and human land-use development on wildlife during the 19th century led to growing concern about wildlife populations. That concern developed into a full-fledged conservation movement during the late 1800s that included a flurry of protectionist measures and wildlife restoration efforts. 5. The overall conservation movement of the late 1800s had two activist thrusts:

l l Gifford Pinchot and others institutionalized a sustainable-use thrust. Their intent was to bring science and rational planning to bear on the use of natural resources.

l l John Muir and others developed a preservationist thrust. Their goal was to pr-e- serve natural areas and protect them from extractive utilization. 6. The sustainable-use and preservation perspectives were institutionalized through laws and the creation of agencies with mandates to manage land and wildlife for future generations of people to use and enjoy. The potentially competing worldviews of Pinchot and Muir continue to be expressed in contemporary management (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service). 7. During the early decades of the 20th century scientific wildlife management was institutionalized in universities and governments and by the establishment of a professional society-The Wildlife Society. 8. In 1933 Aldo Leopold published his landmark text Game Management. He defined game management as “the art of malting land produce sustained annual crops of Socialand CommunityValues wild game for recreational use.” Game management remained the primary focus of the field for decades, and professionals in the field emphasized biological information as the basis for management decisions. g. The scope of wildlife management perspectives broadened considerably in the last three decades of the 20th century. Nongame issues received more attention, owing to increased public concern about those issues and increased funding in some states for nongame programs. The human dimensions of wildlife management emerged as a focus of inquiry and management interest.

I. Focusing on a wildlife species at the center of a contemporary wildlife management controversy in your state (e.g., a large herbivore or an endangered species), n. use King’s (1947) categories to describe the human values for that species b. identify how differing values for that species may be the basis for conflicts between people over use or humane treatment of the species

2. This chapter describes primary value differences between turn-of-the-century sustainable-use advocates and preservationists. How has wildlife management been affected during the intervening IOO years by those two worldviews? 3. How and why has the focus of wildlife management broadened over the past century?

Adams, C. E., J. I<.Thomas, and C. W. Bean, M. J., and M. J. Rowland. 1997. The Ramsey. 1992. A synopsis of Texas evolution of na tional wildlife law. Praeger, hunting leases. Wildl. Sot. Bull. Westport, Conn. 544~~. 20(2)x88-97. Bolen, E. G., and W. L. Robinson. rggs. Anderson, S. H. Iggr. Managing our wildlife Wildlife ecology and management. 3rd ed. resources. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 4g2pp. Gzopp. Andrews, R. N. L., and M. J. Waits. 1978. Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, and J. W. Enck. Environmental values in public decisions: 1995. Preliminary insights about the a research agenda. Univ. of Michigan, sociocultural importance of hunting and School of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor. trapping. Cornell Univ., Department of 9OPP. Natural Resources, Ithaca, N.Y. Hum. [Anonymous] MIME’, magazine industry Dimensions Res. Unit Publ. 95-z. 135~~. market place, rgg7. 1997. R. R. Bowler, Campbell, J. Iggr. The masks of god: New York. g75pp. primitive mythology. Arkana, New York. Bailey, J. A., W. Elder, and T. D. McKinney, j 54OPP. eds. 1974. Readings in wildlife Cortner, H. 1996. Public involvement and conservation. The Wildlife Society, interaction. Pages 67-79 in A. W. Ewert, Bethesda, Md. 722~~. ed. Natural resource management: the human dimension: Westview, Boulder, Cola. - People-Wildlife Relations

Davis, T 2000. Sustaining the forest, the Hodgdon, H. In press. Fish and wildlife people, and the spirit. State Univ. New management in the new millennium. York Pr., Albany. 244~~. Proc. Annu. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, N. A. Connelly, Comm. 53. J. W. Enck, G. A. Pomerantz, K. G. Purdy, Helm, K. C., ed. rgp7. The writer’s market and W. F. Siemer. 1992. Toward a rgg7. Writer’s Digest Books. F&W, comprehensive paradigm of wildlife Cincinnati. 1001~~. management: integrating the human and Kallman, H., ed. 1987. Restoring America’s biological dimensions. Pages 33-54 in wildlife, 1937-1987: the first 50 years of . W. R. Mangun, ed. American fish and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration wildlife policy: the human dimension. (Pittman-Robertson) Act. U.S. Fish and Southern Illinois Univ. Pr., Carbondale. Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 394~~. Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and G. F. Mattfeld. Keefe, J. F. 1983. The changing face of 1987. Integrating social science into conservation. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. resource management: barriers and Resour. Conf. 48:74-G. limitations. Pages 83-92 in M. L. Miller, Kellert, S. R. 1980. Contemporary values of R. I’. Gale, and I?. J. Brown, eds. Social wildlife in American society. Pages 31-Go science in natural resource management in W. W. Shaw and E. H. &be, eds. ‘systems. Westview, Boulder, Colo. 265~~. Wildlife values. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Decker, D. J., and G. R. Gaff, eds. 1987. Mountain Experiment Station, Fort Valuing wildlife: economic and social Collins, Colo. perspectives. Westview, Boulder, Colo. Kidd, A. H., and R. M. Kidd. 1989. Factors in 424PP. adults’ attitudes towards pets. Psychol. Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, germs, and steel: Rep. 65:903-10. the fate of human societies. Norton, New Kidd, A. H . , and R. M. Kidd. rpg G. York. 48opp. Developmental factors leading to positive Dunlop, T. R. 1988. Saving America’s wildlife. attitudes toward wildlife and conservation. Princeton Univ. I?., Princeton, N.J. 222~~. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47:rrg-2s. [EC] Environment Canada. rggg. The King, R. T. 1947. The future of wildlife in importance of nature to Canadians: survey forest land use. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. highlights. Min. Public Works Govt. Serv. Resour. Conf. 12:454-67. Can. Cat. No. En 47-3rr/rggpE. Environ- Krech, S. rggp. The ecological Indian: myth ment Canada, Ottawa, Ont. 2opp. and history. Norton, New York. 218~~. Fazio, J. R., and D. L. Gilbert. 1986. Public Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. relations and communications for natural C. Scribner’s, New York. 481~~. resource managers. 2nd ed. Kendal/Hunt, Leopold, A. 1953. Round River. Oxford Univ. Dubuque, Iowa. 3ggpp. Pr., New York. 173~~. Giles, R. H., Jr. 1978. Wildlife management. Lu’cts, R. H. rpgo. The nature fakers: wildlife, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 416~~. science, and sentiment. Fulcrum, Golden, Gill, R. B. 1996. The wildlife professional Colo.zgpp. subculture: the case of the crazy aunt. Magnuson-Martinson, S., and G. Page. 1986. Hum. Dimensions Wildl. 1(1):60-p. Intergenerational continuity of attitudes Gray, G. G. 1993. Wildlife and people: the and values about companion animals. human dimensions of wildlife ecology. Presented at the Delta Society Conference, Univ. Illinois Pr., Urbana. 26opp. Boston, 22 Aug. 198G. Hair, J. D., and G. A. Pomerantz. 1987. The Marks, S. A. 1991. Southern hunting in black educational value of wildlife. Pages and white: nature, history, and ritual in a 197-207 in D. J. Decker and G . R. Gaff, Carolina community. Princeton Univ. Pr., eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and social Princeton, N.J. 327~~. perspectives. Westview, Boulder, Colo. Social and Community Values Martin, C. L. Iggg. The way of the human Riley, C. I<. 1983: When learning becomes being. Yale Univ. Pr., New Haven, Conn. fun. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. 235PP. Conf. 48:81--5. McDonald, D., and L. McAvoy. 1997. Native Rolston, H., III. 1987. Beauty and the beast: Americans and leisure: state of the aesthetic experience of wildlife. Pages research and future directions. J. Leisure 187-96 in D. J. Decker and G. R. Gaff, Res. 2g(2):145-66. eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and social Muir, J. 1901. Our national parks. Reprint, perspectives. Westview, Boulder, Colo. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1991. Shaw, J. H. 1985. Introduction. to wildlife 278PP. management. McGraw-Hill Series in Muth, R. M., R. R. Zwick, J. J. Daigle, R. J. Forest Resources. McGraw-Hill, New York. Glass, and S. A. Jonker. 1996. The 3IGPP. sociocultural and economic value of Shaw, W. W., and E. H. Zube, eds. 1980. furbearer resources: a study of trapping in Wildlife values. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky six northeastern states. Final technical Mountain Experiment Station, Fort report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Collins, Colo. 117~~. Division of Federal Aid, Region 5, Hadley, Sheppard, P. 1996. The others: how animals Mass. 84pp. made us human. Island Pr., Washington, Palladino, A. 1983. A professional approach to D.C, 374PP. conservation education. Trans. N. Am. Siemer, W. F., R. B. Peyton, and D. J. Witter. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 48:70-3. 1987.. Teachers’ attitudes towards animals: Petulla, J. M. 1987. The evolution of wildlife implications for conservation education. values: a historical footnote. Pages 335-44 Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. in D. J. Decker and G. R. Gaff, eds. 52:4Go-7. Valuing wildlife: economic and social Talbot, L. M. 1987. The ecological value of perspectives. Westview, Boulder, Colo. wildlife to the well-being of human society. Pimentel, D., C. Wilson, C. McCullum, Pages 179-86 in D. J. Decker and G. R. R. Huang, P. Dwen, J. Flack, Q. Tran, Goff, eds. Valuing wildlife: economic and T. Saltman, and B. Cliff. 1997. Economic social perspectives. Westview, Boulder, and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Cola. Bioscience 47(11):747-57. Trefethen, J. B. 197s. An American crusade Reiger, J. F. 1975. American sportsmen and for wildlife. Winchester Pr., New York. the origins of conservation. Winchester 409PP. Pr., New York. 316~~. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. Remington, T. E., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, 1997. IggG national survey of fishing, and S. M. DeMasso. 1996. Fee hunting hunting, and wildlife-associated pheasants in Colorado: experimental recreation. USGPO, Washington, D.C. evidence. Hum. Dimensions Wildl. IISPP. 1(1):51-g. Wylie, J. E. 1983. Interpreting the wild world. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 48177-80.