1 / 22

Attitudes toward predator control in the United States

Attitudes toward predator control in the United States. Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson. COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES. Agenda :. Background/Context Research aims Methods Results Implications. Context: Predator Control in the US.

matthew-robles
Download Presentation

Attitudes toward predator control in the United States

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attitudes toward predator control in the United States • Ajay Singh • Kristina Slagle • Jeremy Bruskotter • Robyn Wilson • COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

  2. Agenda: • Background/Context • Research aims • Methods • Results • Implications

  3. Context: Predator Control in • the US

  4. Predator control timeline

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

  6. Attitudes toward predators mixed in 70’s • (Kellert 1985a; Kellert1985b) • But what about toward predator control? • General preference for non-lethal • (Arthur 1981; Bruskotter et al. 2009; Reiter et al. 1999) • Lethal acceptable in context • (Decker et al. 2006; Messmer et al. 1999; Treves and Martin 2011)

  7. Research aims

  8. Quantify American's views on predator control • Quantify the perceived humaneness of specific damage management practices • Determine if American's views regarding predator control have changed since 1995*

  9. Methods

  10. Online probability sample • Qualtrics survey software • Stratified sample: NRM, WGL, rest of U.S. • Weighted post-hoc

  11. Wildlife Damage Management includes a number of activities designed to help prevent and mitigate the damage to personal property that is sometimes caused by wildlife. We are interested in your opinions regarding who should be responsible for such damages and what types of actions are acceptable to prevent or mitigate damages caused by predators such as wolves, bears, coyotes, or mountain lions. • Acceptability • 8 statements • Humaneness • 5 lethal control • 4 non lethal control • Randomly assigned subsets of each

  12. Link sent Feb 7 to 2,020 potential respondents (open 11 days) • Non respondents after 3 days received email • Phone calls to nonresponse to email • Response: n = 1,287 (64%)

  13. Results

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

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

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

  17. Implications

  18. People both idealistic and pragmatic • Increasing skepticism • Lower humaneness = better justification • Expect better innovation

  19. Thank you! • Acknowledgements: Robert Schmidt for his insights into implications • Thanks to School of Environment and Natural Resources for continued financial support. • Singh.353@osu.edu • Slagle.44@osu.edu

  20. Word variations • Humaneness scale: • Not at all humane • Somewhat humane • Fairly humane • Very humane • Completely humane

More Related