Suchergebnisse

A mail survey of randomly selected stratified U.S. households assessed general attitudes toward wildlife and specific concerns about wildlife damage management and the federal Animal Damage Control program. Respondents strongly supported federal government's role in ensuring public safety , engaging in public education, and continuing research into nonlethal control methods. Weaker support was found for lethal control of predators and crop depredators, and financial compensation for losses due to wildlife activities was generally opposed. Lethal methods of control were generally considered to be inhumane and nonlethal methods humane. When asked to rank the importance of factors to be considered when selecting management methods, II human safety ranked highest followed by animal suffering, effectiveness, environmental impacts, severity of problem, and ability to target the specific problem animal. The lowest ranked factor was public opinion. Considered as a whole, results suggest that U.S. citizens want a role in wildlife damage policy formation but respect wildlife professionals ' judgment in specific management situations. This study also assessed attitudes and beliefs about wildlife damage management (WDM) activities and federal government agencies ' roles in carrying out those activities. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine if variables such as environmental attitude, wildlife experience, and sociodemographic characteristics explained levels of support for WDM activities and the importance of the federal government's role . Respondents generally support WDM operations. Differences in respondents' general environmental attitudes and enjoyment of hunting accounted for most of the variation in their attitudes toward WDM practices. Independent variables that most influenced perceived importance of federal involvement in WDM were sex , age, education, and general environmental attitudes.

Wildlife damage managers consider various factors when selecting an appropriate course of action to handle problem wildlife. One of those factors is how the public views both the damage and the government's role in managing that damage. We conducted a mail survey of randomly selected American households to assess general attitudes toward wildlife and specific concerns about wildlife damage management. Respondents strongly supported the federal government's role in ensuring public safety, engaging in public education, and continuing research of non-lethal control methods. Less support existed for lethal control of predators and crop depredators, whereas financial compensation for losses from wildlife activities was generally opposed. Lethal methods of control were generally considered to be inhumane and non-lethal methods humane. When asked to rank importance of factors to be considered when selecting management methods, human safety ranked highest, followed by animal suffering, effectiveness, environmental impacts, severity of problem, and ability to target the specific problem animal. The lowest ranked factor was public opinion. Collectively, our results suggest that United States citizens want a role in wildlife damage policy formation, but respect wildlife professionals' judgement in specific management situations.

Wildlife managers need current human dimensions information to develop outreach and management programs that address public concerns about predation and predator management. No human dimensions studies assessing public attitudes toward managing medium-sized predators have been conducted previously. We surveyed a random sample of United States households to assess public attitudes and beliefs about the management of medium-sized predators to enhance avian recruitment. Respondents expressed moderately knowledgeable, but somewhat idealized, beliefs about predator ecology. Although we found strong support for predators' right to exist, respondents did not support an outright ban on predator hunting or trapping. When given specific predator control scenarios, respondents supported control to enhance avian recruitment, except when controlling raptors to protect upland gamebirds. Support for control was greater when prey species were threatened and when the predator species were less charismatic. Respondent support for predator control to protect native versus introduced birds was similar. Our results suggest that the interested public may support predator control more readily when it is used "surgically" than when applied broadly. We discuss implications for political action regarding predator management.