Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predator control in the United States Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predator control in the United States Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agenda : Background/Context Research aims Methods Results Implications

3 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Context: Predator Control in the US

4 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Predator control timeline 1913 Institutionalized predator control 1931 Nat’l Animal Damage Control Act Severe declines 1964 Leopold Report 1995 USDA WS draws criticism

5 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES What drove this shift?  Research in the 30s-40s  Popular publications in the 60s  Ultimately shaping public attitudes?

6 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predators mixed in 70’s (Kellert 1985a; Kellert 1985b) 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 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Research aims

8 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 1.Quantify American's views on predator control 2.Quantify the perceived humaneness of specific damage management practices 3.Determine if American's views regarding predator control have changed since 1995*

9 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Methods

10 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Online probability sample Qualtrics survey software Stratified sample: NRM, WGL, rest of U.S. Weighted post-hoc

11 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Acceptability 8 statements Humaneness 5 lethal control 4 non lethal control Randomly assigned subsets of each 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.

12 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 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 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Results

14 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Weighted social and demographic characteristics of 2014 respondents relative to national data. Percent / Mean VariableNational Data2014 Survey Age a 18-2922.1%21.5% 30-4426.0% 45-5927.5% 60+24.4%24.9% Gender (% Female) a 50.8%50.9% Bachelor’s degree or higher a 28.5%26.0% Household Income (% under $50,000) a 47.0%44.0% Household size a 2.6 people2.7 people Political ideology b Conservative38%46% Moderate34%32% Liberal23%22% Experienced wildlife damage in past 5 years NA13% Hunted (at any time in the past)NA37% Hunted big game (in the past 3 years)NA9%

15 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

16 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Comparisons of agreement with statements about the control of wildlife in 1995 and 2014. ItemYearnMeant-value df (t-test) Predator control is unacceptable 19956062.41 1.14 1370. 79 20147672.47 Wildlife populations should not be managed by humans 19956002.37 4.34* 1315. 52 20147182.63 The careful use of poisons is an acceptable method to control wildlife populations 19956002.19 -0.50 1386. 27 20147882.16 Farmers have the right to control wildlife that are damaging their crops 19956003.64 2.81* 1383. 70 20149093.80

17 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Percentage of respondents who rated a wildlife damage management practices as “very” or “completely” humane in 1995 and 2014.

18 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Average ratings of the humaneness of wildlife damage management practices in 1995 and 2014. Management PracticeYearnMeant-value Fertility control 19956004 10.75* 20148703.36 Guard dogs-animals 19956003.67 6.04* 20147943.3 Chemical repellents 19956003.66 13.55* 20148532.82 Scare devices 19956004.03 9.33* 20148053.47 Poisons for predators 19955942.27 8.43* 20148561.77 Leghold traps 19956061.73 2.57 20148721.59 Fumigation or gassing of dens 19956002.1 7.16* 20148921.68 Neck snares 19956001.72 1.27 20149091.65 Shooting animals from aircraft 19955941.89 -0.53 20148551.92 *Sidak-Bonferroni adjusted p-value (n = 9, p = 0.05), significant at p < 0.006. Humaneness measured on a scale of “Not at all humane” (1) to “Somewhat humane” (3) to “Very humane” (5).

19 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Implications

20 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES  People both idealistic and pragmatic  Increasing skepticism  Lower humaneness = better justification  Expect better innovation

21 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 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

22 ‹#› COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES UNIT ID HERE IN ALL CAPS SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Humaneness scale:  Not at all humane  Somewhat humane  Fairly humane  Very humane  Completely humane Word variations


Download ppt "SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Attitudes toward predator control in the United States Ajay Singh Kristina Slagle Jeremy Bruskotter Robyn Wilson."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google