Exurban Residents’ Perceptions of Naturally Returning Predators: Connecticut Case Study Margaret E. Sackrider 1, Susan G. Clark 1, Isaac M. Ortega 2 1 Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 2 University of Connecticut School of Agriculture and Natural Resources Background and Objective With reforestation, growth of exurban areas and wildlife adaptation, Connecticut residents are encountering more human-wildlife interactions than ever before. The goal of this project is to explain the social context of large predator conservation in the state. The objectives include: gaining a better understanding of the dynamic relationship between humans and carnivores as well as residents and institutions and lastly, creating wildlife management recommendations that reflect these findings. Methods Geographic regions of 10 km 2 were graded based on the change in quantity of Black Bear sightings from 2008 to Eleven participants where randomly selected from a list of sighting report records within these two regions. Participants were also specifically selected to represent reports from 2008 and Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted in person. Conversations were framed around participants’ black bear sightings but intentionally touched coyote and mountain lion. Discussion For this first phase of research, qualitative social science methods were used to uncover factors of carnivore conservation that may otherwise be overlooked. For example, some participants felt comfortable enough by the end of interview, to admit they intentionally attract bears to their yard or comment on the disconnection between residents and governing institutions. The interviews were also structured to allow for an expanded conversation on topics that most concerned residents, including deer population and its effect on human health. Information of this nature and the correlation of other participant attributes are critical to creating a comprehensive conservation management plan. Next Steps  Create and conduct survey for: o this area, to detect statistical relationship between participant categories and attributes o the general Connecticut population  More thoroughly analyze resident-institutional relationships  Formulate wildlife management recommendations Year ParticipantToleranceKnowledgeExperience Perception of support system HighLowModerateLow Very HighVery Low High Very Low Low ModerateVery HighHighModerate Very HighModerateLowVery High ModerateLowVery HighModerate ModerateLowModerate HighVery LowLowModerate HighLowModerateLow HighModerateVery HighModerate ModerateLowVery LowLow Results Out of 11 Participants 10 When asked what they liked best about the area mentioned something in nature 4 Unprompted, mentioned deer spreading lime disease as one of their biggest concerns 2 Keep bear sightings in a detailed log which includes the time and what the bear is doing; participants 407 and 76 4 Mentioned the state department not believing residents about seeing mountain lions 3 Claim to have personally see a mountain lion; participants 308, 715 and 575 References Clark, S. G. (2002). The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). "Can Psychology Help Save the World? A Model for Conservation Psychology." Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 5(1): Kellert, S. R. (1985). "Public Perceptions of Predators, Particularly the Wolf and Coyote." Biological Conservation 31: Treves, A., Karanth, K. U., (2003). "Human-Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide." Conservation Biology 17(6): Responsive Management (2012). Public Attitudes Toward and Expectations Regarding Management of Wildlife Problems in the Northeast United States. Harrisonburg, VA, Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative: 757. Full financial support by: Darker color: participant lives in areas with increased sightings Lighter color: participant lives in areas with decreased sightings Participant Attributes Unexpected Responses Changes in Behavior “Bad Bear” named by participant 407 “Bear Training” by participant 35 Dark Green: areas of largest decrease Dark Red: areas of largest increase Change in Quantity of Bear Sightings