Fear and caring are what's at the core of divisive wolf debate

Fear and caring are what’s at the core of divisive wolf debate. Credit: Photo by G.L. Kohuth

To hunt or not hunt wolves can't be quantified as simply as men vs. women, hunters vs. anti-hunters, Democrats vs. Republicans or city vs. rural.

What's truly fueling the divisive debate is fear of wolves or the urge to care for canis lupis. The social dynamics at play and potential options for establishing common ground between sides can be found in the current issue of the journal PLOS ONE.

"People who are for or against this issue are often cast into traditional lots, such as gender, political party or where they live," said Meredith Gore, associate professor of fisheries and wildlife and co-lead author of the study. "This issue, however, isn't playing out like this. Concerns about hunting wolves to reduce conflict are split more by social geography and less by physical geography."

It's definitely an us-versus-them debate, she added. However, it took the concept of social identity theory to better reveal the true "us" and "them." Applying principles from social psychology revealed how the two groups were interacting and offers some potential solutions to get the vying groups to work together.

The team's findings are comparable, in part, to civil uprisings in the Middle East. The region is far removed from the United States, in terms of geography. Americans, however, tend to identify with a distant, threatened identity group, said Gore, an MSU AgBioResearch scientist.

"The concept of how our identity drives our activism is quite interesting," said Gore, who co-led the research with Michelle Lute, former MSU fisheries and wildlife graduate student who's now at Indiana University. "Our findings challenge traditional assumptions about regional differences and suggest a strong role for social identity in why people support or oppose wildlife management practices."

The majority of the nearly 670 surveys were collected from Michigan stakeholders interested in wolf-hunting as a management response to wolf conflicts. However, a small percentage of the data was gathered from participants in 21 states. While the study focused on gray wolves in Michigan, its results have implications for other states' policies on wolves as well as other large carnivores such as brown bears, polar bears, mountain lions and other predators, Gore added.

Noting that there's sharp polarization in debates about wolf management is not new. However, providing empirical evidence of its existence is new and meaningful because it provides a framework for improving engagement between the fighting factions.

For example, communications may be better directed toward each identity group's concerns of fear and care for wolves. These missives could be more effective than messages simply directed toward pro-hunters or anti-hunters. Identity-specific communications may also help build trust between agencies and stakeholders.

"These types of communications may not only build trust, but they can also contribute to a sense of procedural justice," Gore said. "This, in turn, may increase support for decision-makers and processes regardless of the outcome."

Also, by shaping and discussing the issue in terms of care and fear, rather than traditional qualifiers, may help usher in a greater agreement about management strategies.

Additional researchers working on this paper include Adam Bump, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Source: Michigan State University

Attitudes about knowledge, power drive Michigan's wolf debate

MSU research has identified the themes shaping Michigan's wolf debate and offers some potential solutions as the debate moves forward. Credit: Courtesy of Michigan DNR

With both wolf proposals shot down by Michigan voters on election day, the debate over managing and hunting wolves is far from over.

A Michigan State University study, appearing in a recent issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management, identifies the themes shaping the issue and offers some potential solutions as the debate moves forward.

The research explored how different sides of the debate view power imbalances among different groups and the role that scientific knowledge plays in making decisions about hunting wolves. These two dimensions of wildlife management can result in conflict and stagnate wildlife management.

The results indicate that tension between public attitudes about local knowledge, and politics and science can drive conflict among Michiganders' stance regarding wolf hunting, said Meredith Gore, associate professor of fisheries and wildlife and co-lead author of the study.

"Given the trend in wildlife management toward increased stakeholder input, finding solutions that approach science and politics as complementary, rather than competing, approaches may aid the public participation processes," she said.

This study represents a first attempt at defining and describing the association between knowledge and power in contentious management of a species recently delisted from endangered status. This study focused on wolves, but it has applications for other endangered or invasive species, added Gore, an MSU AgBioResearch scientist.

These findings shed light on why the voting and support for the issue appears to be muddled, at least in terms of traditional quantifiers. Knowing these splits explain, in part, why the issue won't likely be resolved by swaying the pro- or anti-hunting vote.

Gore and Michelle Lute, former MSU fisheries and wildlife graduate student and co-lead author who's now at Indiana University, unearthed these disparities by conducting in-depth interviews with many stakeholders close to the wolf debate. Rather than trying to prove a specific theory, the researchers allowed the interviews to reveal the main criteria driving the issue.

The researchers unearthed four themes and offered potential solutions to each.

• Mistrust among decision-makers -- Some interviewees view wildlife management agencies as political agencies rather than supporting what's best for wildlife. Increasing transparency and gathering more stakeholder input could increase trust.
• Special interest groups leaving many voters disenfranchised -- Strong lobbying groups leave some individuals feeling powerless and their votes meaningless. Striving for equitable distribution of risks and benefits among all stakeholders could address these feelings.
• Political influencers overriding science -- Some believe that scientific studies are downplayed by political officials. Equitable sharing of responsibility, risks and benefits may ease perceptions of tension between politicians and scientists.
• Decision-makers ignoring local sources of information -- Some interviewees felt cast aside, and their knowledge was labeled as mythology or folklore. Processes that seek shared-learning outcomes may balance local and scientific knowledge.

"Our research shows that as any management process moves forward," Gore said, "all sides should address the issue from the perspective of these four criteria. Regardless of how people voted, these aspects may represent common ground for all sides."

Source: Michigan State University

Tinkering with the Tao of pandas

This image shows a panda eating in China's Wolong Nature Reserve. Pandas habitat choices center around the ready availability of bamboo -- lots of bamboo.
 Credit: Sue Nichols, Michigan State University

Good news on the panda front: Turns out they're not quite as delicate -- and picky -- as thought.

Up until now, information gleaned from 30 years worth of scientific literature suggested that pandas were inflexible about habitat. Those conclusions morphed into conventional wisdom and thus have guided policy in China. But a Michigan State University (MSU) research associate has led a deep dive into aggregate data and emerged with evidence that the endangered animal is more resilient and flexible than previously believed.

Vanessa Hull is a postdoctoral research associate at MSU's Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability (CSIS). She has spent three years stalking giant pandas in China's Wolong Nature Reserve. Given the pandas' elusive nature, Hull had a lot of down time.

So she bided her time plowing through literature on panda habitat selection, discovering inconsistencies and lack of consensus on matters crucial as scientists and policymakers struggle to protect the estimated 1,600 remaining wild giant pandas in the 21,300 square kilometers to which the animals have been relegated.

"Panda habitat selection is a complex process that we are still trying to unravel," said Jianguo "Jack" Liu, Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability and CSIS director. "Pandas are a part of coupled human and natural systems where humans have changed so much in their habitat."

It has been thought pandas demanded a forest with fairly gentle slope (easier to mosey around in while seeking bamboo) at a certain elevation in original, old forest, an abundance of bamboo, and plenty of distance from people. These recommendations, Hull said, come from often-scant research because pandas are difficult animals to study.

"Pandas are difficult to observe and follow in the wild, we're always 10 steps behind them," Hulls said. "We don't know why they're there -- or where they were before and after. There's a lot of guesswork."

Vanessa and her colleagues drew up analysis of all the research projects and sought to separate studies that focus on where pandas live from studies that examine what kind of choices pandas make when multiple types of habitat are available. They discovered that pandas may not be as picky as thought.

The research shows, for instance, that pandas are willing to live in secondary forests -- forests that have been logged and have regrown. They also don't seem as selective about slope, and are willing to climb depending on which of the many varieties of bamboo is growing, or what type of forest it was in. Same for elevation, and the amount of sunshine that hits a piece of panda home.

That's good news. Indications that forests once cut clean by timber harvesting can return to acceptable panda habitat validate current bans on forest harvesting.

They also found that there is a complex relationship between trees and bamboo. Pandas choose different forest types as places to spend their time, as long as bamboo is available.

Hull said consensus would be helpful for future panda habitat research, since the future guarantees change.

"It's exciting to see the flexibility pandas have, or at least see that pandas are choosing areas I didn't think could support them," Hull said. "It gives you hope. They've survived throughout many challenges over so many millions of years, it would be sad to think humans came along and threw it all away. This also suggests we should stay on board and try to make things better for them."

Source: Michigan State University