ENVIR ST 260 1st Edition Lecture 24Outline of Last Lecture I. Housekeeping and NewsII. Ecological Impacts of MiningOutline of Current Lecture I. Conservation of Large CarnivoresII. History of wolves and management in WisconsinIII. Human wolf conflict and perceptionsIV. Does a public harvest increase tolerance of wolves?Current LectureConservation of Large Carnivores Ecological importance: trophic regulation, habitat restoration (wolves) They have top down effects in trophic regulation. A whole scale of effects can occur when a largecarnivore is removed. They’re essential for healthy, functioning ecosystems Globally threatened by human-caused mortality and habitat loss Can be incidental (accidents) or intentional (poaching).  Conflicts in a human-dominated landscape Conservation Reduce conflict Maintain sustainable population Improve attitudes, increase tolerance Human tolerance and coexistence are fundamental to large carnivore conservation Human-Carnivore Conflict -> ResolutionThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute. (-) Attitude towards Large Carnivores(-) Behavior towards Large CarnivoresCarnivore Management(-) Wildlife ValueCarnivore DamageMitigationHistory of Wolves and Management in Wisconsin Bounties and Protection 1839-1957 Euro-American culture: predators are “varmints” “nature for human benefit… maximum efficiency and sustained yield of resources” 1960: wolves considered extirpated in WI 1960-early 1970’s: no evidence of functioning packs 1967: gray wolves in Great Lakes region listed as endangered (first endangered species list-USFWS) 1975 WDNR State listing of gray wolves: endangered 1975 Recolonization-5 packs detected 1979 1978 all gray wolves in contiguous USA listed as endangered except in MN (threatened) Recovery in Wisconsin Factors that allowed wolves to recolonize are restoration of habitat, uptake and abundance of prey species and federal protection Wolf Legislation 1979 statewide monitoring 1989 Recovery plans begin: state goal of 350 wolves 2003 to 2012: federally relisted and delisted as endangered species 6 times 2012 lethal management allowed again, wolves designated as a game species 2012-2013 First wolf harvest season in Wisconsin Imposed by legislature, overrode scientific managementHuman Wolf Conflict and Perceptions Management and conflict in WI Mosaic landscape in Wisconsin Landscape is fragmented by human use: roads, farms, residential areas, etc. Wolves maintain broad habitat tolerances Human encounters are inevitable: bold wolves Depredations Livestock (cattle, sheep, farm deer, etc) Bear-hunting dogs (during training) Pets Confirmed or Probable Depredations Small numbers Broadly speaking there is a negligible effect in the number of these depredations, but on a small scale this is a hit economically and emotionally on a family Wolf range in Wisconsin Primarily present in northern Wisconsin WDNR Reponses to Conflicts and Depredations Non-lethal control Fencing, fladry, guard animals, motion lights, responsible husbandry Compensation program ER Fund license plates, tax forms, harvest revenue Lethal control permits/ non-permitted response (Act 169) Wolf Harvest Wolf Hunting and trapping Season 3rd Season ended last Friday: 154 killed (quota 150) Mid-October to Late February Has ended early every season Allowed methods: Firearm, bow and arrow or crossbow Use of dogs to track or trail from Dec. 1 – last day Predator calls, electronic calls Bait Trap Harvest Goals Reduce population to 350 state goal Reduce conflicts and depredations Increase tolerance and improve attitudes for wolves in the state Greater sense of control among those that are intolerantDoes a public harvest increase tolerance of wolves? Research Question: Did attitudes toward wolves and wolf policy change among residents in wolf range since 2009, and since the inaugural 2012 wolf harvest? Did tolerance for wolves increase? Background “Making wolves a game species even in a limited number might make wolves part of the utilitarian culture of wildlife and provide rural residents with a greater sense of control… Efforts should be put into making wolves valuable to hunters…” (Heberlein and Ericsson 2003: 393) Hunter and non-hunter support for a wolf, harvest, but with little inclination on behalf of huntersto conserve wolves (Treves and Martin 2011). Hunter Conserve Hypothesis: Treves 2009 Hunting for Large Carnivore Conservation Designation of game species may increase hunter stewardship (tolerance) Maintain stable carnivore population Relies on sound monitoring Cannot control for unpredictable variables that may affect population Reduce conflict May create human avoidance Build public support for conservation Opposed by non-hunters Illegal killings should decrease 2013 Survey Sample 2004 Non-wolf Range Respondents 2009 Wolf Range Respondents – includes 2001 & 2004 Wolf Range panels Sample Size 1311 surveyed, 772 responses Non-wolf range: 234 responses Wolf range: 538 responses Overall response rate =63% 81% male and 19% female 70% hunters- 499 males- 36 females Wolf Range in State: Northern and central forests  Questionnaire Design Largely based on previous surveys. Analysis: Longitudinal Design Tolerance Construct: 9-Item scaled Variable Positive and negative Likert-scaled statements assessing attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors regarding wolves and wolf policy in Wisconsin Data Analysis Tolerance Construct Wolves keep deer herds healthy be killing he sick and weak animals We should let nature determine the number of wolves in Wisconsin I would oppose all hunting of wolves Seeing a wolf in the wild would be one of the greatest outdoor experiences of my life I think wolves are essential to maintaining the balance of nature Killing wolves is the only way to stop them from threatening farm animals and pets I think Wisconsin’s growing wolf population threatens deer hunting opportunities I want to be able to hunt wolves without restrictions in Wisconsin I would be afraid if wolves lived near my home Calculating