Comparative views of the public, hunters, and wildlife managers on the management of reintroduced bison (Bison bison)

• Published in: Global Ecology and Conservation
• Main Authors: Alistair J. Bath, Monica T. Engel, Ryan C. van der Marel, Tyler S. Kuhn, Thomas S. Jung
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2022
• Subjects: Conservation planning; Ecological restoration; Endangered species recovery; Human dimensions of wildlife; Human-wildlife conflict; Potential for conflict Index2; Ecology; QH540-549.5; Yukon; Canada; Bison bison bison
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02015; https://doaj.org/article/863ade2a18414fd687372711036b6807

Public support is often instrumental for restoring large mammals to landscapes where they have been extirpated. Effective conservation planning likely often hinges on wildlife managers understanding and reflecting the values and beliefs of their constituencies. Yet, comparative views of wildlife managers and the public or key interest groups are largely untested. As a prelude to developing a management plan for reintroduced bison (Bison bison) in Yukon, Canada, we compared views of the public, hunters, and wildlife managers, using a pre-tested questionnaire with most questions based on a 5-point Likert scale. We tested whether managers differed with respect to their values and beliefs pertaining to bison management compared to the public and hunters. Additionally, we used a Potential for Conflict Index2 approach to assess the acceptability of potential management actions by these three groups to hypothetical scenarios. Our main findings were that (i) respondents with higher anthropocentric and ecocentric views of bison were more accepting of population growth; (ii) respondents that believed bison or hunters had created ecological or social impacts were less accepting of an increased bison population; (iii) means differed significantly between groups for most questions, with key differences being a lack of acceptability of “doing nothing” as a management option by the public, and “reducing harvest opportunities” by hunters—however, there were few polarized views on bison management options; and (iv) PCI2 values were often moderate (0.21–0.50) within groups, indicating a lack of consensus on views about the acceptability of management options. A low degree of consensus between or within groups is a hallmark of a potential for conflict, and revealing low levels of consensus between and within groups can facilitate understanding where increased communication between managers and their constituencies is needed. Our research provides a case study of wildlife managers in the Yukon and demonstrates that they reflect ...