Beyond Recovery: Wisconsin's Wolf Policy 1980–2008

Abstract

Wildlife protectionists, livestock producers, and black bear hunters influenced wolf policy in Wisconsin, USA, over the past 29 years. Wolf policy aligned closely with protectionist values until 2003, when litigations over lethal control and wolf reclassification created a rift. Since 2003, livestock producers and bear hunters have had more influence over wolf policy. Throughout, state managers steered steadily toward regaining management authority from the federal government and finding common ground between the wildlife values held by different stakeholders. Human dimensions research helped find this common ground and shape wolf policy, particularly when it integrated ecology, social science, and management applications. From spatial, predictive models of wolf attacks on domestic animals and attitudinal surveys on compensation and hunting, managers combined results into novel proposals to balance divergent interests. Wolf policy exemplifies the challenges facing wildlife managers as new wildlife values confront older ones and stakeholders demand a say in policy.

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

“…Moral hazards are more likely to arise when recipients have disproportionate influence over rules for payments. We observed that contributors held less sway than recipients because contributors donated anonymously, limiting their effectiveness as a lobbying group (Treves 2008). After the final compensation rule was published in 2005, several contributors wrote letters to the WDNR opposing the use of their money to pay for hunting dogs injured or killed by wolves (R. Jurewicz, WDNR files).…”

“…As wolf numbers increased, it also became far more costly to verify every incident. In 2001 the WDNR compensated a livestock producer for missing calves based on prior verified losses without direct evidence of wolf predation (Treves 2008). In 2007, this step was formalized and extended to all livestock producers with previously verified losses (WDNR 2007a, b).…”

“…WI wolf policy is illuminating due to its long, well-documented experience with compensation (Wilson 1999;Treves et al 2002) including repeated efforts to modify policy as wolves recovered and were reclassified (Treves 2008;Refsnider 2009). We compared the attitudes of individual contributors to the state's voluntary compensation fund with those of non-contributors.…”

Sociocultural significance of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal and the human dimensions of conservation planning

“…Muro & Jeffrey 2008;www.humanwildlifeconflict.org). For wildlife and endangered species, participatory planning can also increase understanding about the root causes for conflict and the possible focal points for successful interventions (Treves 2008, Treves et al 2009). Such approaches have also been shown to increase local capacity and build stewardship among communities for more effective conservation Like other species that have begun repopulating previous ranges, the Hawaiian monk seal is presenting new challenges to conservation programs as new values and evolving social norms for the species develop.…”

“…Human−wildlife conflicts can develop through a myriad of different pathways, but are based in part on the underlying social values, norms and perceptions that structure human−environmental interactions. Stakeholders may exhibit a range of values for endangered wildlife (Kellert 1985, Treves 2008, and these values, like other social phenomena, are not static but evolve through time.…”