California Condors, Source Credibility, and Wildlife Conservation Messaging

Abstract

This article examines the role of source credibility in the sphere of wildlife conservation campaigns. Specifically, it explores how particular messengers can motivate hunters, ranchers, and wildlife managers in California, Utah, and Arizona to voluntarily adopt non-lead ammunition. I analyze two partner websites, each designed to provide the hunting community with accurate information about non-lead ammunition. I then identify key principles regarding source credibility that arose from semi-structured interviews with four individuals closely involved in North American vulture and raptor conservation: representatives of the Ventana Wildlife Society, the Institute for Wildlife Studies, The Peregrine Fund, and Pinnacles National Park. The conclusion identifies lessons about the role of source credibility in wildlife conservation campaigns and situates the findings in the context of existing research on environmental communication and education.

Policy comparison of lead hunting ammunition bans and voluntary nonlead programs for California condors

“…Our analysis, therefore, indicates no single simple solution will meaningfully address condors’ exposure to spent lead ammunition. In other words, solely relying on a voluntary (Belanger 2022) or regulatory policy approach (Thomas and Guitart 2003, Bellinger et al 2013) will not effectively address the primary mortality mechanism hampering condor recovery. Rather, our analysis indicates a combination of approaches where voluntary programs share information and build consensus among stakeholders using tools from human dimensions research (Schulz et al 2021 b ), which may eventually lead towards acceptance and implementation of a possible future regulation on nonlead hunting ammunition.…”

“…Dating back to policy discussions for waterfowl nontoxic shot regulations (USFWS 1988), arguments revolved around ballistic performance of nonlead ammunition, lethality or killing effectiveness, and relative cost of nonlead ammunition compared to traditional lead ammunition (Belanger andKinnane 2002, Schulz et al 2006). At the time, many hunters said they would discontinue hunting due to increased ammunition costs, increased probability of crippling or wounding birds, and inability to find sufficient quantities of ammunition (USFWS 1988, Belanger andKinnane 2002).…”

“…Shortly after the installation of the new Secretary of the Department of the Interior on 2 March 2017 the order was rescinded with Secretarial Orders 3346 (U.S. Department of Interior 2017 a ) and 3347 (U.S. Department of Interior 2017 b ). Since that time several outreach programs encouraging the voluntary use of nonlead have emerged (USFWS 2020 b , North American Non‐Lead Partnership 2021, Belanger 2022).…”