Public Perceptions of Deer Management in Scotland

Hare, Darragh; Daniels, M. J.; Blossey, Bernd

doi:10.3389/fcosc.2021.781546

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our finding that hunting was more acceptable when meat would be provided to local people rather than left for wild animals (figures 3 and 5) is consistent with studies showing more favourable attitudes towards hunting for meat consumption than hunting for sport, pleasure or trophies [43,45,47], although these motivations are not mutually exclusive. The approach we employed challenges misleading dichotomies between hunting for trophies versus hunting for food.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Such a detailed understanding does not currently exist because of a lack of research directly investigating the contours of public opinion on the topic. Among people living in the USA and the UK, trophy hunting appears to be less acceptable than other forms of hunting [43][44][45][46][47]. However, there is some evidence that people perceive trophy hunting to be more acceptable if they learn about potential positive outcomes associated with it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Hare,

Dickman,

Johnson

et al. 2024

Proc. R. Soc. B.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Hare,

Dickman,

Johnson

et al. 2024

Proc. R. Soc. B.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An often silent but increasing majority of residents favors co-existence with predators and a less human control centered engagement with the environments and species around us (Naughton-Treves et al, 2003;Treves et al, 2009;Manfredo et al, 2021). As the struggle between different paradigms of traditional land management versus environmental stewardship plays out, common assumptions that urban and rural people have categorically different values about wildlife conservation, or management actions, may turn out to be unfounded (Hare et al, 2021).…”

Section: The Myth: Predators As Major Threats To Livestock and Ungulatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are both strong advocates of evaluating claims or hypotheses by collecting evidence using appropriate methods, whether that involves ecological networks, or socio-ecological systems (Blossey et al, 2021;Hare et al, 2021). Data can help society hold decision-makers/managers accountable, but at the same time we recognize that managers need to be required and enabled by appropriate metrics and resources to collect, archive and publish this information that guide their decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myths, Wishful Thinking, and Accountability in Predator Conservation and Management in the United States

Blossey

Hare

2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large predators are thought of as ecological keystone species, posterchildren of conservation campaigns, and sought-after targets of tourists and photographers. At the same time, predators kill livestock and huntable animals, and occasionally people, triggering fears and antipathy among those living alongside them. Until the 1960’s government-sponsored eradication and persecution campaigns in the United States prioritized interests of livestock producers and recreational hunters, leading to eradication of wolves and bears over much of their range. Without large predators, subsidized by changes in agricultural practices and milder winters, ungulate populations erupted, triggering negative ecological impacts, economic damage, and human health crises (such as tick-borne diseases). Shifting societal preferences have ushered in more predator-friendly, but controversial wildlife policies, from passively allowing range expansion to purposeful reintroductions (such as release of wolves in Yellowstone National Park). Attempts to restore wolves or mountain lions in the U.S. and protecting coyotes appear to enjoy strong public support, but many state wildlife agencies charged with managing wildlife, and recreational hunters continue to oppose such efforts, because they perceive predators as competitors for huntable animals. There may be compelling reasons for restoring predators or allowing them to recolonize their former ranges. But if range expansion or intentional releases of large predators do not result in ecosystem recovery, reduced deer populations, or Lyme disease reductions, conservationists who have put their reputation on the line and assured decision makers and the public of the important functional role of large predators may lose public standing and trust. Exaggerated predictions by ranchers and recreational hunters of greatly reduced ungulate populations and rampant livestock killing by large carnivores may lead to poaching and illegal killing threatening recovery of predator populations. How the return of large carnivores may affect vegetation and successional change, ungulate population size, other biota, livestock and human attitudes in different landscapes has not been appropriately assessed. Societal support and acceptance of living alongside predators as they expand their range and increase in abundance requires development and monitoring of social, ecological and economic indicators to assess how return of large predators affects human and animal and plant livelihoods.

show abstract

“…Despite the incredible diversity harbored in southern Alabama, conservation management aimed at protecting native species and their habitats (Falk & Millar, 2016; Scavia et al, 2002) is often hampered by individual actions and attitudes (Hare et al, 2021; Marshall et al, 2007). Therefore, successful conservation actions cannot occur without a proper evaluation of stakeholders' attitudes and values (Fox & Bekoff, 2011; Heneghan & Morse, 2018; Lee, 2017; Manfredo et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominant attitudes and values toward wildlife and the environment in coastal Alabama

Hertel

Stupavsky

Alford

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surveys assessing attitudes and values about the environment can help predict human behavior toward wildlife and develop effective conservation goals alongside local communities. Coastal Alabama, in the southeastern United States, is a hotspot for biodiversity and endemism and needs protection. Land and wildlife management practices in Alabama have moved from indigenous‐led, which is more in harmony with the environment, to larger‐scale exploitative uses for agriculture and plantations. We therefore predicted that a large proportion of the population has a dominant view of the environment in which land and wildlife are primarily for human benefit. To test this hypothesis, we surveyed over 1300 residents in Mobile and Baldwin counties—the two southernmost counties in Alabama—to assess attitudes toward local vertebrate wildlife, knowledge of the region's biodiversity, and whether individuals value protected areas where they live and/or work. As hunting is generally considered a dominant behavior, we used self‐identified hunters versus non‐hunters to examine the relationship between humans and the environment. Overall, hunters would kill or kill to eat more often than non‐hunters, and would kill even when it is not for food. Furthermore, regardless of hunting status, most participants in our survey would kill a snake, indicating that targeted environmental education is needed for this group. Both hunters and non‐hunters, independently of demographic differences including education and income levels, were not familiar with the especially rich biodiversity of the area and would not be willing to invest money to protect it. Our results indicate that targeted education about the unique and rich biodiversity of southern Alabama compared to the rest of the United States is needed to support successful environmental management, conservation actions, and local participation.

show abstract

Public Perceptions of Deer Management in Scotland

Cited by 12 publications

References 24 publications

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Myths, Wishful Thinking, and Accountability in Predator Conservation and Management in the United States

Dominant attitudes and values toward wildlife and the environment in coastal Alabama

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About