“They Need to Be Managed:” Hunters’ and Ranchers’ Narratives of Increased Tolerance of Wolves after a Decade of Wolf Hunting

Abstract

How do hunters and livestock producers who report increased tolerance for wolves account for the changes in their attitudes, and how can their perspectives inform researchers' understanding of human conflicts about wolves? I explore this by analyzing interviews with people who live, work, and recreate in the Blackfoot watershed, Montana. All interviewees who reported increased tolerance over time were hunters and ranchers with good relationships with government wildlife officials and close ties to a collaborative non-profit, Blackfoot Challenge.All who reported increased tolerance attributed their tolerance to the legalization of wolf hunting (sometimes in addition to other factors). Several expressed anger at environmental and animal rights groups who used lawsuits to keep hunting illegal for longer in the state. My data suggests that intolerance for wolves may stem from an injustice frame, a belief that humans bear some blame for causing harm.

The influence of social identity on attitudes toward wildlife

“…Similarly, but in reverse, nonhunters' attitudes toward grizzly bears may be less affected by vicarious property damage because they hear fewer stories overall, and, even when they do, they are more likely to involve out-group members whose experiences they are more inclined to dismiss. Our finding of no direct effect of social identity on attitudes toward grizzly bears seemingly contradicts previous research on hunters' attitudes toward large carnivores, namely, wolves (Dressel et al, 2015;Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003;Hogberg et al, 2016;Treves & Martin, 2011), but qualitative investigations show attitudes toward wolves are more complex than contempt for the species (Figari & Skogen, 2011;Richardson, 2022). No study has quantitatively tested interactions between social identity and potential antecedents to attitudes (Dressel et al, 2015;Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003;Hogberg et al, 2016;Treves et al, 2013).…”

“…Previous research shows that allowing hunting can have positive effects on relationships between community members and wildlife managers by addressing conflicts and allowing benefits from wildlife to accrue (Loveridge et al., 2007) and conversely that legal hunting does not improve attitudes toward large carnivores (Browne‐Nuñez et al., 2015; Hogberg et al., 2016). Implementing a hunting season for grizzly bears may serve as a psychological buffer against perceived threats, potentially altering risk perceptions (embedded here in our measure of attitudes) and moving the locus of control closer to hunters, reducing feelings of imposition (Richardson, 2022). Although allowing hunting may increase acceptance of grizzly bears among hunters, the effectiveness of this strategy to improve attitudes among nonhunters is uncertain and likely dependent on myriad contextual variables.…”

“…In the United States and Europe, debates over large carnivore conservation often reflect societal conflicts about rural futures, including those of hunters (van Eeden et al., 2021; Wilson, 1997). Similar social issues underlie wolf ( Canis lupus ) reintroduction disagreements in the western United States (Wilson, 1997): differential power among social groups (i.e., rural communities vs. environmental movement [Richardson, 2022; Skogen & Krange, 2003]); protection of some groups’ property rights; and divergent environmental values among groups (Fischer, 2021; Manfredo et al., 2021). Hunters’ and nonhunters’ identities entwine with these social identity processes to affect wildlife conservation efforts in the western United States, including the ongoing recovery of large carnivores.…”