Global Ecology and Conservation (Apr 2022)
Comparative views of the public, hunters, and wildlife managers on the management of reintroduced bison (Bison bison)
Abstract
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 reasonably well the public and hunters regarding bison management. This is likely because Yukon bison managers are an inclusive group that is largely community based. That said, there were often significant differences in the degree to which all three groups agreed on bison management options. Within the context of species conservation planning, similar research can provide an important test on congruence between views of wildlife managers and their constituencies. We recommend similar assessments when key decisions need to be made by wildlife managers, particularly on potentially volatile issues that may not be broadly supported.
