Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 2759–2763 | Cite as

Shifting public values and what they mean for increasing democracy in wildlife management decisions

  • Lily M. van Eeden
  • Chris R. Dickman
  • Euan G. Ritchie
  • Thomas M. Newsome
Commentary

Abstract

Over the last century, changing public attitudes about the value of wildlife have triggered substantial changes in species management that have both benefited and hindered conservation efforts. Understanding and integrating contemporary public values is therefore critical for effective conservation outcomes. Using historic and contemporary examples, we highlight how public attitudes—expressed through the media and campaigns—are shaping the management of introduced and native species, as values shift towards animal welfare and mutualism. We focus on the issue of deliberate human-caused killing of wildlife, because protests against such management have disrupted traditional political and management structures that favoured eradication of wildlife across many jurisdictions and ecological contexts. In doing so, we show that it is essential to work with multiple stakeholder interest groups to ensure that wildlife management is informed by science, while also supported by public values. Achieving this hinges on appropriate science communication to build a better-informed public because management decisions are becoming increasingly democratised.

Keywords

Public perception Animal welfare Conservation and wildlife management Lethal pest control Science communication 

References

  1. Agent Green (2016) Petiţie pentru interzicerea vânătorii de trofee. http://www.agentgreen.ro/petitie-pentru-interzicerea-vanatorii-de-trofee/. Accessed 7 Oct 2016
  2. BBC News (1998) UK activists release 8,000 mink. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/173600.stm. Accessed 7 Oct 2016
  3. Bennett WL (2003) Communicating global activism. Inf Commun Soc 6:143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Decker DJ, Stedman RC, Larson LR, Siemer WF (2015) Hunting for wildlife management in America. Wildl Prof 9:26–29Google Scholar
  5. Doherty TS, Ritchie EG (2016) Stop jumping the gun: a call for evidence-based invasive predator management. Conserv Lett 10:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunlap TR (1981) DDT: scientists, citizens and public policy. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlap TR (1983) “The coyote itself”: ecologists and the value of predators, 1900–1972. Environ Rev 7:54–70Google Scholar
  8. Dunlap TR (1988) Ending the poisoning, 1963-1972. Saving America’s wildlife: ecology and the American mind, 1850-1990. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp 127–141Google Scholar
  9. Flores D (2016) Coyote America: a natural and supernatural history. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobsen CA, Organ JF, Decker DJ, Batcheller GR (2010) A conservation institution for the 21st century: implications for state wildlife agencies. J Wildl Manag 74:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kellert SR, Black M, Rush CR, Bath AJ (1996) Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conserv Biol 10:977–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keough HL, Blahna DJ (2006) Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 20:1373–1382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Legislative Council (2016) General purpose standing committee No. 5. Parliament House, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  14. Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biol Rev 87:390–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Macdonald DW, Jacobsen KS, Burnham D, Johnson PJ, Loveridge AJ (2016) Cecil: a moment or a movement? Analysis of media coverage of the death of a lion, Panthera leo. Animals 6:26CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Manfredo MJ, Fulton DC, Pierce CL (1997) Understanding voter behavior on wildlife ballot initiatives: Colorado’s trapping amendment. Hum Dimens Wildl 2:22–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting Wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Soc Sci Q 90:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNulty F (1970) A reporter at large: the prairie dog and the black-footed ferret. The New Yorker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Mech LD (1996) A new era for carnivore conservation. Wildl Soc Bull 24:397–401Google Scholar
  20. Minnis DL (1998) Wildlife poliyc-making by the electorate: an overview of citizen-sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildl Soc Bull 26:75–83Google Scholar
  21. National Project Steering Committee (2014) National wild dog action plan: promoting and supporting community-driven action for landscape-scale wild dog management. WoolProducers Australia, BartonGoogle Scholar
  22. Pacelle W (1998) Forging a new wildlife management paradigm: integrating animal protection values. Hum Dimens Wildl 3:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell JC (2014) A comparison of attitudes towards introduced wildlife in New Zealand in 1994 and 2012. J R Soc N Z 44:136–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sargeant M-L (2016) Stop the “doomed” dingo program: using a deadly capsule containing 1080 poison. Change.org, Inc. https://www.change.org/p/action-days-for-dingoes-justice-for-australian-native-animal. Accessed 6 Sept 2016
  25. Schwartz D (2016) Death row dingoes set to be the environmental saviour of Great Barrier Reef’s Pelorus Island. LandlineGoogle Scholar
  26. Siri P (2016) Save the endangered Norwegian wolves now! Change.org, Inc. https://www.change.org/p/save-the-endangered-norwegian-wolves. Accessed 7 Oct 2016
  27. Sutterend T, Ulven E (2016) Norway reprieves 32 of 47 wolves earmarked for cull. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/20/norway-reprieves-32-of-47-wolves-earmarked-for-cull. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
  28. Wagner G (1970) America—overkill season, vol 224. The Spectator, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  29. Way JG, Bruskotter JT (2012) Additional considerations for gray wolf management after their removal from endangered species act protections. J Wildl Manag 76:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  3. 3.Global Trophic Cascades Program, Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations