Skip to main content
Log in

The discourses of incidents: cougars on Mt. Elden and in Sabino Canyon, Arizona

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Incidents are relatively short periods of intensified discourse that arise from public responses to symbolically important actions by public officials, and an important part of the conflict that increasingly surrounds state wildlife management in the West. In an effort to better understand incidents as a facet of this conflict, we analyzed the discourses of two incidents in Arizona that were precipitated by the intended removal of cougars by managers in response to public safety concerns. We used newspaper content, 1999–2007, to elucidate seminal patterns of public discourses and discourse coalitions as well as differences in discursive focus between incident periods and background periods. Cougars were mentioned in newspaper articles 13–33 times more often during incidents compared with background periods. State wildlife agency commissioners and hunters were part of a discourse coalition that advocated killing cougars to solve problems, blamed cougars and those who promoted the animals’ intrinsic value and sought to retain power to define and solve cougar-related problems. Personnel from affected state and federal agencies expressed a similar discourse. Environmentalists, animal protection activists, and some elected officials were of a coalition that defined “the problem” primarily in terms of people’s behaviors, including behaviors associated with current institutional arrangements. This discourse advocated decentralizing power over cougar management. The discourses reflected different preferences for the allocations of power and use of lethal versus non-lethal methods, which aligned with apparent core beliefs and participants’ enfranchisement or disenfranchisement by current state-level management power arrangements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2004a). Report of the Mountain Lion Workshop, May 1, 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Final Report. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2004b). Report of the Flagstaff and Phoenix Mountain Lion Workshops. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2005). Action Plan for Minimizing and Responding to Lion/Human Interactions. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

  • Baron, D. (2004). The beast in the garden: A modern parable of man and nature. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agenda and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calinski, R. B., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics, 3, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. M., & Mackay, K. J. (2003). Attitudinal and normative influences on support for hunting as a wildlife management strategy. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. G. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resources professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Clark, T. W., & Munno, L. (2005). Mountain lion management: Resolving public conflict. In T. W. Clark, M. B. Rutherford, & D. Casey (Eds.), Coexisting with large carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone (pp. 71–98). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T. W., & Rutherford, M. B. (2005). The institutional system of wildlife management: Making it more effective. In T. W. Clark, M. B. Rutherford, & D. Casey (Eds.), Coexisting with large carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone (pp. 211–253). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, C. M. (2000). The killing of grizzly bear 209: Identifying norms for grizzly bear management. In T. W. Clark, A. R. Willard, & C. M. Cromley (Eds.), Foundations of natural resources policy and management (pp. 173–220). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. (2006). Western wildfires: A policy change perspective. Review of Policy Research, 23, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, D. J., Kruger, C. C., Baer, R. A., Jr, Knuth, B. A., & Richmond, M. E. (1996). From clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dizard, J. E. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert, A. W. (1993). The wildland-urban interface: Introduction and overview. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972). Archeology of knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, R. B. (1996). The wildlife professional subculture: The case of the crazy aunt. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagood, S. (1997). State wildlife management: The pervasive influence of hunters, hunting, culture and money. Washington, D.C.: The Humane Society of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harker, D., & Bates, D. C. (2007). The black bear hunt in New Jersey: A constructionist analysis of an intractable conflict. Society and Animals, 15, 329–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, D. (2009). Basic elements of narrative. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heydlauff, A. L., Krausman, P. R., Shaw, W. W., & Marsh, S. E. (2006). Perceptions regarding elk in northern Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C. (2004). Welcome to the neighborhood. Adventure, October, 86–96.

  • Howland, D., Larsen Becker, M., & Prelli, L. J. (2006). Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports. Policy Sciences, 39, 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, C. A., & Decker, D. J. (2006). Ensuring the future of state wildlife management: Understanding challenges for institutional change. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 531–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, S. K., Langin, C., Carlton, J. S., & Lee Kaid, L. (2012). Content analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conservation Biology, 26, 171–179.

  • Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 19. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8, 3–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koval, M. H., & Mertig, A. G. (2004). Attitudes of the Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, J. I. (1993). The logic of competing information campaigns: Conflict over old growth and spotted owl. Communications Monographs, 60, 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of the policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D., & Holmberg, A. R. (1992). Toward a general theory of directed value accumulation and institutional development. In H. D. Lasswell & M. S. McDougal (Eds.), Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science and policy. (Vol. II, pp. 1379–1417). The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

  • Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science and policy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D., et al. (1966). Language of politics: Studies in quantitative semiotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. (2005). Can cougars and people live side by side? National Wildlife, 43, 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Bright, A. D. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Henry, K. L. (2009). Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangus, G. (1991). Legal aspects of encounters on federal lands and in state programs. In C. S. Braun (Ed.), Mountain lion-human interaction symposium and workshop (pp. 43–44). Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., & Chambers, N. (2009). Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: What is the problem? Policy Sciences, 42, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., & Clark, S. G. (2010a). People, politics, and cougar management. In M. Hornocker & S. Negri (Eds.), Cougar: Ecology and conservation (pp. 206–220). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., & Clark, S. G. (2010b). Groups participating in cougar management. In M. Hornocker & S. Negri (Eds.), Cougar: Ecology and conservation (pp. 254–259). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., & Ruther, E. J. (2012). An explanation of reported puma-related behaviors and behavioral intentions among northern Arizona residents. Human Dimensions of Widlife, 17, 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, D. J., Byrd, K. L., Rutherford, M. B., Brown, S. R., & Clark, T. W. (2006). Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mapping contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., & Jones, M. D. (2005). The science of storytelling: Measuring policy beliefs in Greater Yellowstone. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. The Policy Studies Journal, 35, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Hathaway, P. L., Tigert, L. E., & Sampson, L. J. (2010). Buffalo tales: Interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone. Policy Sciences, 43, 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37, 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. P. (1993). Constructing irreconcilable conflict: The function of synecdoche in the spotted owl controversy. Communication Monographs, 60, 258–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortenson, K. G., & Krannich, R. S. (2001). Wildlife managers and public involvement: Letting the crazy aunt out. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muth, R. M., Hamilton, D. A., Organ, J. F., Witter, D. J., Mather, M. E., & Daigle, J. J. (1998). The future of wildlife and fisheries policy and management: Assessing the attitudes and values of wildlife and fisheries professionals. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 63, 604–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2004a). State wildlife policy and management: The scope and bias of political conflict. Public Administration Review, 64, 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2004b). State wildlife governance and carnivore conservation. In N. Fascione, A. Delach, & A. E. Smith (Eds.), People and predators: From conflict to coexistence (pp. 197–218). Washingon, D. C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papouchis, C. M. (2004). Conserving mountain lions in a changing landscape. In N. Fascione, A. Delach, & A. E. Smith (Eds.), People and predators: From conflict to coexistence (pp. 219–239). Washingon, D. C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, V. (1995). Natural resources management by litigation. In R. L. Knight & S. F. Bates (Eds.), A new century for natural resources management (pp. 209–220). Washington D.C.: Island Press.

  • Patterson, M. E., Montag, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (2003). The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1, 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, G. L., & DeVos, J. C., Jr. (2005). A case study of mountain lion-human interaction in southeastern Arizona. Mountain Lion Workshop, 8, 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Qualitative Research Methods, 50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiger, J. F. (2001). American sportsmen and the origins of conservation. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, W. M. (1988). International incidents: Introduction to a new genre in the study of international law. In W. M. Reisman & A. R. Willard (Eds.), International incidents: The law that counts in international politics (pp. 3–23). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, W. M., & Willard, A. R. (Eds.). (1988). International incidents: The law that counts in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21, 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutberg, A. T. (2001). Why agencies should not advocate hunting or trapping. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rineholt, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlechtweg, H. P. (1996). Media frames and environmental discourse: The case of “focus: logjam”. In J. G. Cantrill & C. L. Oravec (Eds.), The symbolic earth: Discourse and our creation of the environment (pp. 257–277). University Press of Kentucky: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, E. A., McBeth, M. K., Hathaway, P. L., & Arnell, R. J. (2008). Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sciences, 41, 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemer, W. F., Decker, D. J., & Shanahan, J. (2007). Media frames for black bear management stories during issue emergence in New York. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teel, T. L., Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife values in the West.” Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins: Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Colorado State University.

  • Tischer, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and geneology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Volume two. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.) Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Williams, B. A., & Matheny, A. R. (1995). Democracy, dialogue, and environmental disputes: The contested languages of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witter, D. J., & Shaw, W. W. (1979). Beliefs of birders, hunters, and wildlife professionals about wildlife management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference, 44, 298–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolch, J. R., Gullo, A., & Lassiter, U. (1997). Changing attitudes toward California’s cougars. Society and Animals, 5, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resources management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Thompson (formerly of the Arizona Game and Fish Department), S. Nichols-Young, D. Casey, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and clarifying reviews. We also thank M. Sogge (US Geological Survey) and K. Kitchell (formerly of the US Geological Survey) for their support of this work. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Mattson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mattson, D.J., Clark, S.G. The discourses of incidents: cougars on Mt. Elden and in Sabino Canyon, Arizona. Policy Sci 45, 315–343 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9158-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9158-6

Keywords

Navigation