Public survey regarding attitudes toward wolf management in

Wisconsin (2004-5)

Lisa Naughton, Ph.D.,Assoc. Professorand

Adrian Treves, Ph.D.,Research ScientistUniversity of Wisconsin,

Madison

Survey ObjectiveMeasure attitudes regarding ‘problem wolf’

management and compensation programs between:

1. contributors to ER fund vs. general public

2. livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers

2004 Survey (n=2400)

Frequency of Percentage of Endangered Resources License Plates purchased in each

Wisconsin Zipcode

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bins 0.4 1 1.

62.

22.

83.

4 4 4.6

5.2

5.8

6.4 7

Percentage of ER Plates over Total Plates (%)

Nu

mb

er o

f Z

ipco

des

Fond du Lac

Butternut

Sister Bay

Owen

Wausau

Madison

2400 surveys mailed

RESPONSE RATE*63.7%

*Excluding 47 surveys thatwere undeliverable. Note that sample size varies for each question due to the fact that not all individuals answered every question.

Attitudes regarding wolf management

By Contribution

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Madison(n=199)

Fond duLac

(n=175)

SisterBay

(n=177)

Wausau(n=188)

Butternut(n=240)

Owen(n=194)

Contributors

Non-contributors

Contributors to Endangered Resources fund (n=1173)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Should be compensated in any case

Only if following

BEST HUSBANDRY PRACTICES

Should not be compensated

Contributors to ER fund (n=229)Non-contributors (n=930)

agre

emen

tUnder what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? - Part 1

Pearson chi-square=38.7p<0.001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Should be compensated in any case

Only if EVIDENCE

OF WOLF is found

Should NOT be

compensated

Contributors to ER fund (n=227)Non-contributors (n=934)

agre

emen

tUnder what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? – Part 2

Pearson chi-square=20.0p<0.001

Contributors to ER fund (n=227)Non-contributors (n=934)ag

reem

ent

Pearson chi-square=19.7p<0.001

Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of hunting dogs to wolves?

Should be compensated in any case

Only if EVIDENCE

OF WOLF is found

Should NOT be

compensated

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

eS

trong

ly d

isag

ree

Contributors (n=224)Non-contributors (n=891)

My tolerance for wolves would decrease if compensation programs were no longer available.(contributors vs. non-contributors)

Pearson chi-square=23.8p<0.001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

eS

trong

ly d

isag

ree

Contributors (n=224)Non-contributors (n=903)

Even when wolves are no longer threatened or endangered, compensation programs should continue.(contributors vs. non-contributors)

Pearson chi-square=7.6p=0.108

Who should pay for compensation programs(contributors vs. non-contributors)

ER=Endangered Resources

Private insurance=purchased by livestock owners

agre

emen

t

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WI E

R fu

ndH

untin

g lic

ense

fees

Con

serv

atio

n or

gsP

rivat

e in

sura

nce

Fede

ral t

ax $

WI g

ener

al re

venu

e

Contributors (n=230)

Non-contributors (n=951)

Attitudes toward lethal control of wolves

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

livestockkilled

family petkilled

hunting dogkilled onpublic land

Contribution (n=230)No contribution (n=951)

favo

r le

thal

con

trol

* **

Pearson chi-square

* p<0.001

Attitudes regarding wolf management

Livestock producers* vs. Non-livestock producers

*Defined in this survey as all those individuals who at any time in their lives depended on raising livestock as a significant source of income, and also those individuals whose parents depended on raising livestock as a significant source of income.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Livestock producers(n=460)Non-livestock producers(n=830)ag

reem

ent

Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves?

Part 1

Pearson chi-square=65.0p<0.001

Should be compensated in any case

Only if following

BEST HUSBANDRY PRACTICES

Should not be compensated

Livestock producers(n=460)Non-livestock producers(n=830)

Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves?

Part 2

Pearson chi-square=15.5p<0.001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

agre

emen

t

Should be compensated in any case

Only if EVIDENCE

OF WOLF is found

Should NOT be

compensated

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

eS

trong

ly d

isag

ree

Livestock producers(n=432)

Non-livestock producers(n=785)

Losses/damages caused by wolves are a part of raising livestock and should not be compensated.(livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers)

Pearson chi-square=87.3p<0.001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

eS

trong

ly d

isag

ree

Livestock producers(n=436)

Non-livestock producers(n=792)

Even when wolves are no longer threatened or endangered, compensation programs should continue.(livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers)

Pearson chi-square=44.0p<0.001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WI E

R fu

ndH

untin

g lic

ense

fees

Con

serv

atio

n or

gsP

rivat

e in

sura

nce

Fede

ral t

ax $

WI g

ener

al re

venu

e

Livestock producers(n=460)Non-livestock producers(n=830)

Who should pay for compensation programs(livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers)

ER=Endangered Resources

Private insurance=purchased by livestock owners

agre

emen

t

Conclusions1. Broad support for compensation of livestock lost to wolves (91% of all

respondents vs. 95% among respondents who were contributors to ER fund).

2. Lower public support for compensation of hunting dogs killed by wolves (53% of all respondents vs. 44% among respondents who were contributors to ER fund).

3. Majority of respondents think that compensation should be predicated on: Evidence of wolf attack (80% of all respondents) Best Management Practices (67% of all respondents vs. 55% among respondents who were livestock producers)

Conclusions (cont.)Majority of respondents state compensation should be

predicated on evidence & BMP (including livestock producers).

Majority of respondents prefer ER fund as source of compensation.

The majority of contributors to ER opposed to lethal control of problem wolves but were willing to accept a public hunt or trapping season:“if depredations are unmanageable” (72%)“if sustainable” (42%)