a practitioners guide

Human-Wildlife
Conflict Management

Daniel J. Decker
T. Bruce Lauber
William F. Siemer
 Acknowledgments

Development of this guide was funded by the The following individuals contributed text that
Northeast Wildlife Damage Management appears in the guide as sidebars: Robert Lund,
Research and Outreach Cooperative and by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment (retired); Bill Clay, USDA Wildlife Services;
Station (Hatch Project NYC147403). Robert Schmidt, Utah State University; Robert
We received review comments from Paul Deblinger, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
Curtis, Gary San Julian, Lisa Chase, colleagues and Wildlife; and Len Carpenter, Wildlife Man-
in the Human Dimensions Research Unit, and agement Institute.
four anonymous reviewers. Their thoughtful For providing photographs, we are grateful
comments and suggestions greatly improved to: Paul Curtis and Gary Goff, Cornell Coopera-
the guide. tive Extension; John McConnell, USDA Wildlife
This document is a synthesis of research and Services; Mark Lowery, New York State Depart-
experience, and as such it relies on previously ment of Environmental Conservation; and Bill
published works. Most notably, we drew heavily Warren, The Ithaca Journal.
on Chase et al. (2000), Lauber and Knuth Some of the sidebars in this guide use brief
(2000), and Riley et al. (2002) to develop various excerpts from previously published materials.
sections of the guide. We are grateful for the au- Permission to use materials in this way was
thors permission to draw from these important graciously provided by Taylor & Francis, The
publications. Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wild-
We are grateful to Gail Blake for copyediting. life Society.
We are indebted to Phil Wilson for design, layout, Finally, we extend special thanks to the New
and production of the guide. York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation. Funding for much of the research
conducted by the Human Dimensions Research
Unit at Cornell University has been provided by
New York State through Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Grant WE-173-G. Many of the ideas
and applications discussed in this guide are
direct products of New Yorks sustained com-
Prepared by mitment to understanding and integrating the
Daniel J. Decker, T. Bruce Lauber, and William F. Siemer human and biological dimensions of wildlife
Human Dimensions Research Unit management.
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Copyright 2002, Northeast Wildlife Damage Manage-

ment Research and Outreach Cooperative
All rights reserved.

Cover photo by Tim Christie

 A Practitioners Guide

Human-Wildlife Conflict Management

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Part 1 Wildlife Damage Management in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Damage Management is Central to Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Management Focus on Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Stakeholder Involvement is Essential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Management: An Adaptive Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 2 Stakeholders Tolerance of Wildlife Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Wildlife Damage ManagementA Community Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wildlife Problem Tolerance Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Risk and Risk Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tolerance of Problem Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Acceptance of Management Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Inuences on Acceptance of Wildlife Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Part 3 Stakeholder Engagement in Wildlife Damage Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Step 1: Understanding Your Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Step 2: Identifying Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Step 3: Setting Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Step 4: Selecting a Stakeholder Engagement Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Step 5: Designing Stakeholder Engagement Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Step 6: Implementing Stakeholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Step 7: Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix: Human Dimensions Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Some Background About Human Dimensions Research Methods . . . . 39

Questions to Ask When Planning a Stakeholder Study . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 Introduction

he Northeast Wildlife Damage Man- investigating the human behavioral aspects of

T agement Research and Outreach

Cooperative was formed to advance
the eld of wildlife damage management in its
wildlife damage management for over 25 years.
Inquiries by researchers at Cornell and other
institutions and agencies have shed light on
13 member states. One goal of the cooperative stakeholder concerns about their interactions
is to support professionals with information with white-tailed deer, beaver, Canada geese,
needed to practice effective wildlife damage and other wildlife (e.g., Pomerantz et al. 1986,
management. Human-Wildlife Conict Manage- Siemer and Decker 1991). In this guide we
ment: A Practitioners Guide was developed with share insights about stakeholders with respect
this purpose. to wildlife damage issues. We also offer guid-
Comprehensive wildlife management inte- ance for designing and implementing wildlife
grates social and biological sciences (Decker damage management programs. The primary
et al. 1992). Traditionally, management deci- audience for this guide is state and federal wild-
sions have relied more heavily on insight from life agency staff in the 13 member states of the
the biological sciences than social assessments Northeast Wildlife Damage Management
of the human dimension. The purpose of this Research and Outreach Cooperative. Our sec-
guide is to help wildlife managers with bio- ondary audience is state extension staff in the
logical backgrounds integrate human dimen- Northeast.
sions considerations into wildlife damage This guide is organized into three parts. Part 1
management. We focus on two components of presents a conceptual foundation for the prac-
the human dimension: social assessment (e.g., tice of wildlife damage management. Part 2
stakeholder beliefs and attitudes) and stake- summarizes key insights about human toler-
holder engagement (e.g., citizen participation ance of negative interactions with wildlife. Part 3
and involvement). offers practical guidance on designing, imple-
Members of the Human Dimensions Re- menting, and evaluating stakeholder engage-
search Unit at Cornell University have been ment processes in support of wildlife damage
management objectives.

2
 Part 1

Wildlife Damage Management in Perspective

uman-Wildlife Conict Management: wildlife. We have adopted the following deni-

H A Practitioners Guide is based on a cer-

tain philosophy about wildlife damage
management. The four cornerstones of our
tion of wildlife management (Riley et al. 2002):
Wildlife management is the guidance of decision-
making processes and the implementation of prac-
philosophical foundation relate to the centrality tices to purposefully inuence interactions among
of damage management in wildlife manage- and between people, wildlife, and habitats to achieve
ment, dening management in terms of impacts impacts valued by stakeholders.
on people, stakeholder involvement, and wildlife
management as an adaptive process. We believe
these four ideas, described below, provide a solid
conceptual foundation on which to build your
wildlife damage management programs.

Damage Management is Central

to Wildlife Management
Wildlife damage management is no different
than any other focus for wildlife management
increasing net benet for society through pur-
COURTESY OF GARY GOFF

poseful intervention. Interventions can take

many formseducational communication to
inuence beliefs and attitudes; information,
training, incentives, and regulations to affect
human behavior; wildlife behavior modication;
and wildlife population control. The term impacts is central to our denition Fig. 1.1 Addressing
If certain wildlife populations continue to of wildlife management. We think of impacts as a human-wildlife conflicts
grow and conicts between people and wildlife special subset of the many effects resulting from is central to wildlife
damage management.
escalate, wildlife damage management may interactions among people, wildlife, and wildlife
become the major venue through which benets habitat. Interactions pertinent to wildlife damage
from public wildlife management are delivered management can be of several types (Table 1.1).
to individuals and communities. The demands
of wildlife damage management often require Wildlife-related effects and impacts
partnerships between state and federal agencies, Effects. Positive and negative outcomes of interactions
nongovernmental organizations, local govern- among wildlife, people, and wildlife habitat.
ments, communities, and private wildlife control Impacts. A subset of wildlife-related effects that a
professionals. stakeholder recognizes and regards as important.

Management Focus on Impacts Countless effects are caused by the interactions

This guide is based on the fundamental assump- between people, wildlife, and wildlife habitat.
tion that wildlife management is conducted to Many go unnoticed by stakeholders. But a subset
achieve a range of outcomes that people desire of effects are recognized by stakeholders and
outcomes such as the continued existence of interpreted as being important. Effects in this
wildlife, opportunities to utilize wildlife in sus- subset are impacts (Riley et al. 2002). Stake-
tainable ways, or relief from problems related to holders evaluate impacts as positive or negative,
3
Table 1.1 Interactions That May Lead to Impacts * ated with vehicle repair, the potential for personal
injury, or lost work time while his vehicle is being
Interaction type Example of interaction Example impacts repaired). These recognized and important effects
Wildlife interactions with Predation Reduced populations of would be considered impacts for this motorist.
other wildlife game animals Other effects may be recognized by this motorist,
Displacement of native
wildlife by exotics Extirpation of native wildlife but regarded with low importance. For instance,
the motorist may recognize that deer are damag-
Wildlife interactions with Deer browsing on native Reduced capacity for forest ing the local farmers corn crop, but believe that
their environment plants regeneration
this is an unimportant effect. There may be other
Loss of plant species
effects that the motorist fails to recognize at all.
diversity
For example, he may be unaware that the deer he
Interactions between wild- Deer browsing on crops Reduced crop yields sees may be inuencing the tree composition of
life and people
Deer browsing on ornamen- Reduced enjoyment of local forests, causing the decline of some spring
tal landscaping plants. residential property owering plants he enjoys during weekend walks
Deer crossing roads Risk to motorists in the local park, etc. The unimportant and unrec-
ognized effects are not impacts for the motorist
Interactions among people Value disputes regarding Community discord
where wildlife is the reason how to handle urban goose in our example (though other stakeholders may
Psychological stress
for the interaction problems regard them as very important impacts).
Public revelation of effects described by scien-
* Impacts are effects to which people ascribe high importance
tists is an important role of managers and edu-
cators, because those effects will not register with
good or bad. Much of wildlife damage man- stakeholders as impacts unless they are recog-
agement involves minimizing the negative nized and understood. Nevertheless, while scien-
(bad) impacts associated with wildlife. The tists, managers, or educators may explain effects,
range of all possible impacts is large, so it is it is ultimately stakeholders who interpret the ef-
useful to organize impacts into a manageable fects based on their values and determine relative
number of categories (Table 1.2). importance. It is a collective effort for various
A single interaction between wildlife and stakeholders to determine which effects consti-
people may generate both positive and negative tute impacts that deserve management attention.
impacts. Different stakeholders can have very dif- In summary, managing to achieve human ben-
ferent evaluations of the same interaction. Even etstaking action to achieve more or less of the
the same individual may perceive an interaction impacts people care aboutis a fundamental
as creating both positive and negative impacts. objective of wildlife management (Riley et al.
Whether that stakeholder evaluates the overall 2002). You can practice this principle by asking
interaction positively or negatively depends on three questions about your own programs.
how he or she personally weighs the importance
of each positive and negative impact. Guiding questions
The difference between wildlife-related effects What are the impacts that concern stakeholders for this
and wildlife-related impacts can be illustrated damage management issue?
by considering a specic interaction between Is my management program focused on the impacts
that matter most to stakeholders?
people and wildlife. Consider the following: a
Am I maximizing program effectiveness by investing in
person driving home from work observes a group
a suite of activities that will do the most to increase
of deer feeding at the edge of a corneld. The mo- positive impacts or reduce negative impacts?
torist in our example might quickly recognize
that this interaction produces a range of person-
ally important effects, some positive and some Stakeholder Involvement is Essential
negative. (e.g., enjoyment associated with seeing Stakeholder involvement in various aspects of
deer, excitement about participating in the up- wildlife management can yield many benets
coming hunting season, but also dread associated (Chase et al. 2000). The extent and nature of
with a possible collision with a deer, costs associ- stakeholder engagement will necessarily vary
4
depending on the circumstances; one size Table 1.2 Major Categories of Wildlife Impacts
doesnt t all situations (Chase et al. 1999).
Stakeholders are individuals and groups who Impact category Description Examples
may be affected by or can affect wildlife manage- Ecological Effects of inter- or intraspecific Perception that a wildlife species
ment decisions and programs (Decker et al. interactions among wildlife, and is in peril
1996:72). Stakeholders may be affected posi- interactions between wildlife and
Perceptions that a particular
habitats that affect human values
tively or negatively. Wildlife professionals tend ecosystem is being degraded
to think rst about the stakeholders who will
Cultural Effects that result from wildlife- Development of local hunting
benet from wildlife management. But thats related interactions (among wild- and trapping traditions
not the whole story. Consideration also must be life and people, and between
given to stakeholders who could be impacted people) that influence the ideas
important to a social group
negatively by management actions. Such trade-
offs are common when trying to optimize Health Effects on human health Health benefits associated with
benet from a wildlife resource across a spec- and safety and safety wildlife-related recreation
trum of stakeholders. Trade-offs associated with Injury from diseases transmitted
management alternatives need to be explicitly from wildlife to people
recognized through stakeholder engagement Psychological Enhancement or diminishment of Dread associated with perceived
processes. We discuss stakeholder engagement psychological well being for indi- risk of injury from encounters
more fully in Part 3 and offer guidelines for se- viduals, stakeholder groups, or with wildlife
society overall
lecting and designating roles for stakeholders.
A suite of unique impacts relates to how stake- Social Effects associated with inter- Formation of cooperative or
holders interact with one another with respect actions among stakeholders antagonistic relationships
between stakeholder groups
to wildlife damage events. Many controversies
about wildlife damage result in impacts for Economic Monetary effects produced by Tax revenue generated by
stakeholders. These may involve a variety of interactions among people hunting-related expenditures
human values, and represent some of the more
important and vexing impacts regularly dealt
ticular species may have exceeded the threshold
with by wildlife managers. However, stakehold-
of tolerance of some stakeholders, whereas
ers and managers are recognizing that resolu-
other stakeholders would accept more interac-
tion of most natural resource issues is not the
tions with the same species, in the same geo-
sole responsibility of agencies (Pinkerton 1999).
graphic area. Therein lie the ingredients for
Concerns of stakeholders often become commu-
controversy in wildlife damage management
nity issues, with those communities sharing
(Figure 1.2). This phenomenon is at the center
ownership of the processes to mitigate or en-
of most contemporary wildlife management
hance the impacts. Various community-based
issues, leading to the typical questions faced by
co-management arrangements allow sharing of
managers and stakeholders alike.
responsibility between state wildlife agencies,
NGOs, community groups, and local govern-
Typical questions
ment (Schusler 1999).
How many interactions of a certain type with a certain
species is enough?
Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity When are there too few or too many interactions?
Understanding stakeholders tolerance of wild- How does one determine the right condition (magni-
life problems is at the core of developing tudes of impacts, number of animals, etc.)?
damage management programs. This is cap- Whose stakes matter in calculating stakeholder accep-
tured in the concept of wildlife stakeholder tance capacity?
acceptance capacity (Box 1.1). What mitigation measures are needed to modify WSAC?
Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity
(WSAC) is a mixture of tolerance of problems These questions are often addressed in impact
and desires for benets from wildlife (Carpen- analyses that include some type of stakeholder
ter et al. 2000). Managers often nd that a par- engagement process. Cumulatively, these are
5
Box 1.1 Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity (WSAC) some of the more pressing questions wildlife
managers consider regularly in the Northeast
WSAC is the range of wildlife impacts ac- and time based on their understanding of and indeed across North America and worldwide.
ceptable to a given stakeholder, where the the acceptance capacities of different stake- Operationalizing WSAC differs from economic
term stakeholder can be operationalized holder groups. Determining which stake-
as an individual, group, or community (Car- holders are considered in those judgments,
valuation approaches where the net value of a
penter et al. 2000). and how their interests are weighed, are two wildlife resource can be dened as the sum of all
The lower limit of WSAC is the capacity of
of the central challenges facing wildlife its positive values minus the sum of its negative
managers. Issues of scale become critical in values (Conover 1997:298). Wildlife managers
the stakeholder to accept the absence of
these professional judgments. For wildlife
positive impacts of wildlife. The upper limit and policy makers need to recognize a difference
professionals, determining the relevant
of WSAC is the capacity of the stakeholder between objectively determined economic values
scales should follow, not precede, careful ar-
to tolerate the presence of negative impacts
ticulation of effects and impacts. With an of wildlife for various stakeholders and the impor-
of wildlife. A perspective relevant in wildlife
understanding of the effects that matter
damage management, Carpenter et al. tance of the impacts wildlife and management
most to stakeholders, wildlife managers can
(2000:10) describe WSAC as the ability of a can have on stakeholders sense of well-being, or
choose the best scale (e.g., local, regional,
given stakeholder group to carry the
national scale) at which to target manage- quality of life (Conover 1997:298). Economic val-
burden of a particular wildlife population
ment intervention. In some cases interven- uation is a necessary element in the algorithm,
in a specific geographic area. While this em-
tions at multiple scales will be indicated.
phasizes the negative attributes of wildlife, but Carpenter et al. (2000) argue that wildlife
the overall idea of WSAC is on optimizing Key assumptions. WSAC, a mixture of managers and policy makers should consider the
the suite of benefits associated with a sus- tolerance of problems and desires for bene-
tainable population of wildlife, including fits from wildlife, is at the center of most
impacts of wildlife and management on society
social, economic, and cultural benefits. contemporary wildlife management issues. more broadly. The stakeholder acceptance capac-
WSAC is a function of human beliefs and at- ity idea reects the need for weighting to balance
Several wildlife acceptance capacities, vary-
titudes (or values). Addressing these human the positive and negative aspects of human-wild-
ing among stakeholder groups, can exist in
traits is the central mission of wildlife man-
the same location. Farmers who have had life interactions, with emphasis on maximizing
agement. Historically, wildlife professionals
their crops damaged by deer, for example,
have placed heavy emphasis on manipulat- net benets from management, as opposed to
may have a different acceptance capacity
ing wildlife populations. This has had the minimizing conicts.
than deer hunters (Figure 1.2)
unintended consequence of elevating popu-
Operationalizing the acceptance capacity
The role of stakeholders in determining lation manipulation to the level of primary
WSAC. Wildlife is managed at levels deemed goal or mission. In fact, population manip- concept is complicated because different stake-
acceptable to society generally. Wildlife ulation is but one of many means to holders have different acceptance or tolerance
managers make judgments about the col- achieve the mission of addressing human capacities for the same population of animals,
lective acceptance capacity in a given place values impacted by wildlife.
in the same place, at the same time (Decker and
Purdy 1988). That is, the impacts of wildlife
(individuals or populations) can differ for differ-
Maximum cost and minimum benefit tolerance
ent people depending on the nature of their
Costs Benefits
stake. Some stakeholders may benet and some
High Low High Low
may be injured by the same animals. The ques-
tion facing wildlife managers is, How do we
create a management program that appropriately
balances these positive and negative impacts of
wildlife for various stakeholders?
Farmers

WSAC 1

Fig. 1.2 A hypothetical model of upper and lower wildlife

Hunters

stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) for white-tailed deer

WSAC 2
held by two stakeholder groups (farmers and deer hunters).
Farmers are willing to tolerate relatively low benefit levels,
but they also tolerate relatively low costs of deer. Hunters are
less tolerant of low benefit levels, but have a higher tolerance
for deer-related problems. Between these limits is a range of
cost-benefit levels (the dark-shaded area) acceptable to both
Overlap in WSAC1 stakeholder groups.
and WSAC 2

6
Determining WSAC through stakeholder Section Summary
involvement Wildlife management is a set of processes and
The wildlife management community has practices that purposefully inuences inter-
demonstrated considerable innovation in its actions among and between people, wildlife,
attempts to determine WSAC. Decker and Chase and habitat to achieve desired impacts, dened
(1997) and Chase et al. (2000) described the in terms of human values and objectives. The
evolution of agency efforts to seek and use stake- ultimate goal of wildlife damage management
holder input in wildlife management decision is to increase the net benet of wildlife for
making. Today, a variety of forms of citizen task society. This is achieved through purposeful
forces and other stakeholder involvement activi- interventions that address the effects of wild-
ties are doing the weighting (involvement ap- life and wildlife management that matter
proaches are discussed in greater detail in Part 3). most to stakeholders. Those important effects
In essence, most of these stakeholder processes are impacts.
are attempts to have citizens representing various Stakeholder involvement is an essential
stakeholder perspectives weight impacts of man- part of wildlife damage management. Wildlife
agement alternatives through deliberation. professionals should consider any individual
or group affected by wildlife or wildlife man-
Management: An Adaptive Process
agement as a stakeholder in management
Wildlife management necessarily must be adapt- decisions. The extent and nature of stake-
ing to new situations and new understandings holder engagement will vary across issues
emerg-ing from experience and the supporting and decisions. An idea called wildlife stake-
biological and social sciences. A new twist on a holder acceptance capacity is one conceptual
familiar concept, adaptive impact management tool to help wildlife managers consider stake-
(AIM) urges the wildlife manager to focus on holder interests and concerns identied
impacts and approach management as an adap- through citizen participation processes.
tive, constantly learning and improving process To be effective, wildlife management pro-
(Riley et al. 2002). grams must accept uncertainty and adapt to
A premise of AIM, the fourth cornerstone of changing circumstances and new under-
our philosophical foundation, is that we dont
standings developed through experience and
know all that we would like to as managers, but
research. Wildlife managers are encouraged
we are willing to admit it and apply enough rigor
to focus on impacts and approach manage-
to our management activities to ensure that we
ment as a process of experimentation, learn-
learn and improve through experience. Stake-
ing, and improvementan approach called
holders need to understand that a management
adaptive impact management (AIM; Riley et
program must be sufciently exible over time to
al. 2002). A premise of AIM is that we dont
adapt to what is learned as the program unfolds
know all wed like to as managers, but we are
and managers gain experience.
willing to apply enough rigor to our manage-
The practitioners of AIM (both professional
ment activities to ensure we learn and im-
managers and stakeholders engaged as partners
prove. Stakeholders need to understand the
in wildlife damage management) say, We dont
value of this approach.
have all the answers needed for developing a man-
Next, we turn our attention to understand-
agement program that will x this problem with
ing the factors that inuence stakeholder
certainty, but well apply what we do know, use
acceptance of both wildlife and management
our best judgment in those things we are less cer-
actions.
tain about, and will commit to learning from the
experience of the specic strategy and tactics we
employ. If we discover ways to improve the pro-
gram, we will adjust it to yield greater benets to
stakeholders. Stakeholders and managers who
appreciate the power of this approach embrace it.
7
 Part 2

Stakeholders Tolerance of Wildlife Problems

he Northeast is inundated with wildlife It is difcult or impossible for state wildlife agen-

T nuisance and damage problems. Along

with farmers and forest owners, an
array of rural, suburban, and urban stakeholders
cies to provide in-depth service to every commu-
nity with wildlife damage concerns. Expectations
of quick, no-cost, permanent solutions to wildlife
now regularly contact state agencies and univer- damage issues are unrealistic. Communities typi-
sity extension wildlife specialists seeking relief cally must come to grips with this reality before
from wildlife-related problems. Many people pos- any progress can be made. Often it takes shared
sess little knowledge about how to resolve such responsibility among wildlife managers, individ-
problems on their own. To make matters more uals, and communities (through local govern-
challenging, people seldom accurately assess the ment) to achieve an acceptable outcome. All
economic or health and safety risks associated involved should quickly accept that sustainable
with their situation. Consequently, their reactions management decisions and outcomes typically
may not be commensurate with actual economic take more time to reach than initially thought.
or health/safety implications; cases of both over- Wildlife managers need to identify and under-
reaction and underreaction are evident. stand the impacts that stakeholders commonly as-
sociate with wildlife damage. The following
Wildlife Damage Management section identies some of those impacts, through
A Community Focus a summary of research about how people respond
to wildlife damage and to actions taken to address
Negative wildlife interactions in a locale may cat-
stakeholder concerns about such damage.
alyze community-level concern and eventually
become controversial (Minnis and Peyton 1995). Wildlife Problem Tolerance Attitudes
Problems with white-tailed deer, Canada geese,
During the late 1980s, Cornells Human Dimen-
beaver, black bear, and other species can emerge
sions Research Unit (HDRU) developed a wild-
simultaneously in many communities across the
life attitudes and values scale (WAVS) to assess
landscape. Putting out these local brushres
beliefs about the value of different types of
consumes considerable agency resources.
human-wildlife interactions (Purdy and Decker
1989). This scale is useful to wildlife managers
Communities with wildlife damage issues tend to
in part because it provides an indicator about
expect immediate and undivided attention by their wildlife problem tolerance. Many applications of
state wildlife agency;
the scale in stakeholder studies have indicated
desire significant involvement in management plan-
ning and decision making; and
that peoples orientation toward wildlife can be
want effective diminishment of their problems . . .
characterized using four basic sets of beliefs.
fast,
with little cost (i.e., time or money from the Wildlife-related beliefs
community), social benefitsbeliefs about the value of wildlife and
in a one-shot solution that fixes the problem appreciation of its existence;
permanently, traditional conservationbeliefs about whether wildlife
with no harm to the wildlife concerned, and should be managed to provide benefits associated with
no reduction of positive aspects of the animals hunting and trapping;
presence in their community. communication benefitsbeliefs in the importance of
observing and talking about wildlife; and
problem tolerancebeliefs about whether people
should accept the risks associated with wildlife.

8
These ndings are pertinent to wildlife damage group (Slovic 1993). Riley and Decker (2000a)
management because they indicate that peoples reported that many Montana residents per-
beliefs about whether they should accept the ceived the risks of cougar attacks to be orders
risks associated with wildlife is one of their basic of magnitude higher than any reasonable ob-
considerations in how they relate to wildlife. A jective assessment of risk (Figure 2.2). Inaccu-
recent analysis of WAVS databases (Butler et al. rate perceptions are worthy of management
2001) shows that problem tolerance has been attention, in the form of educational commu-
declining steadily among both rural and nonrural nication, because stakeholders perception of
residents of New York State since the mid- risk precipitates management action.
1980sa fact that, if indicative of a general trend
in the Northeast, has implications for designing 3.8
damage management programs (Figure 2.1).
Rural Nonrural
Risk and Risk Perception 3.6

Mean problem tolerence

Wildlife poses various risks to peoplethe risk
of disease transmission, the risk of physical 3.4
injury, the risk of property damage. Tolerance of
wildlife depends in part on how people perceive
these risks (Knuth et al. 1992). 3.2
Two aspects of risk perceptions are of concern:
perceptions of the probability of an undesirable
3.0
outcome and the worry or dread associated with
that outcome (Slovic 1987). It is useful to distin-
guish between these aspects of risk perceptions 2.8
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
when working with stakeholders (Slovic 1993). Year
Some riskssuch as the risk of a bear attack
may be perceived to have low probability, but be Fig. 2.1 Trend in problem tolerance (on a scale of 1 to 5) of
dreaded because of the perceived consequence. rural and nonrural residents of New York State between 1984
Other riskssuch as that of deer damage to or- and 1996 (from Butler et al. 2001).

namental shrubsmay be perceived as highly

probable, but inspire little dread. Both aspects People are more willing to accept risks that are as-
inuence how people respond to risks. sumed voluntarily. For example, a homeowner
Other generalizations about risk perception who feeds deer may tolerate elevated risks of
provide useful background for wildlife managers: disease transmission, shrubbery damage, or a
deer-car collision. Her neighbor may vigor-
Peoples tolerance for a risk decreases as their per-
ously protest the same level of risk because
ception of the probability of the risk increases. In
she did not assume these risks by choice.
studies of two very different kinds of wildlife
problems, the risks of cougar attacks in Mon- Risks with low probability, but severe conse-
tana and the risks of deer-vehicle collisions in quences tend to increase dread and elevate per-
New York State, people were more likely to ceived risks. For example, people camping in
favor population reductions as their percep- wilderness areas might dread bear attacks
tion of risks increased (Riley and Decker a low probability, high consequence event. As
2000a, Stout et al. 1993). a result, they may come to develop a perceived
risk that far exceeds the actual probability of
Objective risk assessments may help managers
such an attack.
predict the likelihood of damage, but risk percep-
tions are what stimulate stakeholder action. Risks to children are less tolerable than risks to
Often a discrepancy will exist between objec- adults. Concern about children will be ex-
tive assessments of risk and perceived risk pressed in any wildlife issue that involves a
among individuals of a given stakeholder
9
 threat to human health or safety. For example,
Deaths per million
people per year in suburban areas, goose droppings can
Please circle a z 1,000,000
become a problem in parks and schoolyards.
single letter in Fears that the droppings are a health risk often
y
this column that run quite high because children are among
corresponds to x
those most likely to be exposed. Risks to chil-
the relative risk w
you perceive that dren may be of greater concern in part be-
v 100,000 Climbing Mt. Everest One out of
mountain lions cause adults recognize that children have less
pose to people u every ten people who try to climb
Mt. Everest is killed in the attempt. capacity to assess risks accurately and make
in Montana t
informed choices about risk exposure.
s Stuntman A stuntman faces this
level of risk on the job. People perceive risks to be higher if they are not
r 10,000
distributed equitably. In the early 1990s, New
q
York State considered restoring moose to
p
Motorcycles Driving a motorcycle northern New York. Many local residents ve-
o on Montana highways is this risky. hemently opposed the restoration because
n 1,000 they believed that tourists, who wanted to see
m
moose, would receive most of the benets,
l whereas local residents, who lived in the area
Nearly 20%
of Montanans k Automobiles Driving a car or year round, would have to bear a higher risk
believed risks j pickup in Montana exposes
100
passengers to this level of risk. of moose-vehicle collisions.
of cougars
i
were greater
Tractors If you drive a farm
Risk perceptions decrease if benets associated
than this. h
tractor, you are exposed to this with those risks become clear. Many farmers, for
g level of risk. example, are willing to accept a certain level
f 10 of deer damage to their crops if they also hunt
e deer, thereby beneting from deer.
d
c Commercial airlines Flying on a
b 1 commercial airline is this risky. Fig. 2.2 Risk ladder used to elicit risk perceptions of cougars
a 0 in Montana, 1997. Nearly 20% of respondents believed risks
No risk of cougars were greater than the risks incurred by riding in
an automobile (from Riley and Decker 2000a).

COURTESY OF PAUL CURTIS

Fig. 2.3 Risks to children
often are less tolerable
than risks to adults.

10
 Understanding and managing risk percep- Box 2.1 Case Study: Somethings Bruin in New Hampshire
tions can be a critical component of managing
human-wildlife conicts (Knuth et al. 1992). Like their colleagues throughout the ability to address problems associated with
Inuencing risk perceptions to gain greater Northeast, wildlife managers in the New big game, including bear. That effort led to
Hampshire Department of Fish and Game creation of a Bear Education Team in 1995.
tolerance may be critical when reducing (NHF&G) are witnessing an increase in Its goal was to foster a broad appreciation
damage below a certain level is impractical. negative interactions between people and knowledge of black bears and to pro-
The ndings on risk perception summarized and black bears. The black bear population mote public acceptance of responsibility
above suggest numerous messages that could in New Hampshire has not increased for minimizing human-bear conflicts. The
markedly in recent years. However, New Teams educational campaignSome-
be communicated to reduce stakeholders risk Hampshire has experienced the fastest rate things Bruin in New Hampshirewas
perceptions about wildlife damage without any of human population growth in the North- launched in 1996. The campaign included
change in the size of the wildlife population of east, and new residential development is television advertisements, publications, a
occurring in prime bear habitat. web site, and a traveling slide show. The
concern. These include messages about the like-
primary message of the campaign was that
lihood of risks, actions that may be taken to The Department entered into an agree-
most negative interactions with bears were
ment with USDA Wildlife Services in 1986
reduce risks, and benets associated with prob- associated with human behavior. The cam-
that led to better monitoring of nuisance
lem species. paign provided specific, consistent mes-
bear complaints. Monitoring efforts re-
sages about how people could avoid or
vealed a relatively constant level of agricul-
minimize negative encounters with bears.
Tolerance of Problem Species tural damage complaints, but a steady
It also provided information on what to do
increase in nonagricultural property com-
Knowing the spectrum of attitudes held by the plaints and human-bear interactions that
if one encounters a black bear.
general population is useful as a backdrop for raised human safety concerns. For exam- The program was expanded in 1999 with
wildlife damage management, but insufcient ple, in 2000, officials received 744 requests the addition of a toll-free bear education
for assistance with bear problems. Most phone service, operated cooperatively by
for explaining how various stakeholders actually
requests (82%) were from homeowners, the Department and Wildlife Services. This
respond to specic damage situations. Studies campground operators, and nonagricul- enhanced information service is designed
of damage tolerance for specic species, in specic tural businesses. Careful record keeping to increase public access to technical assis-
areas, for specic stakeholder groups have helped confirmed that a large proportion of prob- tance by providing citizens, seasonal resi-
lematic interactions involved bears at- dents, and visitors with timely, consistent
us generalize about the types of wildlife impacts
tracted to garbage and bird feeders. professional advice and recommendations
that concern stakeholders. There are three broad to deal with site-specific conflicts.
In 1994, NHF&G formed a Conflict Abate-
types of impacts. ment Team to refine the Departments Source: Calvert and Ellingwood 2001

Types of wildlife damage

Economic impacts occur when wildlife damage affects People vary in their perceptions of what consti-
stakeholders incomes. Farmers, orchardists, forest tutes intolerable damage. People suffering the
owners, and nursery owners are particularly susceptible same types and amounts of losses to wildlife
to this type of impact.
may disagree about whether that damage is
Wildlife cause a variety of health and safety impacts,
real and perceived. These tend to be of three kinds excessive. Thus, an objective eld assessment
disease (e.g., Lyme disease), motor vehicle collisions of the extent of wildlife damage will not tell
(e.g., with deer and moose), and physical threat (e.g., managers whether stakeholders tolerance has
bear attacks).
been exceeded.
Negative psychological impacts occur when wildlife dis-
turb stakeholders normal activities or environment. Stakeholders do not respond to all negative
Deer damage to ornamental plants, goose feces in impacts in the same way. Health and safety
public areas, and excessive noise from urban crow impacts (e.g., Lyme disease, wildlife-vehicle
roosts are examples. Many nuisance problems have as-
sociated costs, but the economic effect on stakeholders collisions) often are a greater concern than
is less significant than the psychological impacts. property damage, even among those who have
experienced property damage. However, accep-
For each type of impact, key questions for man- tance of lethal management methods is more
agers are (1) how much of the impact will people closely correlated with concerns about property
tolerate and (2) how will stakeholders react
when the impacts exceed their tolerance? Here
again, studies have provided insights into these
questions.
11
 100 Stakeholders concerned about damage who per-
People concerned about deer-car accidents
ceive a rising wildlife population are less tolerant
People concerned about damage to of that damage than those who perceive a stable
yard plantings
80 or declining population. This relationship
Percent finding technique acceptable

seems to hold true regardless of whether

stakeholders perceptions are correct. Wildlife
60 managers need to understand that the best
scientic estimate of risk typically is not the
basis of peoples tolerance. A recent surge in
40
wildlife observations may lead people to infer
damage has increased whether or not this is
the case (Riley and Decker 2000b).
20
Negative impacts inuence population and man-
agement preferences. People are more likely to
0 want a population decrease if they believe a
Sharpshooting Bow and arrow Drug, capture,
hunting and kill deer high probability of negative impacts exists or if
they personally have experienced such im-
pacts. Similarly, people concerned about such
Fig. 2.4 Acceptability of lethal deer management methods impacts are more willing to accept lethal and
in Amherst, New York, by type of deer-related concern.
invasive management actions.
(Data from Loker et al. 1999)
Even in wildlife damage situations stakehold-
damage than with concerns about health and ers tend to recognize that wildlife has positive as
safety impacts (Figure 2.4). well as negative impacts. Positive impacts inter-
relate with the negative ones and inuence
Many stakeholders will take precautions to avoid
peoples tolerance overall for wildlife damage:
negative impacts. Precautionary measures may
include farmers applying for permits to kill Positive interests in a species tend to increase
nuisance deer, homeowners applying repel- tolerance for problems associated with the species.
lents to deter damage to ornamental plants, Farmers who hunt are more likely to accept
motorists driving cautiously, and people some crop damage. Suburban residents
spending less time outdoors to avoid Lyme who like to see geese in their local parks are
disease. All these actions involve some modi- more willing to put up with goose feces on
cation of peoples behavior in response to the grass.
wildlife. Costs associated with some actions If costs become great enough, many stakeholders
may be signicant (e.g., costs for both deter- will come to believe that the costs of wildlife exceed
rents and replacement of damaged ornamen- the benets, leading to diminishment of their
tal/landscaping plants). appreciation of these benets. Failure to address
History of experience greatly inuences problem the breadth of negative impacts can lead to
tolerance. Comments such as Im fed up diminishment of a wildlife resource to pest
with. . ., Ive had it up to here with... and status among stakeholders whose concerns
I cant stand anymore of. .. are indications of are ignored.
intolerance based on a history of experiences
with wildlife problems. Interestingly, this cuts Acceptance of Management Actions
two ways. Some stakeholders become accus- Wildlife damage management often presents a
tomed to the extent of damage experienced double challenge because people associated with
and essentially learn to live with it. It does not situations in which problems occur may dis-
present an unknown risk for them; they agree about how to proceed. As a result, pro-
have learned to accommodate it. posed management actions become a source of
controversy. Therefore, damage management re-
12
quires an understanding of both the impacts of 45
wildlife and the impacts of management actions.
40

Percent support for management techniques

While many people are most concerned with
how management actions reduce the problems, 35
effectiveness of actions at reducing wildlife
damage is a secondary consideration to those not 30
concerned about the damage in the rst place. 25
For such stakeholders, the most important im-
pacts of management actions may be cost, safety, 20
or the pain and suffering of animals.
15

Acceptance of management actions 10

some considerations
5
Based in part on stakeholder concerns about impacts of
wildlife and in part on concerns about impacts of wild-
0
life management actions. Lethal Trap and transfer Fertility Other nonlethal
Agreement with management outcome objectives does methods control methods
not necessarily indicate agreement with management
actions to accomplish objectives.
Fig. 2.5 Percent support for different types of deer
management techniques among Irondequoit, New York
It is essential to distinguish stakeholder agree- residents who wanted a large decrease in the deer
ment with management objectives from accep- population. (Data from Lauber and Knuth 1998)
tance of management actions. Stakeholder
agreement on management objectives is essen-
of management actions that are most important
tial, but does not equate to agreement on accept-
to different stakeholders can aid in the develop-
able actions to accomplish objectives. Agreement
ment of acceptable management strategies.
on ends is necessary, but not sufcient, to gain
agreement on means. A community may gener-
Economic impacts
ally agree that it is desirable to reduce ornamen- The chief economic impact of management ac-
tal plant damage and the incidence of motor tions are the costs of implementation. These
vehicle accidents involving deer, but some stake- costs may be borne by individuals (for actions,
holders within the community may disagree such as wildlife deterrents, that are implemented
strongly about how to achieve those ends. Some by individuals) or by communities (for imple-
may favor driver education and the replacement menting more broadly targeted management ac-
of ornamental plants with species less palatable tions, such as selective culling programs carried
for deer. Others may favor reduction of the deer out by paid shooters). High costs, even if benets
population. Among the latter group, some may will greatly exceed expenditures, may deter
support lethal control, whereas others reject that landowners from taking steps to reduce wildlife
approach in favor of nonlethal methods. This damage on their properties. Opposition to some
basic scenario can exist for geese, beaver, or any community-wide management strategies, such
other species. as fertility control and selective culling programs,
Among stakeholders for whom reducing wild- often is based partially on costs to taxpayers. De-
life damage is paramount, the most cost-effec- spite resistance to pay for solutions at the com-
tive means of achieving that end is often munity level, investments of time and money in
preferredmany stakeholders will favor hunting wildlife damage control typically are forthcoming
in such cases, but others will not (Figure 2.5). if stakeholder acceptance capacity is exceeded.
Those who place higher importance on other im-
pacts, such as minimizing the pain and suffer-
ing of wildlife, may seek different management
strategies. Therefore, understanding the impacts
13
 modifying plants to make them less palatable for
wildlife has the potential to arouse opposition.

Nuisance impacts
In addition to economic and safety concerns,
management actions may negatively affect
people in other ways. Many rural landowners are
concerned about behavior of hunters (e.g., litter-
ing, damaging property) they do not know using
their lands (Siemer and Brown 1993, Lauber and
Brown 2000). Consequently, landowners willing
to allow hunting access to people they know still
may prohibit hunting by strangers, thereby pos-
sibly limiting the effectiveness of hunting as a
COURTESY OF PAUL CURTIS

management tool.
Lethal strategies implemented in urban and
suburban areas, such as selective culling pro-
grams, typically require restricting peoples activ-
ities in certain areas to promote safety. For
example, people need to be kept away from bait
Fig. 2.6 Many landowners do not allow hunting on their
properties because of concerns about hunter behavior.
sites where deer are being shot, and roads near
these sites may be closed for this reason. Al-
though the implementation of these strategies
Health and safety impacts usually is timed to interfere the least with
The safety of hunting and other lethal manage- peoples activities, such restrictions annoy some.
ment strategies is a major concern to some Noise concerns also accompany some actions.
stakeholders. Landowners in rural areas who be- Methods involving the discharge of rearms
lieve that hunting is necessary for controlling may make enough noise to bother some stake-
wildlife damage may nevertheless restrict it on holders. For this reason, some communities
their properties because of safety concerns. The have required the use of silencers on rearms
concentration of people in urban and suburban during harvest operations. Noise-making scare
areas leads many stakeholders to believe that devices also present potential noise nuisance.
lethal management strategies are unsafe, even if
they feel wildlife populations need to be reduced. Recreational impacts
As interest in fertility control has grown, con- Management strategies also can have recre-
cerns have been raised about the consequences ational impacts. Because some stakeholders are
of people eating the meat of animals that have concerned about safety of hunting or other lethal
been treated with contraceptive drugs. Because means, they may be less likely to use private or
contraceptive technology is still experimental, public open spaces for recreation when these
many questions remain unanswered about strategies are being implemented.
whether the meat of treated animals contains
drug residues and, if it does, what affects this Intangible impacts
may have for people who consume it. Management also may have impacts on the
Other measures also raise health concerns. more intangible values people associate with
People may fear the health effects of using chem- wildlife. Some people may value the presence of
ical repellents on vegetation to deter wildlife a large wildlife population in their area, consid-
feeding. And even the prospects of genetically ering it a sign of ecosystem health. At the same
population level that others associate with unac-
ceptable problems, these stakeholders are satis-
ed. Actions that lower the population from
14
these levels may, therefore, decrease satisfaction Box 2.2 New Jerseys Bear Hunting Debate
for these stakeholders.
The ethics of lethal techniques and invasive, Black bear hunting in New Jersey was tors expressed a lack of confidence in the
nonlethal strategies (such as contraception and closed statewide in 1970. Bear numbers in- Divisions bear population estimate and
creased in northern New Jersey during the Governor Christie Whitman asked the Divi-
surgical sterilization) often are a concern for 1990s. State wildlife officials estimated the sion to set a more conservative bear harvest
many individuals (Box 2.2). Some stakeholders bear population to be 1,0001,200 in the goal (175 animals in the first season). Shortly
are concerned primarily with minimizing the suf- year 2000 and predicted that the bear pop- thereafter, the New Jersey Fish and Game
ulation could double by 2006 if unchecked. Council voted unanimously to approve the
fering of wildlife. Others may believe that human
proposed bear hunt. However, in light of
interference with wildlife populations is an unac- The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
public criticism, the committee reduced the
received over 1,600 nuisance-bear com-
ceptable intrusion into natural systems. target bear harvest to 175 and they reduced
plaints in 1999 (nearly twice the number of
the proposed hunting season length by six
complaints they had received in 1998), in-
Influences on Acceptance of Management days. By late June, the full Senate had voted
cluding 29 home entries, 25 livestock kills,
to stop the proposed bear hunt, but the bill
The discussion thus far has indicated several fac- 40 pet attacks, and 34 incidents involving
still needed to be approved by the New
an aggressive bear. No human injuries oc-
tors that inuence stakeholder acceptance of Jersey Assembly and signed by the Governor
curred, but wildlife officials and others
management objectives and actions. Chief among before it would become law. The bill pro-
became increasingly concerned about the
posed to stop bear hunting for five years
these are stakeholders beliefs and attitudes about potential for such injuries.
and allot $95,000 to research on alternative
human-wildlife interactions. Experience and In March 2000, the New Jersey Fish and means of managing black bears.
study have shown two other considerations loom Game Council (which sets Division policy)
By September 2000, 26 towns in New Jersey
proposed a bear hunting season for fall of
large in stakeholder acceptance of management: had adopted resolutions calling for the
2000 as a means to reduce the bear popula-
perception of agency image/credibility and per- state to stop the bear hunt. A collective of
tion and bear-human conflicts. The goal of
hunt opponents (e.g., the Sierra Club, The
ception of the process followed to develop man- the proposed hunt was to reduce the bear
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, Humane
agement strategy and tactics. population by two-thirds within three
Society of the U.S.) filed suit in the Superior
years, starting with a harvest of 350 bears
Courts Appellate Division, asking the
during the first season.
judges to review the decision to allow a
Agency credibility and image
The hunting proposal generated strong op- harvest of 175 bears. The Governor and
Agency image is vital to the success of manage- position from several sources for several state legislators received thousands of let-
ment. Stakeholder support for agency programs reasons. The Humane Society of the U.S. ters and emails protesting the hunt. Under
is closely related to the image people hold of argued that the states proposal would not a rising tide of protest, Governor Whitman
deal specifically with problem bears. They directed the New Jersey Division of Fish and
an agency (Decker 1985). Image consists of suggested that bear population estimates Wildlife to call off the hunt for at least one
public perception of three basic components were inflated and the proposed harvest was year. In its place, the Governor proposed a
(Figure 2.7): too high. They also argued that hunting $1 million bear-management program that
was inhumane and unnecessary to protect would lead to more education about living
management functionor the activities an human safety. They suggested that the Di- with bears, police training to deal with nui-
agency carries out; vision use negative conditioning or other sance bears, and hiring of four new wildlife
nonlethal means to reduce human-bear control officers to respond to nuisance bear
agency staffor the characteristics of person- conflicts. Organized animal welfare groups complaints. In 2000, State wildlife officials
nel who carry out these activities; and lobbied state legislators to stop the pro- implemented an aggressive public educa-
posed hunt. tion program and a program that trained
communication behavioror agency efforts police and park officials to implement the
In mid-June, 2000, New Jerseys Senate Envi-
both to share information with and to seek in- ronment Committee passed a bill to prohibit
states nuisance bear response protocol.
formation from the public. the proposed bear hunt. Some state Sena- Source: New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 2000

Meaningful stakeholder involvement is central

to improving any of these components. Stake- sires. Because they are particularly effective at
holder involvement gives the public the opportu- promoting this understanding, approaches to
nity to shape management function. For stakeholder involvement that allow people to de-
example, it can help match impact change objec- liberate directly with each other (such as citizen
tives for problem species with public tolerance. task forces) are often useful.
Stakeholder involvement also can improve un- Stakeholder involvement improves percep-
derstanding of the wants and needs among all tions of agency staff because interaction between
stakeholders and help people to understand why the public and agency staff (1) showcases staff
management objectives and actions may not be
perfectly in accord with their own personal de-
15
 public relations is a necessary compo-
nent of effective wildlife damage man-
agement. Public relations has been
Impressions of equated to performance plus recogni-
agency staff tion. Agencies must both (1) strive for
the highest level of performance and
(2) ensure that the public is aware of
their good efforts. Stakeholder in-
volvement contributes to both aspects,
providing a rm foundation for
management.

Process is important
Wildlife managers can be overheard
Agency Perceived lamenting the good old days when they
communication management apparently simply sized up a situation,
behavior function unilaterally decided what was needed,
and made it happen! Managers patience
for process is characteristically thin and
acceptance of the value of process slow
to come. Involving stakeholders in deci-
Fig. 2.7 The three components of agency image. sion-making processes has been resisted strenu-
ously in some quarters. Nevertheless, stakeholder
involvement is occurring with greater frequency
expertise and (2) demonstrates receptivity to and becoming the norm in wildlife damage man-
stakeholder concerns. Impressions of agency agement (Chase et al. 2000).
staff may be most improved if the staff are not Process is an important component of sound
caught in the middle, single-handedly trying to management. It is a mistake to think that people
craft agreements that will meet diverse stake- care only about the substance of management
holder needs. Rather, contact with agency staff is decisions and actions. If managers carefully
most benecial to agency credibility and image weigh all available information and make the
when staff advise and consult with stakeholders, best decision possible under the circumstances,
but allow them the opportunity to directly inter- some assume that people will be satised. But
act with each other about their needs. this is demonstrably not true in many cases!
Communication behavior is often the weakest Rather, the process by which decisions are
component of agency image. People may ap- reached plays a crucial role in shaping impres-
prove of management function and think highly sions of those decisions. A satisfactory decision
of agency staff, but still believe that communica- reached by an unsatisfactory process will leave
tion is a problem. Communication is often a many stakeholders unhappy. A satisfactory
challenge because of the diversity of stakehold- process, on the other hand, can increase the ac-
ers and their interests relevant to each issue. ceptability of a basically good decision.
Agencies are most successful in their communi-
cation if they tailor messages for particular Factors that influence satisfaction with
stakeholder groups and communicate through decision-making processes
channels these groups routinely use. adequate opportunity for stakeholders to participate in
Because image is so closely related to public the process;
support, our take-home message is that effective agency receptivity to stakeholder input;
the chance for stakeholders to have a genuine influence
on the decision being reached; and
the quality of knowledge and reasoning of agency staff.

16
Despite our continually improving understand- brace stakeholder engagement gain the ability to
ing of how people perceive process, designing approach wildlife damage management as a
stakeholder involvement processes tailored to transactional, interactive, collaborative activity in
specic situations and stakeholder needs is as communities. Stakeholder engagement does not
much art as analysis. A variety of contextual fac- devalue the role of the wildlife management
tors can shape the choice of the best process professional. In fact, effective stakeholder engage-
for a situation, including: ment creates a better environment for communi-
cation between wildlife professionals and
how much people worry about these problems;
management stakeholders, and this means more
stakeholders perceptions of wildlife popula- opportunities for the wildlife professionals exper-
tion size and recent trends; tise and insight to be considered in community
acceptable methods of management; and deliberation about a wildlife management issue.
opinions about the roles stakeholders should
play in management. Perfect versus good enough
The full range of impacts is extensive and the in-
Considering how these factors should affect teraction between impacts can be complex. How-
process design is a complex balancing act con- ever, the important thing to keep in mind is that
sidered more fully in the next part of this guide. a wildlife manager doesnt need exhaustive infor-
As the complexity and community specicity mation about every impact to make good deci-
of wildlife damage management issues in- sions. Decision makers are often unable to
creases, co-management approachesthose in reconcile the multiple conicting desires of
which the responsibilities of management are stakeholders or to conduct an analysis in a more
broadly shared by wildlife agencies and other critical or formal process (e.g., optimization,
stakeholdersare being explored more fre- maximization). He or she proceeds with what
quently (Decker et al. 2000, Schusler et al. may not be the perfect decision, but one that is
2000). The role of deliberation in achieving good enough. The term satiscing some-
collective purpose, relationship building and times is used to describe the qualitative decision-
commitment to action is a key element in making techniques used to select acceptable
community-based co-management (Schusler alternatives (Eilon 1995).
2001). Such interactions often involve profes- The question of what is good enough is gener-
sionally designed and executed processes. ally answered by consensus or prevailing social
We have come to refer to the entire complex and professional norms. Whereas satiscing is
of input, involvement, and educational communi- criticized for a lack of rigor, this mode of deci-
cation processes needed for much contemporary sion making often is adequate in wildlife
wildlife damage management as engagement. damage management because stakeholders fre-
Wildlife damage managers are nding that en- quently agree that it results in an acceptable
gaging communities by way of multiple processes range of impacts (Fischoff et al. 1981). An ac-
is required to achieve acceptable and sustainable ceptable alternative generally is more reasonable
management programs. This is especially true for to identify and implement in a timely fashion
co-management, where multiple partners negoti- than the unattainable perfect alternative. We
ate and assume various roles and responsibilities. address how to design a process to select a good
Stakeholder engagement is more than a collec- enough alternative in the next part.
tion of management activities. Wildlife managers
who embrace a philosophy of engagement natu-
rally avoid simply talking at stakeholders, trying
to impose their views on stakeholders, or over-
looking important impacts. Managers who em-

17
 Section Summary efforts to listen to and share information with
This section focused on the factors that inu- the public). Improving any of these compo-
ence stakeholder acceptance of impacts caused nents contributes to a better overall agency
by both wildlife and management actions. We image and, therefore, can help generate sup-
suggest that tolerance of wildlife actions is a port for management programs. Meaningful
function of the impacts of greatest concern to stakeholder involvement is central to these
stakeholders. In our judgment, the majority improvements.
of these concerns fall into three broad areas: The process by which decisions are made
economic impacts, health and safety impacts, is a critically important component of sound
and nuisance impacts. For each type of impact, wildlife management. Managers at one time
key questions for managers are (1) how much assumed that the substance of management
of the impact will people tolerate and (2) how decisions and actions were all that people
will they respond when the impacts exceed cared about. Experience has proved otherwise.
their tolerance? The process by which decisions are reached
Wildlife management actions often are con- also plays a crucial role in shaping impres-
troversial. Stakeholders can differ widely on sions of those decisions. A satisfactory deci-
their assessments of the most important im- sion reached by an unsatisfactory process will
pacts of management actions. Many people are leave many stakeholders unhappy. A satisfac-
most concerned with how actions reduce the tory process, on the other hand, can increase
problems particular wildlife species cause. the acceptability of a basically good decision.
This, however, is a secondary consideration Fortunately, the process characteristics that
for those not concerned about the damage in stakeholders desire are known and within
the rst place. For these stakeholders, the most our power to achieve.
important impacts of management actions The complexity of addressing wildlife im-
may be nancial cost, safety, or pain and suf- pacts can be daunting. The full range of im-
fering of animals. Stakeholder agreement on pacts is extensive and the interactions complex.
management objectives is essential, but this However, the important thing to keep in mind
achievement does not equate to agreement on is that you dont need exhaustive information
acceptable actions to accomplish objectives. A about every impact to make good decisions.
well-grounded understanding of the impacts You will not need perfect information, nor will
of management actions most important to dif- you be faced with the challenge of nding a
ferent stakeholders can aid development of single perfect decision. Using concepts such
acceptable management strategies. as wildlife acceptance capacity should allow you
Agency image is vital to successful wildlife to identify a range of management objectives
damage management. Stakeholder support and actions that will be acceptable to stakehold-
for damage management programs is closely ers. Using the concept of impact management
related to the image people hold of an agency. will allow you identify suites of actions that
Image consists of three basic components: could achieve management goals. In Part 3,
management function (the activities an agency we suggest a set of practical steps by which
carries out); agency staff (the characteristics of you can design wildlife damage management
personnel who carry out management activi- programs that effectively address the impacts
ties); and communication behavior (agency of greatest concern to your stakeholders.

18
 Part 3

Stakeholder Engagement in Wildlife Damage Management

ngaging stakeholders (a.k.a. citizen model to wildlife damage issues can help you

E participation) in management is a
common goal and often a challenge
for wildlife managers. We dene stakeholder
gauge how best to respond to stakeholders.

Stages in evolution of a wildlife damage issue

engagement as involvement of stakeholders in Concern. During the concern stage, individuals or
making, understanding, implementing or evaluat- groups identify undesirable impacts of wildlife.
ing wildlife management decisions. Involvement. In the involvement stage, some people
Stakeholder engagement simply means that with concerns start to seek support from each other and
begin to contact decision makers about their concerns.
wildlife managers are communicating with and Residents living adjacent to a natural area may hold an
involving people outside of their agency. Mem- informal meeting to assess how many of them have ex-
bers of environmental organizations, homeown- perienced a problem (i.e., negative impacts). Wildlife
managers and local government officials may start to
ers, wildlife damage service providers, farmers,
receive letters and telephone calls complaining about
forest owners, hunters, and many others are all negative impacts and asking for relief. In this stage,
potential stakeholders. Local and state govern- stakeholders may regard a situation quite differently.
ment ofcials are stakeholders, too. Some may believe the problem is too many animals.
Others may think that people simply have failed to
Strategies for effective stakeholder engage- adapt to the wildlife species. Still others may define the
ment vary by context. No simple recipe can lead problem as a general lack of tolerance for nature.
you to do it right. However, following a few Issue. In the issue stage, general agreement will form
general steps can help guide an engagement about the primary impacts. Agreement about the exis-
process. tence and nature of a problem is essential to progress
toward resolution.
Alternatives. People suggest different actions for ad-
Seven steps to guide design of stakeholder dressing the impacts of concern (i.e., the issue) during
engagement the alternatives stage.
understanding your situation; Consequences. After potential alternative actions have
identifying stakeholders; been proposed, the consequences are evaluated from a
variety of perspectives. How will they affect the impacts
setting objectives;
that most concern the community? How much will al-
selecting a stakeholder involvement approach; ternative actions cost? Will these actions themselves
designing strategies; have undesirable impacts? Who will benefit? Who will
implementing your strategies; and suffer? Stakeholders likely will reach different initial
conducting evaluation. conclusions about the answers to such questions.
Choice. Stakeholders deliberate about what alterna-
tives to adopt in the choice stage. Individuals or groups
We discuss these steps generally, as a foundation may come out in favor of or opposition to a variety of
on which you can build an engagement strategy possibilities. Agencies must decide how to respond to
stakeholders following thorough assessment of trade-
to suit your specic needs. offs. Ideally, stakeholders themselves will resolve dif-
ferences and settle on a set of acceptable actions.
Step 1: Understanding your Situation Implementation. In the implementation stage, a man-
Ones approach to engaging stakeholders in wild- agement action, or more likely a set of management
life damage management depends on how far a actions, is put into effect.
Evaluation. The impacts of management actions are
wildlife damage issue has developed. A useful
assessed during the evaluation stage. Whether or not a
framework for this assessment (Figure 3.1; Hahn formal evaluation takes place, people develop judg-
1990) describes eight stages through which ments about the actions taken.
public issues typically progress. Applying this

19
 Also, it is common for different stakeholders
Concern to be at different stages of issue evolution at any
concerns or particular time. Some citizen groups may orga-
interests nize and become active on an issue early. Those
identified groups may develop very clear opinions about
what alternatives are worth considering and what
the important consequences of those alternatives
are before other stakeholders are even aware of
Involvement the breadth of concerns in the community.
Evaluation
those with
decision is Understanding which stakeholders are at
concerns seek
evaluated which stage in issue evolution is important be-
support
cause a response that can be helpful and appro-
priate at one stage may be useless or even
harmful at another. For example, if all important
stakeholders have a good understanding of pos-
Issue sible alternatives, it can be very helpful for an
Implementation
issue requiring
decision is agency to start exploring the consequences of
attention is
implemented those alternatives and informing stakeholders
defined
about them. However, if an agency begins ex-
ploring the consequences of alternatives before
stakeholders concerns are well understood by
the active community, many important concerns
Alternatives may be missed and the public may be left with
Choice
actions are the impression that the agency is simply trying
a decision
proposed to
is made to advance its own agenda.
address issue

Being proactive about stakeholder engagement

allows agencies to
Consequences make sure all important stakeholders are at the table;
various establish positive working relationships with
alternatives stakeholders;
evaluated develop a positive public image and credibility with
stakeholders; and
begin stakeholder education early and contribute to
the way an issue is defined.
Fig. 3.1 Hahns (1990) The issue development process is rarely as orderly
issue evolution model. as the stages might suggest. The eight stages are
not distinct and linear. An issue may cycle back to Most literature stresses the importance of early
earlier stages as events unfold. For example, as the and meaningful stakeholder engagement initiated
consequences of deer contraception are discussed by agencies. Human dimensions research, a form
(consequences stage), new concerns may surface of stakeholder engagement, can help managers
about contraceptive drugs being released into the build their understanding of a situation by deter-
food web, their impacts on nontarget wildlife, the mining the stage to which an issue has evolved
potential for animals treated to suffer from the among various stakeholders in a particular com-
physiological effects of the drugs, or many other munity. This information can help managers de-
topics. The issue may cycle back to the concern velop useful stakeholder engagement strategies
stage, attract new stakeholders, get reframed, and that correspond to community needs. For exam-
cause stakeholders to develop new alternatives ple, a study could help to distinguish whether
before an action is chosen. most stakeholders are just beginning to identify
negative impacts of wildlife, but have few ideas
about how those impacts should be addressed
20
(concern stage) or whether they have con-
sensus on the impacts of greatest concern
and are forming opinions about the most
appropriate management actions (alter-
natives stage). This knowledge should
guide agency engagement with stakehold-
ers. For example, in the concern stage, en-
gagement may take the shape of forums
for stakeholders to express their concerns,
whereas in the alternatives stage stake-
holder deliberation about suitable manage-
ment strategies may be more appropriate.
Reliance on studies of stakeholders is
growing in wildlife damage management
as the value of results for management
planning become more widely recognized.
To get the most out of such studies, wild-
life managers need a basic understanding
of human dimensions research methods.
Appendix A provides general background
on research methods and advice for work-
ing effectively with a social scientist or
human dimensions specialist in develop-
ing a study to meet your needs. The mate-
rial is intended to help you become more
comfortable working in partnership with
social scientists.

Step 2: Identifying Stakeholders

A stakeholder is any person who will be
affected by, or will affect, wildlife manage-
ment. Most wildlife management issues
involve a wide variety of interested and
affected people. You need to know who
Fig. 3.2 Agencies begin
the stakeholders are for an issue before designing consensus about management recommenda- to receive letters about
an engagement strategy. A strategy that works tions; and wildlife damage issues
with some stakeholders may be inadequate with high level of support for management during the involvement
respect to others. recommendations. stage.
For example, citizen task forces (CTFs) engage
stakeholders in deliberation over damage man- However, CTFs also can fall short by failing
agement issues. CTFs typically are asked to to represent some stakes. If task forces exclude
recommend management objectives and/or some groupslike nonhunters or humane
actions. Many benets have been attributed to intereststhose stakeholders are likely to chal-
CTFs when a diverse range of stakeholders is lenge task force recommendations. Such chal-
represented, including: lenges can impede implementation of task force
recommendations. Failure to represent some
increased understanding of other stakehold- stakeholders on CTFs, or the tendency to over-
ers views; represent others, can derail management.
consideration of management options from
a broad range of perspectives;
21
 Who is affected? Determining who

COURTESY OF MARK LOWERY

is affected or potentially affected by
an issue may require both brain-
storming and inquiry. People may
be affected either by a wildlife
species or by the actions proposed
to manage that species. They may
experience impacts of several kinds
as discussed in Part 2 (e.g., property
damage, costs required for manage-
ment actions, fear of wildlife, recre-
ational benets, enjoyment of the
presence of wildlife, etc.). Thinking
broadly about the potential impacts
of species and management actions
is helpful in determining who
might be affected.

Who can inuence management?

Many individuals and groups able to
inuence management in a com-
munity can be identied by asking
who is affected? However, some
interest groups can inuence local
Fig. 3.3 Protests over Guidelines for identifying stakeholders management even though they experience no
wildlife damage manage- A basic rule in identifying stakeholders is that direct impacts from the wildlife population of
ment issues often attract anyone who is affected by or who can affect man- concern or from management. For example, local
participants from outside
agement is a valid stakeholderhunters and anti- wildlife damage issues in which lethal control
a community.
hunters; people concerned about deer-related measures are pursued may attract the interest of
problems and people concerned about the wel- state or national animal welfare organizations
fare of deer; supporters and opponents of man- that might attempt to inuence management in
agement agencies. All people have a right to have numerous other ways.
their voice heard in decisions that affect them.
Therefore, it is imperative that managers do not Strategies for identifying stakeholders
exclude stakeholders with whom they disagree. After the various kinds of stakeholders in an
Guidelines for identifying stakeholder groups issue are identied, managers need to identify
can be couched as three questions: individual stakeholders to participate in
planned activities. During this process, it is im-
Who is interested? The stakeholders who are
portant to draw a distinction between individu-
most interested in an issue often are easiest to
als who reect various stakes and those who
identify. Some initiate contact with agencies,
represent organized interested groups. In many
requesting information or offering opinions.
cases, the best strategy is to seek individuals
Recording these unsolicited contacts is a good
who reect various community interests
way to identify stakeholders. Periodically, stake-
people who share certain basic interests and
holder groups organize to promote their
concerns with others in a community but
common interests in a particular issue. These
whose views can be expected to progress and
groups may include hunting clubs, wildlife
evolve as they grapple with management issues
damage committees of homeowner associations,
as a civic responsibility. Stakeholders chosen to
or animal welfare organizations.
reect interests are not expected to advocate ex-
clusively for those interests. Instead, they at-
22
tempt to balance those interests against other want or to work cooperatively with them. Such
interests and seek a reasonable solution. differences often reect the characteristics of
In politically charged issues, however, choosing individuals more than interest groups. Involve-
stakeholders to represent certain groups may be ment mechanisms engaging a small number of
the realistic approach. In such cases, established stakeholders, such as citizen task forces, should
organizations may have public stances on an limit participation to stakeholders who are likely
issue. To make progress in these cases, managers to work cooperatively.
need to win the support not only of individuals
but of organizations. Stakeholders who represent Not all stakeholders are equal
the interests of particular groups assume the re- Although we strongly recommend extending op-
sponsibility of communicating back to their orga- portunities for participation to a broad range of
nization and working with others to craft stakeholders, not all input is equal in decision
decisions their organization will support. making. When considering whether or not to
proceed with a wildlife damage management
Identifying stakeholders to participate in action, managers typically have to (1) judge how
stakeholder processes to weigh input from people experiencing differ-
Expert Opinion. People knowledgeable about an issue ent types of impacts, (2) balance the wishes of
often are in the best position to suggest stakeholders. residents living in the problem area with those
Experts may include agency staff, Cooperative Exten-
sion staff, and local officials.
of other citizens in the state, (3) compare the
Nominations by Stakeholder Groups. When seeking in- value some people place on mitigating the prob-
dividuals to represent groups, it may be desirable to have lem with the concerns others have about the
groups nominate individuals to represent their interests. method or outcome of the action(s), and (4) con-
This strategy ensures the group trusts the individual and
sider the merit of the wishes of a small segment
the individual has standing in the organization to gener-
ate support for management plans developed. of the public who know a lot about an issue com-
Snowball Sampling. Snowball sampling assumes that pared to those of the vast majority who do not.
stakeholders in a given issue know other stakeholders. Balancing or weighing these different types of
Therefore, as you identify stakeholders, you can ask input is not easy. The choice of how to involve
them to help you identify others. When contacting in-
dividuals, ask questions like: who else should I be talk-
different stakeholders will emphasize the per-
ing to? What other individuals, groups, or types of spectives of some over those of others, but this
interests have a stake in this issue? can not be avoided. As you will see in Step 4,
Volunteers. Many agencies will advertise for volunteers weighing stakeholder input is a problem in every
to participate in limited stakeholder involvement activ-
approach to stakeholder involvement, though
ities, such as citizen task forces. You then have the op-
portunity to select from among those who volunteer in upon whose shoulders that responsibility rests
an effort to balance participation. differs depending on the approach used.
Open Participation. Certain stakeholder involvement
activities typically are open to all interested stakehold- Step 3: Setting Objectives
ers. These activities will not yield a balanced represen-
tation of stakeholders, but they ensure that everyone
With a thorough understanding of a wildlife
with strong interests in a given issue has a forum damage management issue and stakeholders in
through which to participate. the issue, you can turn your attention to deciding
what might be accomplished through stakeholder
Regardless of how you identify stakeholders, engagement. Setting clear objectives is one of the
individuals should be willing to participate con- most frequently overlooked prerequisites for ef-
structively. In some cases, stakeholders who have fective stakeholder involvement. To help in this
strongly held and conicting opinions may process, we discuss both the roles that stakehold-
nevertheless be willing to work together, listen to ers can play in wildlife damage management and
each other, and work to promote management the objectives that may be accomplished.
objectives and actions that can satisfy community
needs. In other cases, stakeholders may be so
narrowly focused on their own agenda that they
are unwilling to consider what other stakeholders
23
 making for wildlife managers; the added infor-
Stakeholder engagement objectives mation can reveal the complexity of a situation.
improving the information about people on which wild- Many wildlife damage management scenarios
life management decisions are based; are characterized by a diversity of stakeholders
improving the judgment on which decisions are based; holding strong and contrasting viewpoints. The
and
potential for conict between stakeholders is
improving the social environment in which manage-
often present. Even when a manager is well in-
ment occurs.
formed about the diversity of stakeholders per-
spectives, using that information to

COURTESY OF PAUL CURTIS

reach a nal decision is difcult. Man-
agers are faced with the unenviable task
of choosing the degree to which various
stakeholders needs, wants, and desires
will be satised, and which will not be
addressed at all. The likelihood of reach-
ing decisions that are unacceptable to
some stakeholder groups is high under
these conditions.
During the choice stage of issue evolu-
tion, stakeholders may be involved in the
process of recommending a decision that
balances the needs and concerns of all
interested citizens. One model by which
this can occur is the citizen task force, in
which stakeholders with diverse interests
work directly with each other, deliberat-
ing trade-offs among policy alternatives
as they seek a mutually acceptable man-
Fig. 3.4 Citizen task Improving Information agement decision. Stakeholders who participate
forces are used to im- During several stages of the issue evolution cycle, in citizen task forces (as well as managers over-
prove the quality of judg- managers may need reliable information about seeing the task forces) typically are highly sup-
ment in wildlife damage
stakeholders needs, desires, beliefs, values, portive of the decisions they produce.
management decisions.
Members of a citizen task and/or behaviors. There are numerous ways that
force study deer damage such information can contribute to better man- Improving the Management Environment
in the field. agement decisions. For example, on behalf of the Both objectives described above focus on improv-
New York State Department of Environmental ing management decisions. But stakeholder
Conservation, Brown and Decker (1979) tested engagement also contributes to wildlife damage
the validity of wildlife managers assumptions management in less direct ways. Wildlife man-
that deer damage had become intolerable for agement depends on a citizenry that supports and
farmers and found that farmer tolerance for deer contributes to management decisions and ac-
damage was higher than expected. Gathering in- tions. Stakeholder engagement throughout the
formation directly from stakeholders can rene evolution of an issue can improve the social envi-
managers beliefs about stakeholders needs and ronment in which wildlife damage management
wants, thereby improving decisions. occurs by transforming people and their interrela-
tionships. Stakeholder engagement can inuence
Improving Judgment the management environment in four interre-
Sometimes obtaining more information about lated ways: (1) transforming beliefs and attitudes,
stakeholders perspectives does not ease decision (2) changing behaviors, (3) improving relation-
ships among stakeholders, and (4) increasing the

24
capacity of people and communities to contribute Box 3.1 Examples of Stakeholder Engagement Objectives
to policy making and management.
These objectives can be achieved in concert To help you understand the diverse range Determine the standards used by differ-
with the other engagement objectives already de- of stakeholder engagement objectives, we ent stakeholder groups to judge the suit-
list a series of possible objectives below, ability of management options.
scribed. For example, when decision makers using deer as an example. Achieve consensus for management
make a genuine effort to gather and consider cit- actions among a group of stakeholders
Objectives for improving information
izen input in decision making, stakeholders tend Determine the type of deer-related prob- reflecting diverse interests.
to become more supportive of decisions and lems being experienced within a commu- Objectives for improving the
more willing to make changes in their personal nity and how widespread they are. management environment
behavior to help achieve management goals. Re- Assess the level of support for reducing Increase the level of support for using
the deer population. bow hunting to reduce deer populations.
lationships and mutual understanding between
Assess the level of support for using bow Reduce the number of people feeding
diverse stakeholders serving on citizen task hunting to reduce the deer population deer adjacent to major roadways.
forces often improve through engagement, im- Establish an advisory board reflecting
Objectives for improving judgment
proving the climate for meaningful dialogue Identify the negative impacts of deer diverse stakeholder interests to monitor
about management. that must be reduced to satisfy diverse and revise deer management strategies.
stakeholders.
Step 4: Selecting a Stakeholder
Engagement Approach one end of the spectrum, the authoritative ap-
The specic stakeholder involvement strategies proach keeps the locus of control squarely within
one might employ depend on the general ap- the realm of the management agency. The pas-
proach toward stakeholder engagement you want sive/receptive and inquisitive approaches also
to take for a particular issue. Wildlife damage keep the locus of control within the management
managers have taken ve basic approaches to agency, but managers accept or even seek input
stakeholder involvement: expert authority, pas- from stakeholders. In contrast, the locus of con-
sive-receptive, inquisitive, transactional, and co- trol is shared by stakeholders and managers in
managerial (Decker and Chase 1997). These both transactional and co-managerial approaches.
approaches are distinguished by the relative This means that stakeholders and managers both
amount of control the agency and other stake- have inuence over decisions and actions.
holders have in the management process and by If stakeholders are to have little control, the
the particular roles that they play (Figure 3.5). On objectives of citizen participation are relatively

Fig. 3.5 The relative

involvement of wildlife
agencies and stakeholders
in various management
Stakeholders
approaches (Chase et al.
2000; copyright held by
The Wildlife Society).

Wildlife management agency

Authoritative Passive-receptive Inquisitive Transactional Co-managerial

25
 Table 3.1 Range of approaches to citizen participation

Objectives Locus of control Techniques Citizen participants

Expert Improve management Agency Education through presen- Targeted groups or general
Authority climate tations, pamphlets, press population
releases, etc.

Passive- Improve management Agency Unsolicited comments Citizens who take initia-
Receptive climate tive to contact the agency
Provide input

Inquisitive Provide input Agency Surveys, public meetings, May be all citizens, repre-
advisory committees, sentatives, selected
Improve management
focus groups, nominal groups or individuals
climate
group meetings

Transactional Provide input Shared by agency and Task forces, mediation, May be representatives,
citizens citizen representatives on selected groups or
Evaluate input
policy boards individuals
Improve management
climate

Co-managerial Provide input Shared by agency and Techniques from all four of May be all citizens, repre-
citizens the approaches above sentatives, selected
Evaluate input
groups or individuals
Improve management
climate
Help with implementation

Adapted from Chase et al. 1999

simple. As stakeholders play a larger role in the Expert authority

management process, however, the stakeholder In this approach managers assume the role of
engagement objectives necessarily expand. The technical experts and decision makers. The locus
best approach for any wildlife damage issue de- of control remains with the wildlife management
pends on a variety of factors. agency. The objective of citizen participation
under this approach is to improve the climate
Factors in the selection of an appropriate stakeholder for management by building stakeholder sup-
engagement approach port for decisions or actions. The expert author-
the level of conflict over the issue; ity approach is most appropriate when conict
the number and type of stakeholders affected; over an issue is low and an agency has a non-
stakeholder interest in and awareness of the issue; controversial, established approach to damage
legal mandates to which an agency must adhere; management.
the existence of other government entities that can Press releases, pamphlets, videos, radio an-
influence management;
nouncements, presentations at schools and
agency resource limitations; and
meetings of community organizations, news-
the need for information from stakeholders.
letters, and web pages are all techniques that an
agency can use to inform stakeholders about
We will review each of the ve approaches, de- wildlife damage management. Depending on
scribing the objectives that are typically associ- the specic objectives, the targeted participants
ated with each, and how the locus of control, will vary. Agencies may attempt to reach the
participants, and engagement techniques vary by general public, or they may focus their efforts
approach (Table 3.1). on certain groups of stakeholders such as
homeowners.

26
Passive-receptive approach Though less systematic, meetings allow man-
Under the passive-receptive approach, managers agers and stakeholders to air ideas and perspec-
are open to input about stakeholders beliefs, tives. The participants may be specic stakeholder
attitudes, values, behaviors, and experiences. groups or the general public. Other techniques
Stakeholder input to management occurs only useful for the inquisitive approach include advi-
if they take the initiative to reach managers. The sory committees, focus groups, nominal group
locus of control remains with the agency. meetings, and the solicitation of letters from in-
The objectives of citizen participation under the terested members of the public.
passive-receptive approach are to build support The inquisitive approach can be appropriate
for management decisions and actions and to when conict is moderate and managers want
add to the information base on which decisions to identify and understand perspectives of stake-
are made. The participants will be stakeholders holders. For example, managers may feel the
who take the initiative to communicate their need to nd out what types of farmers are expe-
concerns and desires to managers. Citizen par- riencing wildlife damage, particular areas of
ticipation techniques typically include unsolicited damage concentration, how much damage they
telephone calls, letters, and comments during are experiencing, and how willing they are to tol-
informal conversations between stakeholders erate this damage. The inquisitive approach re-
and wildlife managers. quires a greater commitment of agency
The passive-receptive approach is most appro- resources than the preceding approaches.
priate in issues where public interest and con-
ict are low, and the types of stakeholders Transactional approach
affected are few and easily identied. These con- Stakeholders frequently have conicting per-
ditions are most likely to occur in early stages of spectives, complicating how those perspectives
emergent wildlife problems. are balanced in management decisions. In politi-
cally charged issues involving diverse perspec-
Inquisitive approach tives or where trust between stakeholders and
Managers taking the inquisitive approach wildlife managers has not been established,
assume that knowledge of stakeholders perspec- managers often rely on a transactional approach
tives will be essential in wildlife damage man- to involve stakeholders. In this approach, stake-
agement decisions. Seeking this information holders determine through deliberation the rela-
can have the dual objectives of both improving tive importance of stakes and balance of impacts
decisions and improving public acceptance of to be reected in management objectives. Wild-
decisions. Wildlife managers acquire this infor- life managers administer the process and pro-
mation through scientic inquiry to avoid poten- vide technical advice. Thus, the locus of control is
tial biases of considering the perspectives of only shared. Managers may delegate decisions to
those stakeholders who contact the agency. stakeholders within some bounds, or may retain
Marginally important stakes can be over blown the power to reject or approve stakeholders rec-
by lots of publicity and contacts with the agency. ommendations.
Like the expert authority and passive-receptive An important element of the transactional ap-
approaches, the locus of control remains with the proach is interaction among participants and be-
agency, which decides whether and how to re- tween them and wildlife managers. In wildlife
ect different perspectives in its nal manage- damage management, task forces are a common
ment decisions. transactional technique. Due to the importance
Surveys and public meetings are two common of face-to-face communication, task forces may
techniques used in the inquisitive approach. be limited to fewer than 20 participants who are
Surveys include mail-back questionnaires, tele- expected to reect various stakes or represent
phone interviews, and in-person interviews. various stakeholder groups. As stakeholders
Depending on the type of information sought,
the survey will target different participants.

27
Fig. 3.6 Plant damage
and other deer-related
problems have been
increasing across the
northeast.
COURTESY OF PAUL CURTIS

Box 3.2 Co-managing deer in New York deliberate to reach consensus, they essentially
negotiate how to weight their different perspec-
The co-managerial approach has already bow hunting in designated areas as well tives. A more thorough analysis of management
been applied by some agencies in a few as research on contraception as a long- problems and a more balanced solution to those
places. A well-documented case is the deer term method of population control. The
problems can result.
management situation in Irondequoit, New lead for implementing methods for deer
York. Citizens of the Town of Irondequoit, management was taken by an interagency The transactional approach can fulll multiple
a suburb of Rochester, were divided over task force composed of 12 members of objectives: (1) improve the social information base
management of the burgeoning deer pop- town, county, and state government. Mem- of decisions by revealing stakeholders beliefs,
ulation. Due to archery and firearm restric- bers included a representative from the
tions, the deer population had been state wildlife agency, the Irondequoit town
attitudes, and preferences; and (2) improve the
growing unchecked for decades. Local citi- supervisor, one of the town board mem- social climate of management by building own-
zen groups with different viewpoints on bers, two county legislators, the head of ership in and support for management decisions
deer management had organized and were the county transportation office, and a and actions. Often, participating in activities as
vocal in their demands. In the fall of 1991, representative from the county parks de-
the state wildlife agency decided to apply partment. In addition to sharing decision- part of a transactional approach allows diverse
a modified version of the Citizen Task making and implementation responsibility stakeholders to reach agreement about appropri-
Forces (CTFs) they had been using success- with the state wildlife agency, the commu- ate management actions.
fully in rural areas. The charge to the CTF nity funded the bait-and-shoot program,
was not only to set a deer-population ob- and the contraception research was paid
jective, but also to recommend methods for by the NYS legislature. Co-managerial approach
for achieving that objective. The success Several trends convince us of the likelihood for
This story of Irondequoit is still unfolding.
of the modified CTF has been debated further evolution of community-based collabora-
Despite the gains made in opening com-
(Curtis and Hauber 1997, Baker and Fritsch
1997), but one outcome is clear: the trans-
munication through the transactional ap- tive wildlife management (co-management) in
proach, controversy over deer management the Northeast: (1) continued growth of human-
actional approach of the CTF led the way
continues in Irondequoit and probably will
for increased responsibility on the part of
do so for years to come. Nonetheless, this wildlife problems (often community specic),
the community and a shift toward the co- (2) greater public expectations for tailored solu-
is an example where a community has
managerial approach.
become involved in many aspects of deer tions suitable for their communities, and (3) con-
The CTF recommended a combination of managementall in cooperation with the
tinuing limitations on agency funds and
culling deer through bait-and-shoot and state wildlife agency.
personnel. If these trends continue, wildlife agen-
cies are likely to nd more instances where it

28
makes sense to consider sharing or delegating re- Box 3.3 New Jerseys Community-Based Deer Management Program
sponsibility for management to stakeholders at
the community level. We believe that community- During the 1990s, many suburban New processing of deer meat, and human di-
level co-management will become a common ap- Jersey communities witnessed increasing mensions research before or after program
numbers of deer. Representatives of local implementation. It can include costs in-
proach to dealing with wildlife damage governments and private parks went to the curred by the Division for services provided.
management issues, especially in urban and sub- New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
The Division decided that it would only
urban communities. Stakeholder engagement is seeking solutions to deer-related problems
take on partners who were willing to agree
the basis for co-management. in areas where traditional forms of hunting
to several ground rules. Community part-
were not controlling the populations effec-
In a co-managerial approach, operational ners must first come to the Division with
tively. In response, the Division developed
evidence that a majority of residents be-
guidelines for partners, accountability and evalu- the Community-Based Deer Management
lieve that a deer problem exists (Lund
ation processes, and assignment of responsibil- Program (Lund 1997). Under the auspices
1997:490). Cooperators must also agree to
of the program, the Division partners with
ity would be negotiated such that the locus of (1) discourage supplemental feeding of
federal, state, county, or municipal repre-
control over all aspects of management would be deer, (2) support the use of deer hunting as
sentatives to share deer management re-
a control option where it can be used,
shared among agencies and local communities. sponsibilities.
(3) make an effort to ensure that deer taken
This approach calls for educational communica- In each case, a written memorandum of by means other than public hunting are
tion programs for stakeholders on a level seldom understanding specifies a management used appropriately (Lund 1997:489).
seen in wildlife management. Decision-making plan and the roles of the Division and its
In 1995 and 1996, two county park systems
management partners. The Division agrees
processes that engage local stakeholders have to to provide technical assistance with devel-
signed memoranda of understanding to
incorporate receptive, inquisitive and transac- begin co-management of deer in their
opment, implementation, and evaluation
parks. Both eventually went on to hold
tional elements. Therefore, co-management of deer control options and to facilitate
annual culling operations that resulted in
and permit (Lund 1997:489) deer manage-
needs to draw on techniques from all of the ap- movement toward deer population goals
ment alternatives, such as modified deer-
proaches discussed earlier. In addition, govern- set by the Division and the cooperating
hunting seasons, deer-culling programs, or
park systems.
ing boards of citizens and managers may be deer contraceptive procedures.
established to oversee decisions and activities. The Division regards the program as a
The partner organization agrees to pay for
viable approach to managing deer in many
The role of the wildlife management agency all aspects of program implementation, in-
suburban contexts.
might include providing biological and human cluding costs for deer population estima-
tion, use of private contractors to cull deer, Source: Robert C. Lund
dimensions expertise, managing processes, train-
ing community participants, approving commu-
nity wildlife management plans, certifying have little chance of success if the community
private consultants, and monitoring manage- does not have the capacity to accept wildlife man-
ment activities. Agency wildlife managers would agement responsibilities. Because of this, both
work more extensively with stakeholders in local managers and communities will nd it useful to
communities, collaborating with them to develop assess community capacity before making a com-
guidelines, standards, criteria, and requirements mitment to share management authority and re-
for local community management efforts. sponsibilities in a given area.
Co-management approaches to stakeholder
engagement are not necessary for every situa- Responding to grassroots initiative
tion. However, co-management is appropriate The ve approaches discussed above all assume
when managers are seeking assistance with both the wildlife management agency decides whether
decision-making and decision implementation. to initiate citizen participation. As Hahns (1990)
This can often be the case with a suburban deer issue-evolution model discussed in Step 1 points
or goose management issue. out, stakeholders themselves will organize and
Each community has different human and begin to press managers for action as they pro-
scal resources that can be brought to bear on ceed from the concern to the involvement stage.
the resolution of a wildlife damage problem. In Grassroots organizations have formed to advocate
other words, each community has a unique ca- for everything from restoration of wolves in wild-
pacity to participate as a partner in management. lands to control of white-tailed deer and Canada
Community capacity is a product of factors such geese in suburbs. Indeed, stakeholders may be
as local leadership resources, municipal budgets, able to move an issue right through the choice
and infrastructure. Co-management efforts will
29
Box 3.4 Citizen Initiatives Related to Trapping in Massachusetts authority (e.g., through ballot initiatives) may be
undertaken or citizens may take illegal manage-
Massachusetts voters have a long history States (HSUS), a private citizens group ment actions of their ownsometimes putting a
of direct involvement in furbearer manage- that opposed the use of leghold traps, valuable wildlife resource at risk.
ment through the states ballot referendum filed a legal suit against the MDFW to stop
process. Proponents of a referendum that practice. A lower court returned a de-
submit the language of their bill to the cision declaring that use of padded traps
Step 5: Designing Stakeholder
Secretary of State and the Attorney General was not legal. The MDFW appealed the Engagement Strategies
a year before a scheduled election. Bills lower courts decision. After six years of lit- A basic guideline in designing stakeholder en-
deemed constitutional become initiative igation, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
petitions, which the proponents circulate Court overturned the decision and ruled gagement strategies is to select involvement
for voter signatures. If they accumulate that the padded trap was humane and techniques that are consistent with your objec-
75,000 valid signatures from registered therefore legal. tives for stakeholder involvement. The tech-
voters in five different geographic regions,
The higher courts ruling in the early 1990s niques you choose should t together as a
the initiative petition becomes a bill in the
prompted the HSUS to pursue its interests strategy reecting one of the approaches to
legislature. If the legislature neither acts
through the ballot referendum process.
on the bill nor rejects it, it becomes a ballot
Its initiative petition drive was successful.
stakeholder engagement described in the pre-
referendum in the next statewide election. ceding section. Our discussion of techniques is
The ballot referendum appeared on the
In 1930, Massachusetts voters approved a statewide ballot in November 1996 as organized by stakeholder involvement objectives.
state referendum that outlawed trapping Question 1 (the Wildlife Protection Act).
devices that cause continued suffering The measure was passed (55% of election
to the trapped animals (Gentile 1987). That participants voted yes; 30% voted no; Common stakeholder involvement techniques
legislation, which banned the use of leg- 15% cast no vote on Question 1; Debliner
hold traps, was repealed just a few years et al. 1999). Gathering Information
later. In 1974, legislation was passed that Several techniques are commonly used to gather
The legislation eliminated the legal use of
restricted trap use, this time through a ban rst-hand information from or about important
leghold and body-gripping traps (snap
on the use of all steel-jawed leghold traps
traps excepted). It also prohibited pursuit stakeholders: public meetings, solicitation of
on land.
of bears and bobcats with hounds, prohib- comments, surveys, and focus groups. Each
The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries ited bear baiting (already prohibited by reg-
technique has both pros and cons.
and Wildlife (MDFW) continued to allow ulation), and allowed for a change in the
the use of soft-catch traps (leghold traps composition of the Fisheries and Wildlife
Public meetings. Public meetings typically allow
with rubber pads covering the jaws) after Board, which establishes regulations and
1975. The Humane Society of the United oversees the operations of the MDFW. managers to present information about a wild-
life damage issue and then solicit feedback from
Source: Robert D. Deblinger
stakeholders. Public meetings can reveal the
range of concerns and opinions about particular
and implementation stages by promoting ballot management proposals.
initiatives, litigation, and legislation to inuence
Pros
the authority of wildlife agencies with respect to
damage management. Grassroots involvement Public meetings give managers the opportunity
often arises at the initiative of stakeholders in re- to provide background information that allows
sponse to problems that they perceive. attendees to learn something about the issue.
Recognizing grassroots stakeholder activity Public meetings also give participants (includ-
quickly can be a tremendous advantage to agen- ing managers) a chance to learn about the per-
cies because such activity indicates which spectives of other stakeholders attending.
damage management issues are in urgent need
Cons
of attention. Partnering with stakeholders who
are initiating grassroots activity can be valuable People attending public meetings tend not to
in the management process. Ignoring grassroots be representative of the community of stake-
involvement can be perilous. Citizens who do not holders interested in a particular issue.
consider an agency a potential partner to resolve Meetings attract vocal critics of management
their problems may proceed to achieve their ob- objectives or programs who can sometimes
jectives without regard for the agency. When this dominate meetings out of proportion to their
happens, efforts to circumvent or curtail agency actual numbers or the importance of their
stake and gain media exposure through this
kind of event.
30
 BILL WARREN / THE ITHACA JOURNAL
Some stakeholders nd it inconvenient to provides. The quality of input, therefore, may Fig. 3.7 Public meetings
attend meetings because of location or timing, be lower than with some other techniques. are a common tool for
making it difcult for managers to gather learning about stake-
Solicited comments are seldom representative holders perspectives.
input from all important stakeholders. of all stakeholders for a given issueinterest (Reprinted with permission
Sometimes it is difcult to keep attendees fo- groups with many members can sometimes from the Ithaca Journal,
cused on the most critical information needs. generate a ood of letters in response to January 18, 2001 edition)
agency requests for input.
Solicited comments. Another technique com-
No opportunity exists for immediate or sponta-
monly employed by agencies is to solicit (e.g.,
neous classication or elaboration of points if
via mass media) written comments (e.g., letter,
the agency does not feel the comment is clear.
e-mail) on management issues or programs.
Surveys. Surveys are described in the appendix
Pros
on research methods.
Submitting written comments is an input ve-
hicle available to all interested stakeholders, Pros
and a more convenient form of participation Surveys are effective for gathering information
than attending public meetings for many from a large, widely dispersed, representative
individuals. sample of stakeholders.
Agency requests for public comment can also Surveys can be designed to gather the most
be accompanied by background information critical information needed.
about an issue to stakeholderssometimes
Most surveys, particularly mail surveys, can
this background information is in the form of
ask numerous questions and, therefore, pro-
an environmental impact assessment.
vide a large quantity of information.
Cons
Cons
Soliciting written comments does not provide
Although some background information on
the opportunity for interaction between diverse
an issue can be provided in surveys, the op-
stakeholders and the learning such interaction
31
 Pros
Focus groups allow the opportu-
nity for interactions between
participants. The learning that
occurs through these interac-
tions may yield higher quality
feedback.
Managers often can gather more
detailed feedback from each par-
ticipant in focus groups than
with other methods.

Cons
Only a very limited number of in-
dividuals can participate in focus
groups, even if a series of them is
held. Therefore, interested stake-
holders may feel left out of the
process and be less supportive of
management plans developed
based on focus groups alone.

Improving Judgment
As we discussed in the section on
stakeholder engagement objec-
tives, sometimes it is important to
go beyond gathering information
from stakeholders and to have
them judge the implications of that
information for management.
Techniques that allow for stake-
holders to deliberate with each
Fig. 3.8 Surveys are a portunity to inform respondents before they other about management issues are particularly
useful way to collect a offer feedback usually is limited. well suited for this purpose.
large quantity of infor-
mation from a large and Survey respondents do not have a chance to Citizen task forces. A citizen task force (CTF)
representative sample interact with and learn from each other. Con- typically engages 1015 diverse stakeholders in
of stakeholders. sequently, the feedback agencies obtain from a process of trying to reach consensus, or unani-
surveys can be based on limited knowledge of mous agreement, on management recommen-
other stakeholders concerns. dations (e.g., population objectives for a species
causing damage or appropriate actions to
Focus groups. Focus groups involve gathering
achieve these objectives). CTF members are
eight to twelve individuals to provide feedback
provided detailed background information about
on pressing management questions. Typically
the management issue and have the opportunity
focus groups are designed to convene stake-
to request additional information during the
holders representing similar interests. To
course of their discussions. Usually a CTF will
broaden input, a series of focus groups may
require several meetings to accomplish its task.
be used to collect information from separate
As stakeholders are selected to participate in a
groups, each representing different stakes, in-
CTF, managers aim to represent a broad array
terests, or demographics.
of interests rather than choose a representative
32
sample. The goal of a CTF is to identify a solu- Box 3.5 Monitoring Stakeholders for Wildlife Damage Management
tion that will satisfy all or most stakeholders.
The mission of the Wildlife Services Pro- tudes of employees with those of the
Pros gram of the U.S. Department of Agricul- public. Another 1995 survey collected data
tures Animal and Plant Health Inspection on members of The Wildlife Society, which
CTFs have been effective at educating partici- Service is to provide federal leadership in revealed that wildlife professionals are not
pating stakeholders (i.e., those on the CTF) managing damage caused by wildlife, homogeneous in their views on wildlife
about important management considerations and its vision is to improve the relation- damage control. The study found that
and other stakeholders perspectives. Indeed, ship of people and wildlife by utilizing wild- many professionals had negative views
life damage management strategies that toward traditional wildlife damage tools
CTF members often increase appreciation of are biologically sound, environmentally and techniques.
others interests as a result of their safe and socially acceptable (Clay and
Focus groups. In 1993, Wildlife Services con-
participation. Schmidt 1998:216).
ducted six focus groups representing three
Relationships between participants tend to im- Wildlife Services administrators have long interests: wildlife management, animal pro-
recognized the role of values and attitudes tection, and traditional agriculture. Each
prove, increasing their capacity to work to- in shaping the programs activities. Experi- group was asked to comment on these
gether on management issues. ences over three decades clearly identified questions: For what purposes is wildlife
these stakeholders: Wildlife Services em- damage management appropriate? What
If consensus is achieved on CTF recommenda-
ployees; other state and federal agencies techniques are appropriate? What changes
tions, these recommendations typically have that deal with wildlife, health, transporta- are needed in Wildlife Services? The focus
strong support of CTF members, making im- tion, and agriculture; agriculturalists; groups made these recommendations:
plementation easier for managers. nongovernmental organizations represent- (1) improve communication, (2) become
ing recreational, animal protection, or envi- more open and accessible, (3) emphasize re-
Cons ronmental interests; wildlife professionals; search-based decisions, (4) improve control
and the general public. Development of a tools and techniques, and (5) improve orga-
The benets of CTFs are limited to the small cooperative research relationship with Utah nizational culture and skills.
number of stakeholders who have the oppor- State University in 1991 expanded Wildlife
In 1994 and 1995 Wildlife Services followed
tunity to serve on one. Therefore, even if Services ability to learn more about stake-
up by holding focus groups with its own
holders and how to incorporate that under-
strong support for the recommendations standing into decision making. Wildlife
employees in 17 western states. A key
exists among CTF members, that same sup- finding was that employees wanted respect
Services has used public comment, quanti-
and understanding from the public and be-
port may not be present among the broader tative surveys, and focus groups to gain
lieved the public wanted them to be com-
populace without additional stakeholder in- insights about stakeholders.
passionate and professional.
volvement strategies. Public comment. In 1994 Wildlife Services
Actions. Stakeholder input identified sub-
analyzed and responded to stakeholders
Consensus is not possible in all cases, and, stantial public support for a federal role in
who had provided public comment during
wildlife damage management, support for
when it is not, some CTF members may a nationwide environmental impact state-
protection of public safety and agricultural
become disillusioned with the process and ment process. The process provided qualita-
interests, and high satisfaction among tra-
tive information on stakeholders concerns.
oppose resulting recommendations. Many states require similar processes,
ditional agency stakeholder groups. Key
stakeholder concerns also were identified
giving Wildlife Services ongoing opportuni-
Workshops. Workshops bear some similarities to that, if not addressed, would surely erode
ties to identify new stakeholders and moni-
public support for the agency.
public meetings. They can be open to all inter- tor trends in stakeholder interests.
ested participants (but not always). What distin- As a direct result of stakeholder response,
Quantitative surveys. In 1993 and 1995,
Wildlife Services administrators now meet
guishes workshops from public meetings is that Wildlife Services surveyed people who re-
regularly with a range of stakeholders. In-
attendees are often divided into small groups ceived assistance from the agency, reveal-
formation about agency activities is acces-
ing high satisfaction with Wildlife Services.
and assigned some specic tasks that will con- sible to the public on the World Wide Web
In 1995, the agency conducted a national
tribute to management needs. Workshops could and in a newsletter. Research on nonlethal
survey to gauge public attitudes toward
control techniques was increased. Adminis-
focus on generating a list of problems that need various aspects of wildlife damage man-
trators encourage staff members to partici-
agement. The survey identified public pref-
to be addressed; brainstorming options for ad- pate more in professional forums and have
erences for various control techniques and
dressing problems; identifying advantages and formalized their expectations that research
helped reaffirm key public concerns related
staff members would publish their work in
disadvantages of different options; or recom- to public transportation safety, animal suf-
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
mending a package of management options. fering, control method efficiency, and relief
from agricultural damage. Source: William H. Clay and Robert Schmidt
A 1995 survey of Wildlife Services employ-
ees helped the agency compare the atti-

33
 Pros provide wildlife agencies the opportunity to dis-
Like CTFs, workshops can improve relation- seminate information as well as collect it.
ships between stakeholders by having them Indeed, merely the act of soliciting input from
work together on common tasks. the public can improve attitudes toward manage-
ment decisions, as long as an agency uses such
Workshops can engage more stakeholders
input in decision making and lets people know it.
than CTFs and, therefore, their benets can
Improving the management climate also in-
extend to more individuals.
volves pursuing objectives that may yield few ben-
Cons ets in the short term but lay the groundwork for
Workshops are not ideal for complex tasks that future management. These objectives include (1)
require attendees to meet over multiple ses- improving relationships between stakeholders and
sions. With the large number of people that (2) increasing the capacity of stakeholders to con-
can attend a workshop, it is impossible to tribute to management. These objectives are best
ensure that the same individuals will be able served by techniques that allow the opportunity
to attend multiple sessions. Therefore, work- for extended interaction between diverse stake-
shops must break down tasks into units that holders, and the learning that such interaction en-
can be accomplished in a single session. tails. Public meetings, CTFs, and workshops are
among the most appropriate techniques. They can
Improving the Management Climate develop a solid foundation for management over
Improving the management climate has three the long term by increasing the ability of critical
objectives: (1) informing stakeholders, (2) im- stakeholders to work together, increasing their
proving stakeholder relationships, and (3) im- understanding of management issues, and im-
proving stakeholders capacity to contribute to proving their ability to juggle competing consider-
management. ations in reaching management decisions.
Managers have many reasons for wanting to
inform stakeholders. These include raising General considerations for design of
awareness of a problem, increasing understand- stakeholder involvement
ing of the impacts of various management op- Several considerations are critical when develop-
tions, and increasing support for management ing stakeholder involvement strategies. First,
objectives and actions. A variety of techniques are regardless of the particular technique selected,
appropriate for inuencing the beliefs and atti- what is most important is how that technique is
tudes of the stakeholders within a community. tailored to meet objectives. Public meetings can
These include issuing press releases, developing be designed either to promote agency positions
educational brochures, and preparing and distrib- or they can be effective means of educating
uting environmental impact assessments. stakeholders and gathering input. The difference
These techniques have the advantage of being lies in how the meeting is structured. A clear
able to reach a diverse and large number of vision of what you want to accomplish is key to
people. They have the disadvantage of being very tailoring particular techniques to your needs.
limited interventions. Most people pay little at- A second consideration is that rarely will one
tention to educational materials, and, conse- technique be adequate to meet all stakeholder
quently, they need to be exposed to this material engagement objectives. Stakeholder involvement
repeatedly if it is to have an effect. Therefore, an strategies, therefore, involve the artful combina-
action such as issuing a press release is likely to tion and tailoring of a variety of techniques. For
have little value by itself. It needs to be part of a this reason, consultation with a citizen participa-
much broader strategy employing a set of public tion specialist will be valuable as you develop a
outreach techniques. stakeholder engagement strategy.
Of course, beliefs and attitudes can also be in- Finally, the techniques you employ may be
uenced by some of the techniques described less important than the mind-set with which you
earlier. Public meetings, CTFs, and workshops all approach them. Wildlife managers who have
been successful at involving stakeholders as a
34
regular way of doing business often share sev- Step 6: Implementing Stakeholder Engagement
eral key traits. In this section we discuss implementing stake-
holder engagement strategies. Considerations
Key traits of wildlife managers
include challenges to expect when implementing
Receptivity. Be open and receptive to unsolicited input stakeholder engagement, dening the agencys
from stakeholders. This input can take many forms
telephone calls, office visits, letters, stakeholder
role, and recommendations for how to get the
newsletter columns, letters to the editor, editorials, most out of stakeholder involvement efforts.
news coverage of all types, posters, graffiti, demonstra-
tions, etc. Such input contributes to understanding the Challenges to stakeholder engagement
landscape of public opinion surrounding a wildlife
damage management issue, but managers must re- Conducting a successful stakeholder engagement
member that small minority interests are sometimes process involves both internal (related to the
capable of making large media impacts, often out of management agency and how it operates) and ex-
proportion with the actual stake of these interests in ternal (related to the public and how the agency
an issue.
interacts with it) challenges. Meeting these chal-
Inquisitiveness. To avoid a limited perspective, the lenges successfully determines whether the ben-
wildlife manager needs to inquire about stakeholder
needs and interests. The inquisitive manager asks
ets of stakeholder engagement will be reaped.
several questions: Citizen participation is sometimes viewed as
What is the range of relevant stakes associated with a
threatening to wildlife management agencies be-
particular management issue? cause some forms of participation involve sharing
Who are the people with this stake? control over decision making and implementa-
Whats the size of this group? tion. Agencies may be reluctant to let citizens with
What are their relevant beliefs, attitudes, and little biological expertise contribute to wildlife
behaviors? management decisions. They may believe that
Seeking answers to these questions can help managers technical decisions are best left to technical ex-
anticipate as well as recognize the potential for prob- perts. These are attractive justications for avoid-
lems. This gives the inquisitive manager an important
edge that can enable him/her to avoid problems
ing stakeholder engagement, but dont lose sight
more often. of the important role values play in all wildlife
Problem solvers. Effective managers need to be prob-
management decisions. Decisions about manage-
lem solvers, not just process managers. Effective prob- ment objectives and about management methods
lem solving requires definition of the problem and are based in large part on stakeholder values.
scoping out its important elements. Determining values that are to guide manage-
What are the kinds of management decisions that will ment is certainly in the domain of stakeholders.
inevitably be made? Even agencies that want to engage stakehold-
Who should be involved, and to what degree? ers may nd it difcult because of historically
Is stakeholder input enough for this situation, or will poor relationships with certain groups. These
active participation be needed?
may range from agricultural organizations that
Is participation sufficient, or will stakeholders expect
to be involved in decisions? do not believe their situations have been consid-
Is involvement in decisions sufficient, or is it essential ered adequately to animal welfare organizations
for stakeholders to be involved in implementation and who are philosophically opposed to wildlife man-
evaluation of the management effort? agement, or private property rights advocates
Decision focused. The principal value of human dimen- who resent the government intrusion. Poor rela-
sions insight is to serve management decisions.
General human dimensions understanding can aid tionships and mutual distrust can thwart at-
planning and improve timely response to changing tempts to engage citizens productively in wildlife
conditions, enabling an agency to be agile as well as damage management. In these cases, agencies
adaptable. An ongoing, inquisitive, problem-solving
may have to take a long-term view of citizen par-
approach to accumulating various kinds of human
dimensions knowledge, such as stakeholder attitudes ticipation, attempting rst to create or restore
and values, multiple wildlife acceptance capacities, trusting relationships with certain stakeholder
influence of experience and risk perception on atti-
tudes, etc., can inform wildlife managers as they make
decisions in the daily performance of their duties.

35
 Box 3.6 Identifying Facilitators ent hats. If responsibility for management deci-
sions is yielded in part to stakeholders (e.g., citi-
Recognizing the value of good facilitation help in either identifying skilled profes- zen task force), agency staff sometimes play the
is one thing, but finding skilled facilitators sionals or providing facilitation training for role of expert advisorseducating stakeholders
is another. Fortunately, several means exist agency staff. These organizations include:
to help agencies identify facilitators:
about wildlife biology, ecology, the impacts of
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict species, the effects of alternative management
Cooperative Extension offices often have Resolution (Suite 3350, 110 S. Church
trained facilitators on staff, some of whom Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701; 520 670-5299) actions, and other important management con-
are knowledgeable about both wildlife and Association for Conflict Resolution (1527 siderations. Although this can be a valuable role
public policy issues. They have successfully New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Third Floor to play, care is needed in exercising it. Some
facilitated meetings, workshops, and citi- Washington, DC 20036; 202 667-9700) stakeholders will view agencies as biased and not
zen task forces that address wildlife
The International Association for Public consider the expertise they offer as neutral,
damage concerns.
Participation (P.O. Box 10146, Alexandria,
whether or not this perception is justied. To
Several organizations of facilitators and VA 22310; 800 644-4273)
conflict resolution practitioners may be of avoid suspicion, wildlife managers must not blur
the distinction between their scientic and ethi-
cal judgments when playing the expert advisor
role (Decker et al. 1991)
groups before expecting their involvement in Agency staff may serve as facilitators, concen-
management decisions or actions. trating on designing and implementing stake-
holder involvement processes. This is a useful
Defining the agencys role role, but many agencies face limitations as they
The most appropriate role of agency staff in try to ll it. Agency staff may not have sufcient
stakeholder involvement activities is not easy to expertise in stakeholder involvement processes to
specify because agencies may wear many differ- do this well. Also, the importance of a neutral

COURTESY OF WILLIAM SIEMER

Fig. 3.10 Accurately
recording stakeholders
comments at public
meetings increases their
faith in involvement
processes.

36
facilitator in stakeholder involvement processes ent methods of managing suburban geese
can not be overstatedprocess facilitators must before they recommended a particular method?
forego opportunities to advocate their own agenda
because their primary job is to allow others to ex- General rules of thumb for evaluating
press their perspectives. Therefore, having agency stakeholder engagement
staff serve as facilitators may hamstring them in Tie your evaluation to your objectives. Earlier, we
their ability to contribute their perspectives to recommended clearly articulating your objectives for
stakeholder involvement. Use these objectives as a
quality management decisions. Outside facilita- focus for your evaluation.
tors are often hired for this reason. Be open to unexpected outcomes. Although it is im-
It is becoming more common for agency staff portant to determine whether you achieved your stated
to play the role of one of many stakeholders in objectives, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that unex-
pected outcomesboth good and badalso may result.
management decision makingthis is particu-
Use appropriate methods. Both research and stake-
larly true in co-managerial approaches. In other holder involvement methods can be suitable for evalu-
words, agencies may advocate particular objec- ation purposes. The key consideration is clearly
tives and actions, but share decision making with articulating the evaluation questions you are trying to
answer in advance and ensuring that the methods are
others. For example, an agency staff member
suitable for answering those questions.
might sit on an interagency task force with other
Incorporate evaluation throughout stakeholder
state and local government representatives to involvement. Evaluation tends to be an image of an
make decisions in a local area about the manage- activity undertaken after something is completed
ment of a particular species. suggesting that you might turn to evaluation only after
stakeholder involvement is complete. But evaluation
is often most useful during stakeholder involvement
Step 7: Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement activities so that they can be improved. There are at
The nal step in stakeholder engagementeval- least two advantages to integrating evaluation with
stakeholder involvement: (1) it allows you to adapt and
uationshould not be overlooked. Evaluation
improve the stakeholder involvement process as you
can be benecial to agencies and stakeholders go and (2) it requires less of an investment of resources
alike. We already have articulated the ends that if evaluation can be incorporated into activities that are
might be sought through stakeholder involve- already taking place.
ment, and these are the typical foci of evaluation. Consult a human dimensions research specialist. Eval-
uation is a form of inquiry, and, consequently, it can
raise many thorny issues about the best approach to
Foci of evaluation of stakeholder engagement take. Seek advice from a human dimensions specialist.
obtaining good quality information about
stakeholders;
promoting sound judgment in management decisions;
improving relationships between stakeholders;
informing stakeholder attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors;
and
improving the capacity of stakeholders to contribute to
management.

Given the resources agencies may spend on

stakeholder involvement, it is important to know
if the objectives of engagement have been
achieved. Did stakeholder involvement result in
more public support for a management deci-
sion? Did a survey of farmers result in better un-
derstanding of how much deer damage they
could tolerate? Did the members of a task force
fully understand the trade-offs involved in differ-

37
 Section Summary tations; and the need for information from
Stakeholder engagement means involving stakeholders. Within your overall stakeholder
people in making, understanding, implement- engagement approach, you also will need to
ing or evaluating wildlife management deci- carefully select one or more specific strategies,
sions. Though strategies for effective like public meetings, focus groups, or quantita-
stakeholder engagement vary by context, it is tive surveys. Each of these specific strategies
helpful to consider seven general steps as you have pros and cons you will need to consider.
design an engagement process. First, it helps to You may face internal and external barriers to
develop a situation analysis, using tools such as stakeholder engagement. You will need to iden-
Hahns issue evolution model, to describe the tify and address those barriers to successfully
characteristics of the wildlife damage issue you implement the stakeholder engagement ap-
are trying to manage. To effectively design an proach you select. Finally, you should consider
engagement approach, you also will need to how you will evaluate your process, to deter-
carefully identify stakeholdersthe people who mine whether your stakeholder engagement
will be affected by, or can affect management objectives were achieved.
related to your issue. You will need to establish Richer stakeholder engagement facilitates a
clear objectives for involving stakeholders in professional shift toward stakeholder-identified
management. Your objectives might include impacts as the primary focus of management.
improving the information-base for decision- We encourage a deliberative, purposeful effort
making, improving the judgments on which to define goals of management and specify
decisions are based, or improving the social measurable objectives in terms of impacts that
environment in which wildlife damage man- reflect human values. If stakeholder-defined
agement occurs. Having taken these steps, you impacts can be articulated clearly in terms of
will be better able to select an overarching important affected human values, wildlife man-
stakeholder engagement approach. Wildlife agers can become more creative in developing
managers have taken five basic approaches to a wider range of management interventions to
stakeholder involvement: expert authority, pas- achieve the outcomes people desire.
sive-receptive, inquisitive, transactional, and We believe that society will be well served by
co-managerial. Choosing the best approach will wildlife managers who adopt a management
depend on a variety of factors, including: the perspective that integrates human and ecologi-
level of conflict over the issue; the number cal dimensions, engages stakeholders in all
and type of stakeholders affected; stakeholder aspects of the management process, and explic-
interest in and awareness of the issue; legal itly seeks impact-focused objectives that reflect
mandates to which an agency must adhere; the operant human values. In many respects, wild-
existence of other government entities that can life managers dealing with damage manage-
influence management; agency resource limi- ment are leading the way on all these fronts.

38
 Appendix

Human Dimensions Research Methods

Some Background About Human Dimensions Box A.1 Developing Human Dimensions Expertise
Research Methods
Both quantitative and qualitative research meth- Wildlife managers have several avenues to crease managers understanding of human
pursue to increase their human dimensions dimensions research. Don Dillman has au-
ods are used in human dimensions research.
knowledge: thored several how to texts to guide
Quantitative methods generally are favored if data survey research that are widely used by
Human dimensions specialists. Individuals
are needed from a large representative sample with human dimensions expertise, who can
human dimensions researchers. Many of
and researchers must rely on measures that can the prominent wildlife and natural re-
aid in the planning and execution of studies,
sources journals (e.g., Wildlife Society Bul-
be easily quantied. Often quantitative human are often found at universitiesparticularly
letin, Society and Natural Resources,
dimensions data are collected through some type land-grant universities. They may be on
Human Dimensions of Wildlife) publish ar-
staff in departments of wildlife, natural re-
of survey: face-to-face interviews, telephone inter- ticles on human dimensions topics that
sources, rural sociology, or related fields. Re-
views, or mail surveys using questionnaires. Each can help managers increase their under-
sponsive Management (130 Franklin Street,
standing of these issues.
of these approaches to surveys has advantages Harrisonburg, VA, 22801; 540-432-1888), a
public opinion polling and survey research Conferences and workshops. Conferences
and disadvantages (Table A.1).
firm specializing in wildlife and natural re- and workshops provide valuable opportuni-
Quantitative methods may have limited utility source issues, is also widely used by wildlife ties to interact with a wide variety of man-
for certain management needs. Many researchers management agencies. Other public opinion agers and researchers with experience in
believe that reducing complex phenomena, such polling and survey research firms may also human dimensions. The Wildlife Societys
be able to help managers address human annual conference (check the program to
as attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, to numbers dimensions issues. Some state wildlife see if human dimensions papers are to be
necessarily involves discarding or ignoring a con- agencies have hired human dimensions spe- presented) and the International Sympo-
siderable amount of information. Sometimes that cialists to work within their agencies. sium on Society and Resource Management
information is relevant or even critical for an ade- are two of the most widely attended
Human dimensions literature. Many
conferences.
quate understanding of the management issue. widely available texts and journals can in-
Under such circumstances, qualitative re-
search methods are valuable. Qualitative meth-
ods generate in-depth understanding of people ager and the human dimensions research spe-
through their own words or observation of their cialist. In the next section, we offer general guid-
actions (Table A.2). These methods take three ance for the wildlife manager.
basic forms. In individual or group interviews,
Questions to Ask When Planning
respondents are encouraged to respond to ques-
a Stakeholder Study
tions at length and in their own words. In obser-
vation, researchers record detailed written or When managers call on social scientists to de-
verbal descriptions based on their direct observa- velop a stakeholder study, they typically nd
tion of stakeholder behavior. In document analy- themselves rst asked to articulate the manage-
sis, excerpts from written documents are used to ment problem to be addressed. The wildlife
characterize stakeholders. manager brings to the study unique knowledge
Many variations of quantitative and qualitative and insight about the context: the history of
methods exist. A human dimensions study may management actions and public reactions to
use both quantitative and qualitative methods to them, tensions and alliances between stake-
benet from the strengths and compensate for holder groups, and information about what the
the weaknesses of each. Sorting out which meth- stakeholders need to learn about the issue at
ods are best suited for meeting the information hand. Applying those manager insights is critical
needs of a particular situation should be under-
taken as a partnership between the wildlife man-

39
 Table A.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Methods

Method Strengths Weaknesses

Face-to-face allows a lengthy instrument to be administered is expensive because of staff time and travel costs
interview
has a high item-response rate, because interviewees requires highly trained interviewers
usually answer every question
may require a lot of time to reach potential respondents
can include complex questions and complete all interviews
can include branching,* depending on the answers to has potential for interviewer bias
screening questions
has potential for social desirability bias (when answers
allows the interviewer to clarify questions and probe are socially acceptable rather than truthful)
for a more complete answer
allows for field observation of equipment used, game
harvested, and other factors of interest
can include people who arent likely or able to respond
to telephone or mail

Telephone can be implemented quickly must include questions that are brief and easily
interview understood
is highly conducive to branching (with computer-
assisted interview instruments) must be short
provides more control over who answers questions than has some potential for social desirability bias
a mail survey
requires highly trained interviewers willing to work
has a higher cooperation rate than a mail questionnaire evenings and weekends
(but lower than a face-to-face interview)
can be implemented with a geographically dispersed
group

Mail survey can include complex questions can include only a limited amount of branching
can be implemented to a geographically dispersed group raises problems of nonresponse bias
allows respondents to reply at their convenience, takes a long timeusually eight weeksbefore all
resulting in better memory recall (they can verify the responses are in
information)
provides no opportunity to explain questions
has low potential for social desirability bias
doesnt provide certainty about who actually completed
the questionnaire
doesnt give the researcher complete control over the
order in which the questions are answered

* Branching means that the questions respondents are asked depend on the answers they have given to previous questions.

to shaping a useful study. The social scientist create a cooling-off period for the opposing
should not develop and implement a study of stakeholders or to postpone a decision to a more
stakeholders without ongoing involvement of propitious time. These are the wrong reasons for
the wildlife manager. Here are some questions a human dimensions study.
youll want to consider before and after you
decide you need a study. Does the information already exist?
Perhaps the information you want already exists.
Do we really need a study? Perhaps there are secondary data, obtained for
When an issue is particularly contentious, con- another purpose, that could provide adequate in-
ducting a study is sometimes a tactic used to sight for the current situation. A literature review
or consultation with a human dimensions spe-

40
 Table A.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Methods

Method Strengths Weaknesses

Interviews respondents describe their characteristics in their requires skilled and knowledgeable interviewers
own words
different interviewers may collect different data because
entails face-to-face interactions, in which any questions of choice of follow up questions
or misunderstandings can be clarified
can be time-consuming and expensive
opportunity for researcher to ask follow-up questions
often requires travel to dispersed sites
to increase relevance of data
group interviews offer opportunities for deliberation
of points

Behavioral is unobtrusive requires field staff that have extensive training

observation
provides direct information about human behaviors different researchers may collect different data because
of interest of attention to different details
researcher often has minimal influence on what is does not allow researchers to ask questions to increase
observed relevance of data
can be time-consuming and expensive
often requires travel to dispersed sites

Document researcher has no influence on data does not allow researchers to ask questions to increase
analysis relevance of data
provides insights about communication and relation-
ships between groups
allows for exploration of change over time
is unobtrusive and does not interfere with ongoing
communication between groups

cialist may uncover a study of a similar situation Is there enough time?

that can be generalized to your situation. Occasionally input is needed too quickly to con-
duct an inquiry with proper technique; a good
Is a new study worth the cost? study done too late to be used in decision making
Sometimes more or better data would be reas- is a waste of resources. It may be possible to
suring, but the extra measure of validation or launch a limited, but credible, study on short
precision does not justify the expense of a study. notice with rapid turnaround time, but more
In fact, many decisions arent important enough often such studies have limitations that lead to
to warrant a study at all. disappointment in the outcome. Dont ask the re-
searcher to compromise on methodology to get
Will a study build unrealistic expectations? the job done on an unreasonable schedule.
Wildlife damage managers sometimes want to
identify support for an innovative management Who needs to be involved?
action and look to a stakeholder study as a way to Its absolutely necessary that wildlife agency lead-
verify the support. Theres nothing wrong with ers and staff, as well as key stakeholders, be sup-
that. However, the decision to undertake such an portive of the human dimensions inquiry.
inquiry needs to be made cautiously; moving Frequently the decision-making process can be
ahead with the study may build expectations for enhanced signicantly simply by including other
follow-through that the agency cant meet if an relevant entities (e.g., other land management
action is later determined to be biologically, s- agencies and nongovernmental organizations) in
cally, or politically unfeasible. That can create a
public backlash.

41
 the design and implementation of a study. They On the other hand, perhaps your informal as-
can make valuable contributions to study develop- sessment of the situation doesnt indicate an ob-
ment, and through their involvement they become vious action preference, and youre still
vested in the study and more comfortable with the considering various management alternatives.
application of the results in decision making. In that case you may want to generally learn
whether residents would nd lethal or nonlethal
Who should do the study? alternatives acceptable.
Many considerations go into a decision about
who should conduct a stakeholder study in a par- Should there be an external study advisory team?
ticular situation. Considerations include time Stakeholders usually have little involvement in
constraints, political climate, cost, potential con- the design and implementation of human di-
tribution to the knowledge base and theory, inter- mensions studies. But there are many situations
nal and external perceptions of bias on the part when it is useful to involve stakeholder represen-
of the research entity, the effect that the reputa- tatives as a study advisory team. Interaction
tion of the research entity may have on peer and among managers, researchers, and an advisory
stakeholder acceptance of the results, and so on. team during the design and implementation of
One easily can imagine circumstances where a a study can increase public condence in the
stakeholder study should not be conducted by study design and public trust in study ndings.
agency staff. If an agency has already taken a po-
sition on a contentious issue, any study it con- Situations when study advisory teams are useful
ducts directly would be seen as an attempt to when multiple entities have jurisdictions relevant to
reinforce its position. Similarly, even when a non- the issue (include people from those entities);
governmental organization wants to conduct or when the issue is contentious enough that organized
factions dont trust the wildlife agency, or any other
sponsor a study simply to enhance the human di- single organization, to design and implement an
mensions knowledge base on an issue, the public unbiased study;
may not have faith in such a study if the organiza- when insight from people involved in an issue (both
tion has a particular position on the issue. In those within the wildlife agency and those external
to it) needs to be on tap from beginning to end, and
such situations you should consider retaining the
their commitment to an advisory team will help ensure
services of a respected outside researcher. their input;
when others will have key roles in making or communi-
What decision is to be served by the study; and cating a management decision, and their involvement
what kinds of data will be most helpful? on an advisory team will build their knowledge; and
Focus on the decision to be made and the deci- when others are paying for the study, and their
involvement partly or entirely fills accountability
sion makers to ensure the data you collect will requirements.
be useful. For example, you may be considering
a bait-and-shoot program to manage an urban In each situation, the purposes of an advisory
deer problem. A citizen task force in a commu- team must be clear, and the roles and responsi-
nity may have decided its the only feasible bilities of each individual and the team overall
action, from a population-dynamics viewpoint must be spelled out and agreed on at the outset
and in consideration of other factors. What you to avoid confusion of purpose and mixed expec-
want to know is whether the residents in the tations. Care must be taken with respect to the
problem area would nd that bait-and-shoot pro- process of identifying advisory team members.
gram acceptable and why. Seeking less specic
information (e.g., general attitudes about wild- What information do you want?
life) at this point will not help predict acceptabil- Think carefully about the kind of information
ity of the decision. you need to inform the decision to be made.
Leaving that task to the researcher would be in-
appropriate. Most researchers wisely will refuse
to do your job. You should be able to explain the

42
 IMAGE CREDIT?
kind of information you need and why. Dont and the researcher (e.g., misquotes or even accu- Fig. A.1 Media coverage
draft a questionnaire; rather, develop information rate statements from the researcher that arent can have a substantial
objectives that the human dimensions specialist in line with agency policy) and between the effect on wildlife damage
management.
can use to design the questionnaire. Distinguish agency and the stakeholders. These concerns
between information that would be interesting need to be addressed by planning media rela-
for background and that which is essential. tions ahead of time.

Who will handle the media and how will media Do people know enough?
relations be coordinated? People can be enticed to respond to almost any-
Some studies are low-key undertakings that gen- thing. The goal is to be sure youre getting truth-
erate little media interest. Other studies are fo- ful, accurate responses to reasonable questions.
cused on hot topics (e.g., culling deer in a Expectations of stakeholders ability to provide
national park) that interest the media. Media re- information has to be realistic. Ask appropriate,
lations in the latter case can affect a human di- relevant, and needed questions.
mensions study in several ways. First, high Answers to questions about hypothetical sce-
prole coverage before and during implementa- narios or potential interactions with species that
tion can affect the results themselves. Second, people havent experienced will necessarily be su-
the human dimensions researchers and wildlife percial, no matter how sophisticated the inquiry
managers can be distracted dealing with the is otherwise. Responses to such questions may
media; it takes time to answer reporters ques- reveal how a stakeholder would react to a pro-
tions and those of stakeholders generated by the posal, but they wouldnt reveal the stakeholders
media coverage. Third, media treatment of a likely response to the actual scenario experience.
study can create tensions between the agency

43
 How precise do results need to be? cation of sampling would be needed. Each
When designing a sampling strategy, you should region would be sampled to give region-by-region
anticipate being asked how precise the results data. The total sample size might jump to 5,000,
need to be. Can you live with fairly broad esti- and study costs would rise.
matessay plus or minus 7%of important Youll need to consider precision, condence,
population parameters (e.g., level of support for and stratication carefully to assure that the
a management program, percentage of public study yields information of the right kind and
experiencing wildlife damage, etc.)? Or can you the right quality for decision making. Typically,
tolerate only a 3% error range? Your answer will youll have to make trade-offs to keep the study
make a big difference in sample size, which in within budget. Every case is unique, and it is the
turn will inuence cost and time. wildlife manager, not the advising researcher or
How condent must you be in the results, sta- statistician, who should make such decisions.
tistically speaking? Do you need to have only a 1
in 20 chance (P = 0.05) of a measure for the What about nonrespondents?
stakeholder population falling outside the error Unless a response rate is very high, you should
range? Or, given the level of uncertainty that be concerned about nonresponse bias. Forget
exists for other parameters in a decision, could about the justications you have occasionally
you accept a 1 in 5 (P = 0.20) chance that the read in papers or reports using results from a
actual value for a parameter might not be within survey with a low response rate (e.g., We experi-
the error range specied? The more condence enced a 25% response rate, which is good for
you demand, the greater the sample size re- single-wave mail surveys.). Youll want to know
quired, and the higher the cost and longer the if the people who didnt respond have character-
time required for the study. istics markedly different from those who did. If
Sometimes subsets of a population of interest they do, knowledge of those characteristics may
need special attention. For example, for a inuence your interpretation of results and im-
statewide assessment of farmers acceptance of plications (i.e., generalizability). A nonrespon-
deer, a sample of 500 might be adequate. But if dent follow-up is typically a telephone survey of a
you want data from 10 deer management regions randomly selected group of nonrespondents to a
that is specic enough to allow you to be respon- mail survey, and sometimes even of nonrespon-
sive to the needs of each region, geographicstrati- dents to a telephone survey.

44
Literature Cited

Baker, S. V., and J. A. Fritsch. 1997. New terri- Conover, M. R. 1997. Monetary and intangible
tory for deer management: human conicts valuation of deer in the United States. Wildlife
on the suburban frontier. Wildlife Society Bul- Society Bulletin 25:298305.
letin 25:404407. Curtis, P. D., and J. R. Hauber. 1997. Public in-
Brown, T. L., and D. J. Decker. 1979. Incorporat- volvement in deer management decisions:
ing farmers attitudes into management of consensus versus consent. Wildlife Society
white-tailed deer in New York. Journal of Wild- Bulletin 25:399403.
life Management 43:236239. Deblinger, R. D., W. A. Woytek, and R. R. Zwick.
Butler, J. S., J. E. Shanahan, and D. J. Decker. 1999. Demographics of voting on the 1996
2001. Wildlife attitudes and values: a trend Massachusetts ballot referendum. Human Di-
analysis. HDRU Series Publication Number mensions of Wildlife 4(2):4055.
01-4, Department of Natural Resources, Cor- Decker, D. J. 1985. Agency image: a key to suc-
nell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. cessful natural resource management. Trans-
Calvert, R., and M. Ellingwood. 2001. Bear actions of the Northeast Section of The
damage management in New Hampshire: Wildlife Society 41:4356.
past, present and future. Abstracts of the 57th Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, N. A. Connelly, J. W.
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. The Enck, G. A. Pomerantz, K. G. Purdy, and W. F.
Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Siemer. 1992. Toward a comprehensive para-
Agencies, 2225 April, 2001, Saratoga digm of wildlife management: integrating the
Springs, New York, USA. human and biological dimensions. Pages
Carpenter, L. H., D. J. Decker, and J. F. Lip- 3354 in W. R. Mangun, editor. American sh
scomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance capacity and wildlife policy: the human dimension.
in wildlife management. Human Dimensions Southern Illinois University Press, Carbon-
of Wildlife 5:519. dale, Illinois, USA.
Chase, L. C., T. M. Schusler, and D. J. Decker. Decker, D. J,. and L. C. Chase. 1997. Human
2000. Innovations in stakeholder involve- dimensions of living with wildlifea manage-
ment: whats the next step? Wildlife Society ment challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife
Bulletin 28:208217. Society Bulletin 25:788795.
Chase, L. C., W. F. Siemer, and D. J. Decker. Decker, D. J., C. C. Krueger, R. A. Baer, Jr., B. A.
1999. Designing strategies for stakeholder in- Knuth, and M. E. Richmond. 1996. From
volvement in wildlife management: insights clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift
from case studies in Colorado and New York. for sh and wildlife management. Human
HDRU Series Publication Number 99-9, De- Dimensions of Wildlife 1:7082.
partment of Natural Resources, Cornell Uni- Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a
versity, Ithaca, New York, USA. concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wild-
Clay, W. H., and R. H. Schmidt. 1998. Utilizing life management. Wildlife Society Bulletin
human dimensions information in federal 16:5357.
damage management programs. Transactions
of the North American Fish, Wildlife, and Nat-
ural Resources Conference 63:215226.

45
 Decker, D. J., T. M. Schusler, T. L. Brown, and G. Lauber, T. B., and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Citizen
F. Mattfeld. 2000. Co-management: an evolv- participation in natural resource management:
ing process for the future of wildlife manage- a synthesis of HDRU research. HDRU Series
ment? Transactions of the North American Publication Number 00-7. Department of Nat-
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference ural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca,
65:262277. NY, USA.
Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L. A. Nielsen, and G. Loker, C. A., D. J. Decker, and S. J. Schwager.
R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and scientic judge- 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife manage-
ments in management: beware of blurred dis- ment actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from
tinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:523527. New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:152159.
Eilon, S. 1995. Goal and constraints in decision- Lund, R. C. 1997. A cooperative community-
making. Pages 315 in S. Eilon, editor. Man- based approach for the management of subur-
agement science: an anthology. Dartmouth ban deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin
Publishing Company, Brookeld, Vermont, 25:488490.
USA. Minnis, D. L., and R. B. Peyton. 1995. Cultural
Fischoff, B., S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, S. L. carrying capacity: modeling a notion. Pages
Derby, and R. L. Keeney. 1981. Acceptable risk. 1934 in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a
Cambridge University Press, New York, New manageable resource? Proceedings of the
York, USA. symposium of the 55th Midwest Fish and
Gentile, J. R. 1987. The evolution of antitrapping Wildlife Conference. North Central Section of
sentiment in the United States: a review and The Wildlife Society, 1214 December 1993,
commentary. Wildlife Society Bulletin St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
15:490503. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2000.
Hahn, A. J. 1990. Issues-oriented public policy News release archive. http://www.state.nj.us
education: a framework for integrating the /dep/fgw/news/pastnr.htm.
process. Journal of Extension 28:1519. Pinkerton, E. W. 1999. Factors in overcoming
Knuth, B. A., R. J. Stout, W. F. Siemer, D. J. barriers to implementing co-management
Decker, and R. C. Stedman. 1992. Risk man- in British Columbia salmon sheries. Conser-
agement concepts for improving wildlife pop- vation Ecology 3(2): 2. [online] URL:
ulation decisions and public communication http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art2.
strategies. Transactions of the North American Pomerantz, G. A., C. Ng, and D. J. Decker. 1986.
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference Summary of research on human tolerance of
57:6374. wildlife damage. Natural Resources Research
Lauber, T. B., and T. L. Brown. 2000. Hunting and Extensions Series Number 25, Depart-
access on private lands in Dutchess County. ment of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
HDRU Series Publication Number 00-12, De- Ithaca, New York, USA.
partment of Natural Resources, Cornell Uni- Purdy, K. G., and D. J. Decker. 1989. Obtaining
versity, Ithaca, New York, USA. wildlife values information for management:
Lauber, T. B., and B. A. Knuth. 1998. Suburban the wildlife attitudes and values scale. HDRU
residents attitudes towards contraception and Series Publication Number 89-2, Department
other deer management techniques. HDRU of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
Series Publication Number 98-8, Department Ithaca, New York, USA.
of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Riley, S. J., and D. J. Decker. 2000a. Risk percep-
Ithaca, New York, USA. tion as a factor in wildlife stakeholder accep-
tance capacity for cougars in Montana.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:5062.

46
Riley, S. J., and D. J. Decker. 2000b. Wildlife Glossary
stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars
in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:931939.
Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F.
Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G.
Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife man-
agement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30:in press. AIM Adaptive Impact Managementmanagers
focus on impacts and approach management
Schusler, T. M. 1999. Co-management of sh
as an adaptive, constantly learning, and im-
and wildlife in North America: a review of lit-
proving process.
erature. HDRU Series Publication Number
99-2, Department of Natural Resources, Cor- Attitude a persons favorable or unfavorable evalu-
nell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. ation of a person, object, concept, or action; an
important component to predicting behavior.
Schusler, T. M. 2001. Exploring social learning
in the development of collaborative natural re- Behavioral observation a research method
source management. Masters Thesis, Depart- wherein the researcher makes direct but unob-
ment of Natural Resources, Cornell University, trusive observations of subjects during a sample
Ithaca, New York, USA. of time periods or during the course of particu-
lar events.
Schusler, T. M., L. C. Chase, and D. J. Decker.
2000. Community-based management: shar- Citizen participation in wildlife management
ing responsibility when tolerance for wildlife agency-initiated involvement of wildlife man-
is exceeded. Human Dimensions of Wildlife agement stakeholders in making, understand-
5:3449. ing, implementing, or evaluating management
decisions for improved wildlife management.
Siemer, W. F., and T. L. Brown. 1993. Public
access to private land for hunting in New York: Cognitive risk perceptions perceptions of the
a study of 1991 landowners. HDRU Series probability of an undesirable outcome.
Publication Number 93-4, Department of Nat- Co-managerial approach management by two
ural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, or more entities, involving shared control and
New York, USA responsibility for a particular wildlife manage-
Siemer, W. F., and D. J. Decker. 1991. Human ment situation.
tolerance of wildlife damage: synthesis of re- Communication planning a management activ-
search and management implications. HDRU ity that normally begins with an evaluation of
Series Publication Number 91-7, Department program goals and an effort to link communi-
of Natural Resources, Cornell University, cation goals to program goals.
Ithaca, New York, USA. CTF Citizen Task Force, in which stakeholders
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science are engaged in deliberation over management
236:280285. issues and typically are asked to recommend
Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democ- management objectives and/or actions.
racy. Risk Analysis 13:675682. Economic impact the change in economic activ-
Stout, R. J., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, and ity, positive or negative, in a dened geo-
B. A. Knuth. 1993. Perceptions of risk from graphic area, that is associated with an activity
deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for or event.
public preferences for deer herd size. Wildlife Expert authority approach a top-down approach
Society Bulletin 21:237249. in which wildlife managers make decisions
and take actions unilaterally.
Face-to-face interviews a research method where
trained interviewers complete in-person
47
 interviews, using a carefully designed interview actively and systematically seek out concerns
protocol. of stakeholders.
Focus group a method wherein a trained modera- Satiscing is a term used to describe qualitative
tor poses a prepared set of questions or topics decision-making techniques (typical for wild-
to a small, relatively homogeneous group of life damage management scenarios) com-
people. Reactions from the group are usually monly employed by decision makers to select
recorded for later analysis. Multiple groups may acceptable alternatives. Decision makers are
be convened as part of a single study. often unable to reconcile the multiple conict-
Grassroots citizen participation citizen-initiated ing desires of stakeholders or to conduct an
involvement in wildlife management processes. analysis in a more critical or formal process
(e.g., optimization, maximization). He or she
Goals (management) broad statements of agency
proceeds with what may not be the best deci-
or organizational intent, often based on state
sion, but one that is good enough.
and federal policies.
Secondary data data that already exist, such as
Impacts Countless effects are created through in-
the most recent census data.
teractions among people, wildlife, and wildlife
management agencies. Many effects are largely Stakeholder (wildlife) any person or group who
unnoticed by stakeholders. However, a subset of will be affected by, or will affect, a particular
effects are recognized by people, interpreted as type of wildlife management.
being important, and evaluated as being good Stakeholder involvement engagement of stake-
or bad. We call that subset of effects im- holders in making, understanding, imple-
pacts. When a particular effect is regarded as menting or evaluating wildlife management
important to many people, it becomes an decisions.
impact having management signicance. Transactional approach a management approach
Inquisitive approach a management approach of obtaining public input in which stakehold-
that actively seeks information about stakehold- ers engage each other directly through interac-
ers, and their positions, either during a contro- tive processes to articulate their values and
versy or before an anticipated problem becomes stakes, rather than expressing those values and
a public issue. stakes indirectly, through the wildlife manager.
Media planning the process of selecting appropri- Values Desirable end states, modes of conduct,
ate channels for messages intended to reach or qualities of life humans individually or
particular stakeholders. collectively hold dear. Values are general
Nominal group technique a qualitative research mental constructs that dene what is impor-
method in which a trained facilitator convenes tant to people.
a small group of stakeholders or subject matter WAVS Wildlife Attitude and Values Scalea
experts, elicits ideas in writing on a given topic survey scale used to assess beliefs about the
or question, and has group members prioritize value of different types of human-wildlife
the ideas through a voting process. interactions.
Objectives (management) statements that pro- Wildlife management a set of processes and
vide measurable denition of the part of the practices that purposefully inuence interac-
agency or organizational goal that is expected tions among and between people, wildlife,
within a particular time frame. and habitat to achieve desired impacts, dened
Participant observation technique a eld research in terms of human values and objectives.
method in which the researcher records obser- Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC)
vations of subjects in a particular setting. The unique capacity of a given stakeholder
Passive-receptive approach an approach where group to accept the positive and negative im-
wildlife managers are alert to but do not pacts associated with a particular type of wild-
life or wildlife management program.

48
 a practitioners guide

Human-Wildlife
Conflict Management

ildlife management calls for skillful in-

W tegration of social and biological infor-

mation. This guide is designed to help
wildlife managers with biological backgrounds
integrate human dimensions considerations into
decisions that involve conflicts between people
and wildlife. The guide focuses on two compo-
nents of the human dimension: social assessment
and stakeholder engagement.

Part 1 presents a conceptual foundation for the

practice of conflict management. Part 2 summa-
rizes key insights about human tolerance of
negative interactions with wildlife. Part 3 offers
practical guidance on designing, implementing,
and evaluating stakeholder engagement
processes in support of wildlife management.

Wildlife management professionals, extension

educators, and community leaders will find this
guide a valuable resource as they work together
to address human-wildlife conflicts in their local
communities.

The Northeast Wildlife Damage

Management Research and
Outreach Cooperative

Daniel J. Decker, T. Bruce Lauber,

and William F. Siemer
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850