Abstract
Wildlife management methods such as culling (lethal control) and fencing can be controversial in some circumstances. Such controversy can be problematic for decision-makers or those managing decision-making processes and can lead to management delays or inertia. Understanding the reasons why people support or oppose specific management methods is therefore an important objective for researchers. Attitudes towards methods are in part based on individual beliefs about those methods, the species of wildlife being managed and other associated phenomena. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to develop understanding of these beliefs. We conducted 17 focus-groups on wild deer management at two locations in Britain, with both ‘professional’ land manager and ‘public’ participants (n = 103). We identified a number of individual beliefs which are grouped into five categories: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Our findings suggest that potentially controversial management methods will receive most support where the objective is to maintain a ‘natural’ environment, at sites where impacts are evident, and when using targeted and effective methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Addison RB (1999) A grounded hermeneutic editing approach. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL (eds) Doing qualitative research (2nd Edition). Sage Publications, London
Anderson JE (1991) A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conserv Biol 5:347–352
Angermeier PL (2000) The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conserv Biol 14:373–381
Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biol Conserv 110:327–342
Barrett MA, Stirling P (2006) Effects of Key deer herbivory on forest communities in the lower Florida Keys. Biol Conserv 129:100–108
Bisi J, Kurki S, Svensberg M, Liukkonen T (2007) Human dimensions of wolf (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland. Eur J Wildl Res 53:304–314
Bisi J, Liukkonen T, Mykrä S, Pohja-Mykrä M, Kurki S (2010) The good bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict. Eur J Wildl Res 56:771–779
Bronner S (2008) Killing tradition: inside hunting and animal rights controversies. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington
Brown JB (1999) The use of focus groups in clinical research, in Crabtree BF and Miller WL (Eds.) Doing qualitative research (2nd Edition) Sage Publications, London
Castree N (2005) Nature. Routledge, London
Clutton-Brock T, Coulson T, Milner J (2004) Red deer stocks in the highlands of Scotland. Nature 429:261–262
Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:113–147
Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London
d'Agostino JV, Loomis RJ, Webb B (1992) Attitudes, beliefs, intended behaviors, and exhibit evaluation. Visitor Stud 4:92–102
Dandy N, Ballantyne S, Moseley D, Gill R, Quine C (2009) The management of roe deer in peri-urban Scotland: final report. Forest Research. pp. 84. Available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B652479.pdf
Dougherty EM, Fulton DC, Anderson DH (2003) The influence of gender on the relationship between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Soc Nat Resour 16:603–623
Dowle M, Deane EM (2009) Attitudes to native bandicoots in an urban environment. Eur J Wildl Res 55:45–52
Fiorini S, Yearley S, Dandy N (2011) Wild deer, multivalence, and institutional adaptation: the “deer management group” in Britain. Hum Organ 70:179–188
Fischer A, Young JC (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conserv 136:271–282
Fischer A, Van der Wal R (2007) Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird—the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol Conserv 135:56–267
Fox W (1990) Toward a transpersonal ecology: developing new foundations for environmentalism. Shambhala Publications, Boston and London
Fuller RJ, Gill RM (2001) Ecological impacts of deer in woodland: Proceedings of British Ecological Society meeting. Forestry (Special Issue), 74
Fulton DC, Skerl K, Shank EM, Lime DW (2004) Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildl Soc Bull 32:1166–1176
Greenwald KR, Petit LJ, Waite TA (2008) Indirect effects of a keystone herbivore elevate local animal diversity. J Wildl Manage 72:1318–1321
Heydlauff AL, Krausman PR, Shaw WW, Marsh S (2006) Perceptions regarding elk in northern Arizona. Wildl Soc Bull 34:27–35
Hinchliffe S (2007) Geographies of nature: societies, environments, ecologies. Sage Publications, London
Kellert SR, Berry JK (1987) Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl Soc Bull 15:363–371
Kendall HA, Lobao LM, Sharp JS (2006) Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociol 71:399–428
König A (2008) Fears, attitudes and opinions of suburban residents with regards to their urban foxes: a case study in the community of Grünwald—a suburb of Munich. Eur J Wildl Res 54:101–109
Koval MH, Mertig AG (2004) Attitudes of the Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. Wildl Soc Bull 32:232–243
Lauber TB, Anthony ML, Knuth BA (2001) Gender and ethical judgments about suburban deer management. Soc Nat Resour 14:571–583
Lauber TB, Brown TL, Gore ML (2004) Learning by doing: deer management in urban and suburban communities. HDRU Series No 04-2. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Lemelin RH (2009) Doubting Thomases and the cougar: the perceptions of puma management in Northern Ontario, Canada. Sociol Ruralis 49:56–69
Lemelin RH, Wiersma EC (2007) Perceptions of polar bear tourists: a qualitative analysis. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:45–52
Lindsay TG, Davenport MA, Mangun JC (2007) The former “Goose Hunting Capital of the World”: Southern Illinois Hunting Club owners' beliefs, attitudes, and responses associated with shifts in goose migration. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:429–442
Majić A, Bath AJ (2010) Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biol Conserv 143:255–260
Manfredo MJ (2008) Who cares about wildlife?: social science concepts for exploring human–wildlife relationships and conservation issues. Springer, New York
Martin JL, Stockton SA, Allombert S, Gaston AJ (2010) Top-down and bottom-up consequences of unchecked ungulate browsing on plant and animal diversity in temperate forests: lessons from a deer introduction. Biol Invasions 12:353–371
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London
Minnis DL, Holsman RH, Grice L, Payton RB (1997) Focus groups as a human dimensions research tool: three illustrations of their use. Hum Dimens Wildl 2:40–49
Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London
Partridge E (1984) Nature as a moral resource. Env Ethics 6:101–130
Paterson B (2006) Ethics for wildlife conservation: overcoming the human–nature dualism. BioScience 56:144–150
Pellerin S, Huot J, Côté SD (2006) Long term effects of deer browsing and trampling on the vegetation of peatlands. Biol Conserv 128:316–326
Phillip S, Dandy N, Gill R, MacMillan D (2009) Is legislation a barrier to the sustainable management of game species? A case study of wild deer in Britain. J Env Manage Plan 52:993–1012
Reif A, Walentowski H (2008) The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe. Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz 6:63–67
Responsive Management (2005) Opinions of the general population, hunters, and farmers regarding deer management in Delaware. Report for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Robson C (2002) Real world research (2nd Edition). Blackwell, Oxford
Selge S, Fischer A, Van der Wal R (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species—a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol Conserv 144:3089–3097
Siemer WF, Lauber TB, Chase LC, Decker DJ, McPeake RJ, Jacobson CA (2004) Deer/elk management actions in suburban environments: what will stakeholders accept? in Shaw WW, Harris LK, VanDruff L (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation. May 1–5, 1999, Tucson, Arizona. Available at http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/adjunct/snr0704/snr07042t.pdf
Skogen K, Mauz I, Krange O (2008) Cry wolf!: narratives of wolf recovery in France and Norway. Rural Sociol 73:105–133
Stronen AV, Brook RK, Paquet PC, Mclachlan S (2007) Farmer attitudes towards wolves: implications for the role of predators in managing disease. Biol Conserv 135:1–10
Suominen O, Dannell K, Bryant JP (1999) Indirect effects of mammalian browsers on vegetation and ground-dwelling insects in an Alaskan floodplain. Ecoscience 6:505–510
Tynon JF (1997) Quality hunting experiences: a qualitative inquiry. Hum Dimens Wildl 2:32–46
Ward AI (2005) Expanding ranges of wild and feral deer in Great Britain. Mammal Rev 35:165–173
White RM, Fischer A, Marshall K, Travis JMJ, Webb TJ, di Falco S, Redpath SM, Van der Wal R (2009) Developing and integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts. Land Use Policy 26:242–253
Wilson CJ (2003) Current and future deer management options: report on behalf of DEFRA European Wildlife Division. Department of the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs/Rural Development Service
Whittaker D, Manfredo MJ, Fix PJ, Sinnott R, Miller S, Vaske JJ (2001) Understanding beliefs and attitudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage. Alaska Wildl Soc Bull 29:1114–1124
Young JC, Marzano M, White RM, McCracken DI, Redpath SM, Carss DN, Quine CP, Watt AD (2010) The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers Conserv 19:3973–3990
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was conducted as part of two projects related to the management of wild deer in Britain. Research in Scotland was part of the ‘Management of roe deer in peri-urban Scotland’ project funded by the Scottish Government (Contract: CR/2007/30). Research in England was part of the ‘Collaborative Frameworks in Land Management: a case study on integrated deer management’ funded by the Rural Economy and Land Use programme of the UK Research Councils (Project: RES 227-025-0014). We are grateful to Suzanne Martin for comments on an earlier draft and to two anonymous referees whose comments improved our manuscript considerably.
Ethical Standards
All research reported in this paper was conducted in full compliance with the law of the United Kingdom and to the standards stated in our institution's Statement of Research Ethics (available at http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-6CRESD).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by A. Aguirre
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dandy, N., Ballantyne, S., Moseley, D. et al. Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study. Eur J Wildl Res 58, 695–706 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1