Wildlife Management, Habitat, and Conservation

As the landscape continues to become more urbanized, and humans continue to place more pressure on our natural resources and wildlife populations, wildlife management will continue to be a significant issue. Wildlife populations provide numerous hunting opportunities, wildlife viewing opportunities, and contributions to overall biodiversity. Aside from economic and instrumental value, wildlife holds subjective values for most people. These values may be symbolic, aesthetic, or educational, but they are as important as utilitarian or economic values in the consideration of management options.

In recent decades, the human element of wildlife management has become more important, as an understanding of the public often means the difference between the success or failure of wildlife management programs. Natural resource and outdoor recreation organizations use biological and ecological research to better understand and manage wildlife and wildlife habitat. Effective natural resource and outdoor recreation organizations use human dimensions research and techniques to better understand and work with their constituents and stakeholders. Among the benefits of using human dimensions research are enhanced management of the resource and a more supportive constituency. Overall, natural resource and outdoor recreation organizations that effectively incorporate the human element into organization management functions and decision-making ultimately spend more time and money on the resource, as opposed to making ill-fated decisions, because of a lack of understanding of the public and the need to constantly respond to controversy.

Responsive Management designs and conducts wildlife studies that assess issues such as:

• Public awareness of and attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management issues.
• Attitudes toward wildlife law enforcement and opinions on regulations and laws.
• How people value wildlife.
• Public perceptions of wildlife populations and cultural carrying capacity issues—that is, how much is enough and what are people willing to sacrifice for the sake of wildlife conservation.
• Public attitudes toward endangered species.
• Public attitudes toward wildlife reintroductions.
• Opinions on invasive species.
• Attitudes toward habitat, habitat protection, and development.
• Landowner attitudes toward wildlife management issues.
• Information and education about wildlife issues.
• Where the public receives their information on wildlife issues.
• Public awareness of agency funding, and support for and opposition to various funding mechanisms for wildlife management.

Wildlife is very important to the American public. When asked to rank the importance of environmental or natural resource issues, issues related to the conservation and protection of wildlife are often among the top responses. In studies across the U.S., the majority of Americans also often agree that it is important to them to know that wildlife exists in their state. Regional studies conducted by Responsive Management in the northeastern and southeastern U.S. found that overwhelming majorities (91% in the northeast and 90% in the southeast) of respondents indicated that it was very important to them to know that wildlife exists in their state.

Research conducted by Responsive Management has demonstrated that although there are some exceptions, most notably with endangered species and nongame species that depend on wetlands, a majority of the public feels that many wildlife populations are healthy and stable. In general, users of the resource are more likely to feel that wildlife populations are healthy. With the exception of endangered species and other species perceived as declining, the public wants most wildlife populations kept at present levels, although in some specific situations, the public wants certain wildlife populations reduced. For example, Responsive Management research has shown that in northern New Hampshire, residents felt there were too many moose and a slight majority wanted the moose population reduced in the area. The primary reason these citizens wanted moose populations decreased was because of the threat of vehicular collisions. In Maryland, the majority of large landowners (those who own 20 acres or more) say that the deer population where they live is too high. In general, large landowners held positive attitudes toward deer; however, a majority would like to see the population decreased, with the most popular reason being to reduce losses to crops from deer.

Cultural carrying capacity studies in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Arkansas indicate that there is a segment of the public that wants to see several populations of wildlife increased. A clear pattern has emerged among these peoples’ attitudes toward wildlife and the potential consequences of increasing wildlife populations: those that want wildlife populations increased are still willing to tolerate increased wildlife populations even if it means damage to human property. However, most who want to see wildlife populations increased are not willing to increase population levels if it means harm to the wildlife population, its habitat, or other wildlife in the area.

Responsive Management has conducted more studies regarding how the public relates to wildlife issues than any other firm in the nation. Recent example of our wildlife-related research includes the following: