|
|
- Info
Stakeholder acceptance of urban deer management techniques
| Author: |
Messmer, T.A.; Cornicelli, L.; Decker, D.J.; Hewitt, D.G. |
| Date: |
1997 |
| Periodical: |
Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Abstract: |
The apparent increase in public opposition to hunting (Shaw 1977) may lead many wildlife managers to perceive that stakeholders are more likely to accept nonlethal than lethal techniques to reduce the damage associated with overabundant deer in urban environments (Curtis et al. 1993, Wright 1993). However, recent evidence suggests that when the damage caused by deer in urban environments exceeds human tolerance levels, residents are more likely to accept lethal population control techniques (McAninch 1995, Looker 1996). Limited information exists regarding stakeholder acceptance of lethal and nonlethal approaches that could be used to manage urban deer. To address this information need, we surveyed natural resource agencies and organizations representing specific stakeholder groups to determine the acceptability of various lethal and nonlethal techniques for managing urban deer populations. We compared our results to public acceptability ratings reported for various wildlife damage management techniques (D.K. Reiter, M.W. Brunson, and R.A. Schmidt, Utah State Univ., unpubl. data). Based on information presented by Mannish (1995) and Loker (1996), and on reported increases in wildlife-caused damage in residential areas (Conover et al. 1995), we hypothesized that public acceptability ratings for various management techniques would more closely approximate ratings of state fish and wildlife agencies than other stakeholder groups. Subsequently, we surveyed state fish and wildlife agencies to determine the degree of congruence between pubic and stakeholder group acceptability ratings and contemporary urban deer management techniques implemented by these agencies. If our original hypothesis was correct, then we would predict that public acceptability ratings regarding urban deer management techniques would be reflected in state agency programs. |
|
