Shaman is a resident at the nonprofit Wolfsallcluary. For more information go to www.wolfsanctuary.net 

To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, VA 2216J (call toll free 1-800-553-6847), orthe Defense Teehnicallnformation Center, 

8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. 
-_._-----­
,,;(00:;:;"/(J () () 0( F-oU 

"q;{'1 

Americans' Attitudes Toward 

Wolves and WolfReintroduction: 

An Annotated Bibliography 

InformationTechnology Report 

USGSIBRDIITR--2002-0002 

Apri12002 

By 

Christine Browne-Nunez 

Jonathan G. Taylor 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Suggested citation: 

Browne-Nutlez, C., and Taylor, J.G., 2002, Americans' attitudes toward wolves and wolfreintroduction: An annotated 

bibliography, Infonnation Technology Report USGSlBRDIITR--2002-0002. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, 

Colo, l5p. 

 I 

I 

Contents 

Page 

Introduction	 I 

Annotated References (By Date) 

1.	 Johnson, R.T., 1974, On the spoor ofthe big bad wolf: The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 

vol. 6, p. 7-39 3 

2.	 Minn, B.P., 1977, Attitudes toward wolf reintroductions in Rocky Mountain National Park: Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Master's thesis 3 

3.	 Llewellyn, L.G., 1978, Who speaks for the timber woIf?: Transactions ofthe Forty-third North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, vol. 43, pp. 442-452 3 

4.	 Hook, R.A., and Robinson, W.L., 1982, Attitudes ofMichigan citizens toward predators, in l:iarrington, G.H., 

and Paquet, P.C., eds., Wolves in the world: Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes, p. 382-394 3 

5.	 Kellert, S.R., 1985, Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote: Biological Conservation, 

vol. 31,p.167-189 4 

6.	 McNaught, D.A., 1985, Park visitors' attitudes towards wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park: University 

of Montana, Missoula, Master's thesis 4 

7.	 Kellert, S.R., 1986, The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota, in McCabe, R.E., ed.: Transactions of North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, vol. 51, p. 193-200 4 

8.	 Bath, A.I., 1987a, Statewide survey of the Wyoming general public attitude towards wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone National Park: National Park Service, Mammoth, Wyo 4 

9.	 Bath, A.J., 1987b, Countywide survey ofthe general public in Wyoming in counties around the park towards 

wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park: Mammoth, Wyo, National Park Service 4 

10.	 Bath, A.I., 1987c, Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone 

National Park: University of Wyoming, Laramie, Master's thesis 5 

II.	 Lenihan, M.L., 1987, Montanans ambivalent on wolves, The Montana Poll: Bureau ofBusiness and Economic 

Research, School of Business Administration: University of Montana, Missoula, 6 p 5 

12.	 McNaught, D.A., 1987, Wolves in Yellowstone?: Park visitors respond: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 15, 

p. 518-521	 5 

13.	 Biggs, I.R., 1988, Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into New Mexico, an attitude survey: New Mexico State 

University, Las Cruces, Master's thesis 5 

14.	 Bath, A.J., 1989, The public and wolfreintroduction in Yellowstone National Park: Society and Natural 

Resources, v. 2, p. 297-306 6 

15.	 Bath, A.J., and Buchanan, T., 1989, Attitudes ofintcrest groups in Wyoming toward wolfrestoration in 

Yellowstone National Park: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 17, p. 519-525 6 

16.	 Fritts, S.H., and Paul, W.I., 1989, Interactions ofwolves and dogs in Minnesota: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 17,p. 121-123	 6 

17.	 Tucker, P., and PIetscher, D.H., 1989, Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in northwestern 

Montana: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 17, p. 509-514 6 

18.	 Bath, A.I., and Phillips, C., 1990, Statewide surveys of Montana and Idaho resident attitudes toward wolf 

reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, report submitted to Friends for Animals, National Wildlife 

Federation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 38 P 6 

19.	 Johnson, T.B., 1990, Preliminary results of a public opinion survey ofArizona residents and interest groups 

about the Mexican wolf: Arizona Game and Fish Department report 7 

20.	 Kellert, S.R., 1990, Public attitudes and beliefs about the wolfand its restoration in Michigan 7 

21.	 Bath, A.J., 1991 a, Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho toward wolfreintroduction in Yellowstone 

National Park: Transactions of the Fifty-sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

p. 91-94	 7 

22.	 Bath, A.J., 1991b, Public attitudes aboutwolfrestoration in Yellowstone National Park, in Keiter, R.B., and 

Boyce, M.S., eds., The greater Yellowstone ecosystem: New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, p. 367-376 ... 7 

jii 
Contents (continued) 

Page 

23.	 Kellert, S.R., 1991, Public views ofwolfrestoration in Michigan: Transactions ofthe North American Wildlife
 

and Natural Resources Conference, v. 56, p. 152-16 I 8
 

24.	 Thompson, T., and Gasson, W., 1991, Attitudes ofWyoming residents on wolf reintroduction and related
 

issues: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 43 p 8
 

25.	 Bath, AJ., 1992, Jdentification and documentation of public attitudes toward wolf reintroduction in
 

Yellowstone National Park, in Varley, J.D., and Brewster, W.G., eds., Wolves for Yellowstone?: A report to
 

the United States Congress, Research and analysis: National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park,
 

Mammoth, Wyo, v. iv, p. 2.3-2.30 8
 

26.	 Eisenstein, W., 1992, Wolfreintroduction into Yellowstone National Park, an attitudinal survey analysis:
 

Montana State University, Bozeman, Master's thesis 8
 

27.	 Freemuth, J., 1992, Public opinion on wolves in Idaho, results from the 1992 Idaho policy survey: Boise State
 

University, Idaho, 3 p 9
 

28.	 Thompson, J.G., 1993, Addressing the human dimensions ofwolfreintroduction, an example using 

estimates oflivestock depredation and costs of compensation: Society and Natural Resources, v. 6, 

p. 165-179	 9
 

29.	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993, Summary of public comments on the draft environmental impact
 

statement for the reintroduction ofgray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central fdaho: U.S.
 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Mont, 21 p 9
 

30.	 Manfredo, MJ., Bright, A.D., Pate, J., and Tishbein, G., 1994, Colorado residents' attitudes and perceptions
 

toward reintroduction ofthe gray wolf(Canis lupus) into Colorado, Project Report No. 21: Project report
 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources
 

Unit, Ft. Collins 9
 

31.	 Miller, S.M., and McCollum, D.W., 1994, Alaska voters, Alaska hunters, and Alaska nonresident hunters,
 

their characteristics and attitudes towards wildlife: Alaska Department ofFish and Game 9
 

32	 Anderson, 0.8., 1995, The Alaska Department ofFish and Game public opinion survey on predator control
 

in game management, Unit 190 East: A report to the Alaska Board ofGame 9
 

33.	 LaVine, K.P., 1995, The attitude of Utah residents toward gray wolves: Utah State University, Logan,
 

unpublished Master's thesis 9
 

34.	 Mech, L.D., 1995, The challenge and opportunity ofrecovering wolf populations: Conservation Biology, 

v. 9, p. 27(}.....278	 10
 

35.	 Quintal, P.K.M., 1995, Public attitudes and beliefs about the red wolf and its recovery in North Carolina:
 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Master's thesis 10
 

36.	 Responsive Management, 1995, New Mexico residents' opinions toward Mexican wolfreintroduction:
 

Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Va 10
 

37.	 Bright, A.D., and Manfredo, MJ., 1996, A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource issues,
 

a case study ofwolfreintroduction: Human Dimensions ofWildlife, v. 1, p. 1-21 10
 

38.	 Defenders of Wildlife, 1996, Fact sheet: America votes "Yes!" for wolves, in Ferris, S., ed.: Defenders of
 

Wildlife, Washington, D.C , 11
 

39.	 Duffield, J.W., and Neher, C.J., 1996, Economics ofwolfrecovery in Yellowstone National Park, in
 

Wadsworth, K.G., and McCabe, R.E., eds.: Transactions ofthe Sixty-fIrst North American Wildlife and
 

Natural Resources Conference, v. 6 I, p. 285-292 11
 

40.	 Marigun, W.R., Lucas, J.N., Whitehead, J.c., and Mangun, J.c., 1996, Valuing red wolfrecovery efforts at
 

Alligator River NWR: Measuring citizen support, in Fascione, N., and Cecil, M., eds., Wolves of America,
 

Proceedings, Washington, D.C., Defenders ofWildlife, p. 165-17 I 11
 

41.	 Pate, J., Manfredo, MJ., Bright, A.D., and Tishbein, G., 1996, Coloradoans' attitudes toward reintroducing 

the gray wolfinto Colorado: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 24, p. 421--428 J1 

42.	 Responsive Management, 1996, Public opinion on and attitudes toward the reintroduction ofthe
 

eastern timber wolfto Adirondack Park, report for Defenders ofWildlife: Responsive Management,
 

Harrisonburg, Va 11
 

iv 
Contents (continued) 

Page 

43.	 Rosen, W., 1996, Recovery ofthe red wolf in northeastern North Carolina and the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, an analysis of the social and economic impacts, in Fascione, N., and 

Cecil, M., eds, Wolves ofAmerica, Proceedings, Washington, D.C., Defenders of Wildlife, p. 172-177 12 

44.	 Cromley, c., 1997, Preliminary assessment of attitudes and knowledge ofJackson Hole residents toward 

grizzly bears and wolves in Teton County, report submitted to Grand Teton National Park, National 

Elk Refuge: Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Yale University 12 

45.	 Defenders of Wildlife, 1997, Fact sheet, polls show support for woifreintroduction in Olympic National 

Park, Seattle, conference features visiting wolves: contact Ken Goldman, Defenders of Wildlife, 

Washington, D.C 12 

46.	 Responsive Management, 1997, Public opinion ofwolves and wolf management in the Greater Yellowstone 

area, report prepared for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department: Responsive Management, 

Harrisonburg, Va 12 

47.	 Schoenecker, K.A., and Shaw, W.W., 1997, Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction ofMexican gray 

wolves in Arizona: Human Dimensions ofWildlife, v. 2, p. 42-55 13 

48.	 Wilson, M.A., 1997, The wolfin Yellowstone, science, symbol, or politics?, desconstructing the conflict 

between environmentalism and wise use: Society and Natural Resources, v. 10, p. 453-468 13 

49.	 KeJlert, S.R., 1999, The public and the wolf in Minnesota, a report ofthe International Wolf Center 13 

50.	 Enck, J. W., and Brown, TL., 2000, Preliminary assessment ofsocial feasibility for reintroducing gray 

wolves to the Adirondack Park in northern New York; Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 00-3, 

Department ofNatural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, Ny 13 

Acknowledgments	 14 

Authors (Citation Numbers) 

Anderson, D.B. (32) 

Bath, A.J. (8, 9,10,14,15,18,21,22,25) 

Biggs, J.R. (13) 

Buchanan, T. (15) 

Bright, A.D. (30, 37,41) 

Brown, T.L. (50) 

Cromley, C. (44) 

Defenders ofWildlife (38, 45) 

Duffield, J.W. (39) 

Eisenstein, W. (26) 

Enck, 1.W. (50) 

Freemuth,J. (27) 

Fritts, S.H. (16) 

Gasson, W. (24) 

Hook. R.A. (4) 

Johnson, R.T (I) 

Johnson, TB. (19) 

Kellert, S.R. (5,7,20,23,49) 

LaVine, K.P. (33) 

Lenihan, M.L. (11) 

Llewellyn, L.G. (3) 

Lucas, 1. N. (40) 

McCollum, D.W. (31) 

McNaught, D.A. (6, 12) 

Manfredo, M.J. (30, 37, 41) 

Mangun,J.c. (40) 

Mangun, W.R. (40) 

Mech, L.D. (34) 

v 
Contents (concluded) 

Miller, S.M. (31)
 

Minn, B.P. (2)
 

Neher, C.J. (39)
 

Pate, 1. (30,41)
 

Paul. W.J. (16)
 

Phillips, e. (18)
 

Pletscher, D.H. (17)
 

Quintal, P.K.M. (35)
 

Responsive Management (36,42,46)
 

Robinson, W.L. (4)
 

Rosen, W. (43)
 

Schoenecker, K.A. (47)
 

Shaw, W.W. (47)
 

Thompson, T. (24)
 

Thompson, lG. (28)
 

Tishbein, G. (30, 41)
 

Tucker, P. (17)
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (29)
 

Whitehead, J.e. (40)
 

Wilson, M.A. (48)
 

Geographic Distribution (Citation Numbers)
 

Nationwide (5, 34, 38)
 

Intermountain West
 

Colorado (2,30,37,41)
 

Idaho (18, 21, 27)
 

Montana(ll, 17, 18,21)
 

Utah (33)
 

Wyoming (8, 9, 10, 15, 18,21,24, 44, 46)
 

Yellowstone National Park (6,8,9,10, 12,14, 15, 18.21,22.24, 25, 26. 28, 29,39,46,48)
 

Northeast 

New York (42. 50) 

Northwest 

Alaska (31, 32)
 

Washington (45)
 

Southeast 

North Carolina (35. 40, 43) 

Southwest 

Arizona (/9, 47)
 

New Mexico (/3, 36)
 

Upper Midwest 

Michigan (4, 20, 23)
 

Minnesota 0.3, 7, 16, 49)
 

vi 
Americans' Attitudes Toward Wolves and Wolf Reintroduction:
 

An Annotated Bibliography 

By 

Christine Browne-Nunez' and Jonathan G. Taylor 

us. Geological Survey
 

Midcontinent Ecological Science Center
 

4512 McMurry Avenue
 

Fort Collins, CO 80525-3400
 

Introduction 1973, and the red wolf was listed in 1967 under 

provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act 

of 1966. Under the requirements of the ESA, the U.S. 

Prior to the arrival of European settlers, wolves Fish and Wildlife Service initiated wolf recovery 

ranged throughout most of North America as an inte­ programs in several regions ofthe lower 48 United States. 

gral part of the arid, temperate, and arctic ecosystem Today, through reintroduction and natural 

zones (Fig. I). The gray wolf (Canis lupus) in particu­ recolonization, gray wolves inhabit portions ofMichigan, 

lar, with its various subspecies, lived throughout most Minnesota, and Wisconsin; Idaho, Montana and 

ofwhat are today Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Wyoming; and Arizona and New Mexico. Red wolves, 

Red wolves (Canis rufus) were found in the southeast­ after being completely eliminated in the wild, have been 

ern United States. European settlers arrived in the New reintroduced into North Carolina and Tennessee. 

World with negative perceptions of the wolf based on As management strategies have been developed to 

fairy tales and religious beliefs. In addition to being re­ reinstate wol ves into their fonner range, social, ecogarded as a threat to personal safety, the wolfwas also a nomic, and political issues have become research 

threat to livestock. The perception of the wolf as an evil concerns. Biologists, managers, and governmental offirepresentative of wild nature and a beast meant by God cials recognize the importance of understanding the 

for man to dominate led to large-scale wolf-eradication "human dimensions" of natural resource issues like wolf 

programs. Early eradication efforts were led by the colo­ reintroduction. Understanding the beliefs and attitudes 

nies and later by state and federal government. By the of the public regarding natural resource management 

middle of the twentieth century, wolves had been effec­ issues is key to making decisions that are more respontively removed from most of their former range in the sive to the public and, therefore, increase the effectiveness 

lower 48 states, with only a few remaining animals lo­ of resource management decisions. 

cated in northern Minnesota and Michigan. Attitude surveys are a common tool in human 

Just as the wolf arrived at brink of extinction, dimensions research. Survey results assist natural 

changes began to appear in Americans' perceptions of resource professionals in obtaining an improved, 

the wolf. The wolfwas no longer considered by all to be interdisciplinary understanding of how public a menacing threat, but some started to see it as an inte­ perceptions and preferences can guide public gral part of ecosystems it inhabited. Books, television representation and education. Several research studies 

programs, and magazines offered this new perspective have examined public attitudes toward wolves and their 

of the wolf. Their plight has captured the attention of 

management throughout the United States in the last Americans and the wolf has since become a symbol of few decades. The bibliography, presented here, is an the beauty of nature and conservation efforts. 

attempt to provide a comprehensive summary of the The gray wolf was declared an endangered species literature reporting these studies. The articles and reports in 1974 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

annotated in this bibliography are listed chronologically, 

so the reader can gain an historical perspective of public 

attitudes toward wolves and their management. An index 

'Current address: 4235 NW 27tb Terrace, Gainesville, FL 32605 by author is also provided, as well as an index by 
2 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY R£PORT--2002-0002 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Fig. 1. Range ofthe Gray Wolf: (a) historically; (b) at time ofJisting under the Endangered Species Act (1974); and 

(c) currently (including recovery areas). 
3 

geographical region where the wolf-attitude research has 

been conducted. 

Despite our efforts to be as comprehensive as possible in preparing this bibliography, we recognize that 

some studies may have been missed-especially studies 

that comprise the "gray literature." It is our hope that 

this compilation of the literature on American attitudes 

towards wolves will consolidate what is known in this 

field and help guide future research. 

Annota ted References 

1. Johnson, R.T., 1974, On the spoor of the big bad 

wolf: The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 6, 

p.7-39. 

In this paper, Johnson suggests that different forms 

of information on wolves are available to different age 

groups. Children read stories of the big, bad wolf during childhood, while adults receive factual information 

from books and television. This led Johnson to question 

the effects of conflicting information on attitude. The 

goals of the study were to determine if adults had moderated their view of the wolf, to determine if there were 

differences in attitude between men and women, and to 

determine if there were differences in attitude between 

adults and children. Visitors of the 1972 Minnesota State 

Fair were surveyed. Of the 1,692 individuals surveyed, 

most were from the Twin Cities area, but the sample 

represented all parts of the state. Johnson created four 

age groups: 'under 10: '10-18,' '19-35,' and 'over 35.' 

Age was found to be the strongest variable in determining differences in attitude. Children under 10 were more 

likely to hold a negative attitude than other age groups. 

For example, children under 10 years of age were more 

likely to believe that wolves are a danger to humans. 

Johnson suggests that in addition to reading stories of 

the big, bad wolf, children should be exposed to factual 

information about wolves. 

2. Minn, B.P., 1977, Attitudes toward wolf 

reintroductions in Rocky Mountain National Park: 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Master's thesis. 

Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park and 

residents living near the park were surveyed on their 

attitudes toward wolf reintroduction in the park. A 

significant majority (74%) of respondents were in favor 

ofhaving wolves in the park. Most neighboring residents 

(72%) from adjacent towns, and 49% from outlying 

towns, approved of reintroduction. The only group with 

a majority of respondents against reintroduction was 

ranchers. There was very little association between 

demographics and attitude. The main influences on 

attitude appeared to be related to the respondent's 

ATTITUDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BmuoGRAPHY 

confidence in the National Park Service to control 

released wolves. Top reasons given for supporting 

reintroduction included that wolves had been extirpated 

from the area and because wolves were considered to be 

an endangered species. Reasons given for opposing 

reintroduction included the possible harassment of 

wolves by people and the anticipated decline of game 

and non-game animals. 

3. L1eweJJyn, L.G., 1978, Who speaks for the timber 

wolf?: Transactions of the Forty-third North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, vol. 43, 

pp.442-452. 

This paper reports the results of content analysis of 

public comment letters regarding a proposed reclassification of the timber wolf in Minnesota from endangered 

to threatened. Of the 1,083 letters received by the Office 

of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

approximately 700 were from Minnesota residents, while 

the remaining letters were from 38 other states and the 

District of Columbia. Over 90% of the letters from outside Minnesota expressed adamant opposition to the 

proposed reclassification. "A vast majority of [out-ofstate] letters argued forcefully for the existence value of 

the timber wolf." Ofthe Minnesota sample, 23% favored 

retention of endangered status, 7% supported reclassification, and 70% supported complete declassification and 

return to state control. Most urban letter writers (78%) 

wanted the endangered classification to stay in place, 

while only 16% ofrural residents took this position. Most 

supporters of declassification saw wolves as the major 

factor in the decline of deer and a serious threat to livestock. The most prominent attitudes among supporters 

of the endangered classification were ecologistic, moralistic, and naturalistic. The dominant attitude among 

those in support of complete declassification was utilitarian (out of concern for livestock). A negativistic 

attitude based on fear of the wolf was also prevalent 

among this group. 

4. Hook, R.A., and Robinson, W.L., 1982, Attitudes of 

Michigan citizens toward predators, in Harrington, G.H., 

and Paquet, P.C, eds., Wolves in the world: Park Ridge, 

N.J.: Noyes, p. 382-394. 

The major objectives of this study were to assess 

the extent of anti-predator attitudes of Michigan residents and to determine their underlying causes. The most 

important factors that contributed toward anti-wolf attitude was fear of the wolf, followed by negativistic 

attitudes toward all animals, and age, with older people 

having less favorable attitudes toward predators. Other 

factors contributing to negative attitudes toward predators included negative feelings toward the state 

Department ofNatural Resources, lower education level, 
4 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2002-0002 

a rural childhood, residency, and lower income. Although 

an anti-wolfsentiment is prevalent, a majority ofMichigan residents were in favor of reintroduction. 

5. Kellert, S.R., 1985, Public perceptions of predators, 

particularly the wolf and coyote: BiologicaJ ConselVation, 

vol. 31, p. 167-189. 

This paper investigates attitudes toward and knowledge of predators, chiefly the wolf and coyote. The data 

discussed in this paper was drawn from a national study 

ofAmerican attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife and 

natural habitats. Personal interviews (3,107) of a random sample ofAmericans comprised most ofthe sample 

with oversampling ofover 600 respondents in the Rocky 

Mountain states and Alaska. Additionally, 388 mail surveys were completed by members ofNational Cattlemen, 

American Sheep Producers, and National Trapper associations. Out of 33 animals, the wolf and coyote were 

among the least liked. A positive attitude toward wolves 

and coyotes strongly correlated with general affection 

for animals and a desire to protect wildlife and natural 

habitats. Perceptions of the wolf vary among demographic groups. Among livestock producers, negative 

perceptions of wolves, coyotes, and predators, and support for predator population reductions and the use of 

poisons, were especially pronounced. Older respondents 

and those with less education and knowledge about 

wolves had more dislike of wolves than those under 25, 

the college educated, and those with more knowledge. 

When compared by region, Alaskans held the most favorable attitudes toward wolves, while respondents from 

the South held the least favorable attitudes. 

6. McNaught, D.A., 1985, Park visitors' attitudes 

towards wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park: 

University of Montana, Missoula, Master's thesis. 

In a survey of Yellowstone National Park visitors, 

McNaught found that visitors favored reintroduction 3 

to 1, and they believed 6 to I that "a presence of wolves 

would improve the Yellowstone experience." Support 

was based on a variety of ecological, aesthetic, and outdoor recreational reasons. Less support was found among 

older respondents and less educated individuals. There 

was stronger support among respondents from Wyoming, 

Idaho, and Montana than among those from other states. 

7. Keller!, S.R., 1986, The public and the timber wolf in 

Minnesota, in McCabe, R.E., ed.: Transactions ofNorth 

American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 

vol. 51, p. 193-200. 

Kellert examines public attitudes, knowledge, and 

behavior toward the timber wolf in Minnesota. Most 

respondents (except farmers) viewed the wolf in highly 

favorable and positive terms-most respondents expressed 

a strong appreciation for the wilderness and outdoor recreational values ofthe timber wolf, indicated a desire to 

see or hear a wolf in the wild, believed wolves are an 

important part of the Minnesota environment, and regarded wolves as a symbol of nature's wonder and beauty. 

Farmers, trappers, hunters, and residents of northern 

counties held higher utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes, while Twin Cities residents held higher moralistic 

and ecologistic attitudes. The general public had a somewhat limited factual understanding of the timber wolf. 

The lowest knowledge scores were found among Twin 

Cities residents, respondents with limited education, 

nonwhites, and females. Relatively high knowledge 

scores occurred among trappers, followed by hunters and 

higher-income respondents. 

8. Bath, A.J., 1987a, Statewide survey of the Wyoming 

general public attitude towards wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone National Park: National Park Service, 

Mammoth, Wyo. 

This study examined Wyoming residents' knowledge of, and attitudes toward wolves and the acceptability 

ofwolfreintroduction.lt found 47% ofrespondents liked 

wolves, 33% reported having no feeling for wolves, and 

16% disliked wolves (==96%). A significant difference 

was found between statewide respondents and respondents living in the counties around the park. Residents 

in the counties around the park held a more negative 

attitude toward the wolf than the statewide respondents. 

Individuals who scored higher on the Duncan socio-economic status index, younger respondents, those living 

in urban areas, and respondents with higher knowledge 

scores held more positive attitudes than those lower on 

the socio-economic index, older respondents, rural residents, and those with lower knowledge scores. 

Knowledge scores indicated respondents did not have 

good knowledge of the wolf. It was found that 48.5% 

favored wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National 

Park, 34.5% opposed it, and 17% had no opinion. A 

majority of residents living near the park opposed reintroduction, while a majority ofthe statewide sample was 

in favor of reintroduction. Residents' willingness to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park was 

explained mostly by attitude toward the wolf. 

9. Bath, A.J., 1987b, Countywide survey of the general 

public in Wyoming in counties around the park towards 

wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park: 

Mammoth, Wyo, National Park Service. 

1n a survey of residents of counties around 

Yellowstone National Park, it was found that 37% liked 

the wolf, 21 % disliked the wolf, and 38% neither liked 

nordisliked the wolf. In comparing respondents in Bath's 

countywide survey to respondents in the statewide sUlVey, 
5 

countywide respondents held a significantly more 

negative attitude. Age and occupation were significant 

predictor;; of attitude with older respondents having a 

more negative attitude and respondents with higher 

occupation scores having a more positive attitude, Most 

respondents (52%) opposed wolf reintroduction, while 

about 39% were in favor of reintroduction, and 10% had 

no opinion. There was a significant difference in 

willingness to accept reintroduction between statewide 

and countywide respondents, with respondents in the 

counties around the park less willing to support 

reintroduction. Attitude toward the wolf and knowledge 

of the wolf were the best predictors of support for 

reintroduction. 

10. Bath, A.J., 1987c, Attitudes ofvarious interest groups 

in Wyoming toward woffreintroduction in Yellowstone 

National Park: University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Master's thesis, 

This thesis examines attitudes toward and knowledge of the wolf among members of three special interest groups: Wyoming Stock Growers Association, 

Defenders of Wildlife, and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. Members of Defenders of Wildlife (93%) and 

the Wyoming Wildlife Federation (67%) had positive 

attitudes toward the wolf and Stock Growers members 

(68%) had negative attitudes. Ninety-one percent of 

members of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

were not in favor ofwolf reintroduction in Yellowstone 

National Park; while 89% ofDefenders of Wildlife members were in favor of wolf reintroduction, as were 67% 

of Wyoming Wildlife Federation members Most members ofthe Wyoming Stock Growers Association agreed 

with the following statements, while the members ofthe 

wildlife groups disagreed: (I) "wolves reintroduced into 

Yellowstone National Park would cause more damage 

to livestock than wolves presently do in Minnesota"; 

(2) "ifintroduced wolves kill livestock, the problem wolf 

should be killed"; (3) "the monetary costs ofreintroducing the wolf will exceed any benefits gained by having 

the wolf in the park"; (4) "because healthy populations 

of wolves exist in Canada and Alaska there is no need 

to have wolves in Yellowstone National Park"; 

(5) "wolves would deplete elk numbers to unacceptable 

levels in Yellowstone"; (6) "wolves would have a significant impact On big game hunting opportunities near 

Yellowstone"; and (7) "wolves would be a significant 

predator on the livestock industry around Yellowstone." 

Occupation, location ofresidence (urbanlrural), knowledge, age, and sex were predictors of attitude. Mem bers 

ofDefenders of Wildlife were significantly more knowledgeable than the other two groups. Respondents with a 

positive attitude toward wolves, who lived further away 

ATIITUDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BlBLlOGRAPHY 

from Yellowstone, and lived in urban areas, were more 

likely to support reintroduction, 

1I. Lenihan, M.L., 1987, Montanans ambivalent on 

wolves, The Montana Poll: Bureau of Business and 

Economic Research, School ofBusiness Administration: 

University of Montana, Missoula, 6 p. 

In a telephone survey of408 Montana residents, 65% 

of respondents believed that wolves belong in the state; 

78% ofpeople living in the state's most populous counties 

agreed, while 54% of rural Montanans agree. Of those 

surveyed, 78% believed that "ranchers should be able to 

shoot wolves that attack livestock on their own property," 

About half (52%) of Montanans surveyed approved of 

reintroduction of wolves into areas of Montana, Idaho, 

and Yellowstone National Park, but 56% of those from 

rural counties did not approve, A majority (59%) believed 

that ranchers should be compensated for livestock lost. 

Lenihan found that the two most important rationales 

for support of wolf reintroduction were that the wolf is 

an important member ofthe ecological community (41 %) 

and wolves were historically present (40%). The most 

important rationale for opposition was that livestock 

losses would be unacceptably high (57%). 

12, McNaught, D.A" 1987, Wolves in Yellowstone?: 

Park visitors respond: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 15, 

p,518-521. 

In this study, 1,083 overnight visitors to Yellowstone 

National Park were surveyed during the summer of 1985 

to tind their attitudes toward wolves and their perceptions of the effects the return of wolves would have on 

the Yellowstone ecosystem and on human use ofthe park. 

Most respondents (74%) felt the presence of wolves 

would enhance the Yellowstone experience. Campers 

expressed stronger feelings in favor ofwolves than those 

in lodges, Older respondents (65+) offered more antiwolf responses than younger respondents. A larger 

proportion of college-educated respondents felt strongly 

that wolves would improve the Yellowstone experience 

than those without a college education. 

13. Biggs, JR.. 1988, Reintroduction of the Mexican 

wolf into New Mexico, an attitude survey: New Mexico 

State University, Las Cruces, Master's thesis. 

The purpose ofthis survey ofNew Mexico residents 

was to identify attitudes concerning the possible reintroduction of Mexican wolves into the state, Four groups 

(Albuquerque residents, state residents, Sierra Club 

members, and ranchers) were compared to detennine if 

differences existed between groups in: (I) awareness of 

the reintroduction controversy; (2) attitude toward the 

proposed introduction; (3) attitudes toward wolves; 
6 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REpORT--2002-0002 

(4) knowledge of wolves; (5) support for compensation 

and control programs; and (6) attitudes toward endangered species. Demographics of the groups were also 

analyzed. All groups, except ranchers, were in favor of 

reintroduction and indicated a positive attitude toward 

the wolf. A majority of all groups supported financial 

compensation for ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. 

All groups except ranchers favored non-lethal control 

methods for wolves. Some association between attitude 

and demographics was found. Older respondents, those 

with lower incomes, and those with less education were 

most negative toward the wolf and were least in favor of 

reintroduction. 

14. Bath, AJ., 1989, The public and wolfreintroduction 

in Yellowstone National Park: Society and Natural 

Resources, v. 2, p. 297-306. 

This article examines the results of a study of public attitudes toward the wolf, knowledge ofthe wolf, and 

willingness to reintroduce the wolf into YeJlowstone 

National Park. Data was collected from 1,026 respondents representing the Wyoming statewide general 

public, the public residing in the counties surrounding 

the park, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, 

Wyoming members of the Defenders of Wildlife, and 

members of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. Significantly different attitudes, knowledge scores, and 

willingness to reintroduce the animal were found among 

the groups. Members of the Defenders of Wildlife had 

the most positive mean attitude score and members of 

the Wyoming Stock Growers Association had the most 

negative score. Members ofthe Wyoming Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife had significantly 

higher knowledge scores than the other groups. Most 

members of Defenders of Wildlife (89%) were in favor 

of reintroduction, while most members of the Wyoming 

Stock Growers Association (91%) were against it (other 

groups were in between these two most extreme groups). 

For more detailed results, see Bath (1987a, 1987b, 

1987c). 

15. Bath, AJ., and Buchanan, T., 1989, Attitudes of 

interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in 

Yellowstone National Park: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 17, p. 519-525. 

Attitudes of members offive groups were surveyed 

in Wyoming: the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, 

Wyoming member of Defenders of Wildlife, Wyoming 

Wildlife Federation, the statewide public, and counties 

near the proposed recovery area. They found that 

"extremes ofthe issues were defined by the members of 

the Wyom ing Stock Growers Association and Defenders 

of Wildlife. Most members of the Wyoming Wildlife 

Federation and the statewide public had positive attitudes 

toward wolf restoration, although the public in counties 

surrounding the wolf-recovery site held more negative 

attitudes. See Bath (l987c and 1989) for more detailed 

results. 

16. Fritts, S.H., and Paul, W.J., 1989, Interactions of 

wolves and dogs in Minnesota: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 17, p. 121-123. 

This paper reports the relatively low occurrence of 

wolf depredation on domestic dogs in Mirmesota. In a 

9-year period, 54 dogs were reported wounded, killed, 

or missing. Dog owners exhibited far more emotional 

distress at the loss of a dog than when other types of 

domestic animals were killed. There was no compensation for dogs lost to wolves, as there is when livestock is 

lost. Many of the reports of wolf-dog interactions occurred in short time periods in the same areas, suggesting 

that wolves were actively seeking out dogs. The authors 

conclude that wolf attacks on dogs can be substantial 

locally and can produce anti-wolf reaction that could 

hamper wolf recovery. 

17. Tucker, P., and Pletscher, D.H., 1989, Attitudes of 

hunters and residents toward wolves in northwestern 

Montana: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 17, p. 509-514. 

Tucker and Pletscher surveyed hunters and residents 

of Flathead County (northwestern Montana), which is 

also home to wolves. They found 72% of the residents 

of the North Fork area and 58% of the hunters in Flathead County hoped that wolves would continue to inhabit 

the area and "should be allowed to spread beyond this 

area." Fear of the wolf was a factor for those with antiwolf sentiment. The authors found that a substantial 

number of respondents had misconception about wolf 

predation on livestock. These individuals were less likely 

to support recovery efforts. Tucker and Pletscher conduded, "Support could dwindle if restrictions on 

recreation and commercial uses were introduced to pro· 

mote recovery." They suggest education to address 

misconceptions about the wolf. 

18. Bath, AJ., and Phillips, c., 1990, Statewide surveys 

of Montana and Idaho resident attitudes toward wolf 

re introduction in Yellowstone National Park, report 

submitted to Friends for Animals, National Wildlife 

Federation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, 38 p. 

This study surveyed the Montana and Idaho general public regarding attitudes toward and knowledge 

ofthe wolf and willingness to reintroduce the wolf. While 

45% of Montanans surveyed like the wolf, a relatively 

large percentage (33%) said they "neither liked or disliked" the wolf. The remaining 22% stated they disliked 

the animal. Idaho respondents held a significantly more 
7 

positive attitude toward the wolf than Montana respondents with 53% reporting a positive attitude, 35% a 

neutral attitude, and only 12% reporting a negative attitude. For Montanans, urban residents, those who were 

younger, those with a higher level ofeducation, and those 

with a higher level of know ledge ofthe wolfwere more 

likely to hold a positive attitude. For Idaho residents, 

younger individuals, urban residents, those with a higher 

knowledge score, and females were more likely to hold 

a positive attitude. On average respondents from both 

states answered fewer than 50% ofknowledge questions 

correctly. Females, older respondents, and those with 

lower occupation scores (using Duncan's socioeconomic 

status index) tended to have lower knowledge scores. 

Most Idaho residents (56%) favored wolfreintroduction 

in Yellowstone National Park and less than half ofMontana respondents (44%) supported this idea. While 40% 

ofMontanans and 27% of Idaho residents were opposed, 

16% of Montanans and 17% of Idaho residents held no 

opinion. It was noted that the primary reason for opposition among Idaho and Montana residents was the cost 

of the reintroduction program. Respondents were asked 

if they would change their minds if a variety of conditions were met (including financial compensation for 

livestock losses, keeping livestock losses under 1%, and 

keeping wolves in the park and surrounding wilderness 

areas); in spite of these changes, most respondents opposed to wolf reintroduction would not change their 

opinion. 

19. Johnson, T.B., 1990, Preliminary results of a public 

opinion survey of Arizona residents and interest groups 

about the Mexican wolf: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department report. 

Th is report describes a two-phase survey ofArizona 

residents' attitudes toward wolves. In Phase I, conducted 

in 1988, 726 heads-of-households were polled statewide 

regarding awareness of the historical habitat of wolves 

in the state and attitudes toward wolves and 

reintroduction. The resu Its indicated that 71 % of 

respondents were unaware that wolves ever lived in 

Arizona and 61% approved of reintroduction (18% were 

opposed and 21 % had no opinion). Approval for 

reintroduction varied for subgroups defined by age, with 

less than 50% ofthose over 55 years of age, and attitude 

toward wolves. In Phase 2, conducted in' 1990, five 

interest groups were polled: Arizona Department ofFish 

& Game, hunters, Defenders ofWildlife, rural residents, 

and urban residents (Arizona Cattle Growers and 

Arizona Wool Producers declined to participate). A 

majority of each group responded positively to questions 

of seeing wolves in the wild and having wolves in the 

Southwest, Arizona, or the county of the respondent's 

residence. The strongest argument for reintroduction was 

ATTITUDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BIBLIOGRAPHY 

that ofpreventing extinction (ranging from 60% ofurban 

residents to 91 % ofmembers ofDefenders of Wildlife). 

A majority of each group believed that most objections 

to reintroduction could be resolved (62% rural residents 

to 84% Defenders of Wildlife). 

20. Kellert, S.R., 1990, Public attitudes and beliefs about 

the wolf and its restoration in Michigan. 

This study of attitudes, knowledge, and behavior in 

relation to the wolf was conducted in Michigan in 1990. 

There were 639 respondents to the mail survey sent to 

the general public in the upper and lower peninsula and 

members of three special interest groups: hunters, trappers, and livestock producers. Livestock producers were 

the most 1ikely ofthe special interest groups to hold negative attitudes toward the wolf. Lower Peninsula residents 

were more likely than Upper Peninsula residents to articulate feelings of fear and dislike. This was also true 

of the less educated, elderly, urban residents, and lower 

income respondents. A majority of respondents, except 

livestock producers, supported restoration (64% ofUpper Peninsula residents, 57% Lower Peninsula residents, 

76% of hunters. 66% of trappers, and 37% of 1ivestock 

producers). This support was principally motivated by 

the existence, ecological, and cultural values ofthe wolf. 

The elderly and less educated were the least supportive 

of wolf reintroduction. Trappers obtained significantly 

higher knowledge scores than any other groups. Farmers had the second highest scores. Males scored higher 

than females. Supporters of restoration had somewhat 

lower knowledge levels than those opposed to restoration. 

21. Bath, A.J., 1991a, Public attitudes in Wyoming, 

Montana, and Idaho toward wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone National Park: Transactions of the Fiftysixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, p. 91-94. 

This research assessed the degree to which three 

variables-attitude toward the wolf, willingness to restore 

the wolf, and knowledge about the wolf--eould be used 

to discriminate among three statewide samples of the 

general public. Idaho residents were found to have the 

most positive mean attitude score toward the wolf, and 

Montana residents had the least positive score. All groups 

received low mean knowledge scores. All three samples 

supported wolf restoration into Yellowstone National 

Park. See Bath (I992) for more detailed results. 

22. Bath, A.J., 1991b, Public attitudes about wolf 

restoration in Yellowstone National Park, in Keiter, R.B., 

and Boyce, M.S., eds., The greater Yellowstone 

ecosystem: New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, 

p.367-376. 

See Bath (1987a, 1987b, 1987c). 
8 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOOY REpORT--2002-0002 

23. Kellert, S.R., 1991, Public views of wolf restoration 

in Michigan: Transactions of the North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, v. 56, 

p. 152-161. 

Kellert presents results from a mail survey 

completed by 639 Michigan residents on attitude, 

knowledge, and behaviors toward wolves, and the 

species' po ssibJ e restoration to the state's Upper 

Peninsula. Considerable support occurred among aU 

major sample groups (except farmers) for the restoration 

of the wo~f. Deer hunters and trappers expressed the 

strongest support. Most respondents cited the wolf's 

existence and ecological values as the main reasons for 

support. 

24. Thompson, T., and Gasson, W., 1991, Attitudes of 

Wyoming residents on wolf reintroduction and related 

issues: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 

43 p. 

In a statewide telephone survey of 804 Wyoming 

residents, Thompson and Gasson found that 44% of respondents were in favor of wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone, 34.5% were opposed, and the remaining 

21.5% were undecided or had no opinion. This was very 

similar to Bath's (1987) findings, but differed in some 

respects. For example, Thompson and Gasson found that 

more than 30% of respondents (compared to 16% of 

Bath's respondents) would change their opposition to 

wolf restoration ifwolves could be kept in the park and 

adjacent wilderness areas. Thompson and Gasson also 

found that 14% of those opposed to reintroduction of 

wolves (compared to 6% of Bath's respondents) would 

change their opinion jf there were a compensation program for wolf restoration. Respondents from both studies 

agreed (58.5% and 57%, respectively) that wolves that 

kill livestock should be killed. The most common reasons given for support ofreintroduction were that wolves 

are important members ofthe ecological community and 

wolves had an historical presence. The most common 

reason for opposition was the threat wolves pose to livestock. 

25. Bath, AJ., 1992, Identification and documentation 

of public attitudes toward wolf reintroduction in 

Yellowstone National Park, in Varley, J.D., and Brewster, 

W.G., eds., Wolvcs for Yellowstone?: A report to the 

United States Congress, Research and analysis: National 

Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, 

Wyo, v. iv, p. 2.3-2.30. 

The survey instrument used in this study of Montana and Idaho res iden ts' attitudes toward wo If 

reintroduction in Yellowstone was the same used in 

Bath's (1987) survey of the Wyoming general public. A 

positive attitude toward the wolf was expressed in both 

states (Montana 45%, Idaho 53%). On a scale from I to 

8, the Montana sample received a score 00.05, indicating an attitude of "neither like nor dislike" of the wolf, 

while the Idaho sample scored 3.31, also indicating an 

attitude of "neither like nor dislike," although the Idaho 

score was significantly more positive than the Montana 

score. For the Montana sample, those with higher education levels held more positive attitudes. For the Idaho 

sample, males were more likely than females to hold a 

negative attitude toward wolves. In both samples, older 

respondents, those with lower knowledge scores, and 

rural residents held more negative attitudes. Knowledge 

scores for Montana and Idaho residents were low, with 

older respondents, females, and those with less education having lower knowledge scores. There was also a 

statistically significant relationship between occupation 

and knowledge. Most respondents were in favor of wolf 

reintroduction in Yellowstone (44% Montana, 56% 

ldaho). Idaho respondents had a significantly more positive response to wolf reintroduction than the Montana 

respondents. Respondents with positive attitudes toward 

the wolf and female respondents were more willing to 

accept reintroduction. Knowledge, education, age, occupation, distance from the park, and rural/urban 

variables were not significant predictors of willingness 

to accept reintroduction. 

26. Eisenstein, W., 1992, Wolf reintroduction into 

Yellowstone National Park, an attitudinal survey 

analysis: Montana State University, Bozeman, Master's 

thesis. 

The purpose of this paper was to describe the process that led to the wolfs demise in the lower 48 states 

and to determine the reasons for opposition to reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone National Park. 

Eisenstein conducted an attitudinal survey analysis of 

52 stakeholders (ranchers or members of ranching organizations, politicians, and natural resource 

professionals) regarding wolf restoration in Yellowstone 

National Park. He was seeking detailed responses on 

concerns and issues, rather than quantifiable yes/no expressions of position. Thus, his thesis does not 

statistically analyze public opinion, but summarizes and 

presents a large amount of personal position and opinion. His conclusions include the following general 

statement about wolves: "The interviews revealed not 

only polarization, but gross misunderstandings and misconceptions concerning the wolf and the reintroduction 

program. It was clear that people still do believe in the 

horror stories of the wolf and 'Little Red Riding Hood.' 

Many respondents stated as fact that they know wolves 

kill people." 
9 

27. Freemuth, 1., 1992, Public opinion on wolves in 

Idaho, results from the 1992 Idaho policy survey: Boise 

State University, Idaho, 3 p. 

As part of a larger public policy survey, Idahoans 

were asked, "Do you favor or oppose having wolves in 

the wildemess and road less areas of central Idaho?" Over 

72% of respondents were in favor, 22% were opposed, 

and 5% did not know or had no opinion. 

28. Thompson, J.G., 1993, Addressing the human 

dimensions of wolf reintroduction, an example using 

estimates of livestock depredation and costs of 

compensation: Society and Natural Resources, v. 6, p. 

165-179. 

The objective of this article was to suggest how social assessment, public participation, and conflict 

management could be used to resolve some of the human problems related to wolf reintroduction. Estimates 

of livestock depredation and related cost compensation 

were reviewed to illustrate how sociopolitical factors need 

to be better integrated into such assessments. 

29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993, Summary of 

public comments on the draft environmental impact 

statement for the reintroduction of gray wolves to 

Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Helena, Mont, 21 p. 

This analysis summarizes public comment on gray 

wolf reintroduction. All responses (>] 60,000) to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental im pact statement were considered in the production ofthis summary, 

including letters, petitions, and hearing testimony. The 

degree of response from the public on this issue is likely 

one of the largest for any proposed federal action in the 

United States to date and indicates the strong interest 

people have in the management of wolves. 

30. Manfredo, M.l, Bright, A.D., Pate, J., and Tishbein, 

G., 1994, Colorado residents' attitudes and perceptions 

toward reintroduction ofthe gray wolf(Canis lupus) into 

Colorado, Project Report No. 21: Project report for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado State 

University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources 

Unit, Ft. Collins. 

In this study, a mail survey of 1,452 Coloradoans 

found a majority (71 %) favored wolf reintroduction in 

Colorado. More east slope residents (74%) than west 

slope residents (65%) supported wolf reintroduction. 

Respondents supporting reintroduction were more likely 

to believe it would result in preservation of the wolf, 

balanced deer and elk populations, and a return to an 

earlier natural environment. Those favoring 

ATIITUDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BIBLIOGRAPHY 

reintroduction were also more likely to have positive 

attitudes toward wolves and higher knowledge scores. 

Supporters were more likely to be younger, from larger 

communities, and perceive reintroduction as occurring 

at a greater distance from their home. Respondents 

against wolf reintroduction were more likely to believe 

it would result in loss ofmoney for ranchers, wolf attacks 

on humans, more livestock depredation, and decreases 

in deer and elk populations. 

31. Miller, S.M., and McCollum, D.W., 1994, Alaska 

voters, Alaska hunters, and Alaska nonresident hunters, 

their characteristics and attitudes towards wildlife: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

This study conducted by the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game obtained public opinion information in 

an effort to identitY Alaskans' characteristics and attitudes toward wildlife. Included in the survey, which 

asked several questions related to wildlife, was one attitudinal question and one knowledge question related to 

wolves. In response to the statement, "1 support killing 

wolves in some areas of Alaska to increase the numbers 

of moose and caribou," 47% ofrespondents agreed, 37% 

disagreed, and 16% were undecided. Males and hunters 

were more likely to agree with this statement than females and non-hunters. To the statement, "Wild wolves 

have never attacked humans in Alaska," 31 % stated they 

believed this was true, 25% said it was false, and 44% 

said they didn't know or didn't respond. 

32. Anderson, D.B., 1995, The Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game public opinion survey on predator control 

in game management, Unit 19D East: A report to the 

Alaska Board of Game. 

This survey was carried out in six communities as a 

result of public concern for the declining moose population in an area where moose is an important food source. 

A mail survey was sent out in the largest community 

and in the other, smaller communities, personal interviews were conducted. The Alaska Board of Game 

determined that wolf populations in the area should be 

reduced to aid the recovery of the moose population. 

Most respondents (91%) agreed that the wolf population should be reduced to allow for moose population 

growth. There was strong support for each possible 

method of control. Almost 82% of respondents were in 

support of the use of ground-based methods and 83% 

supported the use of aerial methods. Only 43% were 

supportive ofa combination of these methods. 

33. LaVine, K.P., 1995, The attitude of Utah residents 

toward gray wolves: Utah State University, Logan, 

un pu blished Master's thesis. 
10 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2002-0002 

This thesis presents results from a 1994 state-wide 

survey of 708 individuals. The survey consisted of 

questions about wolves and their possible recovery in 

Utah, wolf management and compensation programs, 

educational opportunities, and knowledge about wolves. 

The sample was stratified into three intrastate regions: 

urban counties, northern rural counties, and southern 

rural counties. Each sample was divided into three groups 

and each group was provided varying amounts of 

information about wolves. The control group did not 

receive any information. A second group received a map 

of Utah with hypothetical wolf habitat. The third group 

received a map and a brochure ofwolfecology. Although 

all groups scored high on knowledge questions, the group 

given the most infonnation had the highest scores. This 

group also had the least favorable attitude toward wolves. 

Another group surveyed in this study was public land 

pennittees, most ofwhom use land for livestock grazing. 

This group did not receive any information. Findings 

from the contro I grou p, which was not gi ven any 

information, were compared to findings of previous 

research on residents of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. 

Most Utah residents (51 %) stated they Iiked wolves, but 

they were more polarized in their attitudes toward wolves 

than residents of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, and 

their opinions of the impacts of wolves were more 

extreme than those of Wyoming residents. Respondents 

from metropolitan counties expressed the strongest 

favorable attitudes toward wolves, more respondents in 

the southern rural counties expressed a negative attitude, 

and respondents in the northern rural counties were in 

between the two other groups. The control group was 

also compared with public land permittees. Permittees 

expressed extremely negative attitudes toward wolves 

and differed significantly from the general public. 

Hunters were more likely than nonhunters to dislike 

wolves. 

34. Mech, L.D., 1995, The challenge and opportunity 

of recovering wolf populations: Conservation Biology, 

v. 9, p. 270-278. 

This paper briefly covers the history of the wolf 

(distribution and persecution) and discusses its current 

status, including the dilemma of its management. The' 

author states a major problem with wolf management is 

the increase of human-wolf conflicts (e.g., killing of 

livestock and pets) and the resulting anti-wolf sentiment. 

Several lethal techniques that have been used to control 

problem wolves are discussed. The pros and cons of 

management by zoning are discussed. Another dilemma 

of wolf management discussed here is wolf 

protectionism. Because of misconceptions about wolves 

and the activity of animal rights groups, wolf control is 

resisted by much ofthe public. The author suggests using 

education on wolf management issues to promote wolf 

recovery. 

35. Quintal, P.K.M., 1995, Public attitudes and beliefs 

about the red wolf and its recovery in North Carolina: 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Master's 

thesis. 

A telephone survey of 600 respondents regarding 

knowledge of and attitudes toward wolves and wolf 

reintroduction was conducted in five counties in North 

Carolina in 1995. The counties varied in human and 

wolf population sizes, with the counties with higher 

human populations having few or no wolves and vice 

versa. Thirty-six percent of respondents held pro-wolf 

attitudes, 15% held anti-wolf attitudes, and 49% were 

neutral. About 52% of respondents supported red wolf 

recovery, with its endangered status as the reason most 

often given for support (30% opposed, 18% no opinion). 

More educated respondents and those with higher 

knowledge scores were more likely to support recovery. 

Less than on'e-third opposed wolf recovery with fear, 

dislike, and potential loss of livestock as primary reasons 

given for opposition. Older respondents were more likely 

to be opposed to recovery than younger respondents. The 

author recommended public education so that more 

accurate information is available. 

36. Responsive Management, 1995, New Mexico 

residents' opinions toward Mexican wolfreintroduction: 

Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Va. 

This report is a graphical presentation of the results (frequencies) of a 1995 telephone survey of 422 

New Mexico residents (218 statewide and 204 in four 

counties nearest the proposed reintroduction site) regarding proposed wolf reintroduction. Most people stated they 

had heard of the proposed reintroduction and supported 

reintroduction into Arizona's Blue Range Primitive Area 

and the White Sands Missile Range. Statewide residents 

were more supportive and less opposed to reintroduction than regional residents. Residents from cities were 

less likely to strongly oppose reintroduction than residents from small towns or rural areas. Younger residents 

(18-44) were less likely to strongly oppose reintroduction than older residents. Concerns over reintroduction 

held by most people included wolves killing livestock 

and possible restrictions placed on private property. Most 

people did not have concerns about wolves harming 

humans or pets, or wolves reducing deer and elk populations. Most people supported compensating ranchers 

for livestock killed by wolves. A majority ofrespondents 

felt wolves held existence value. 

37. Bright, A.D., and Manfredo, M.J., 1996, A 

conceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource 
issues, a case study of wolf reintroduction: Human 

Dimensions of Wildlife. v. I, p. 1-21. 

The main objective of this study was to test a 

conceptual model of attitudes and the factors that form 

its basis using a case study of wolf reintroduction in 

Colorado. Attitude toward wolf reintroduction was a 

strong predictor of intention to support or oppose 

reintroducing wolves. Findings further indicated that 

attitudes toward wolf reintroduction were based less on 

knowledge and beliefs about wolves and wolf 

reintroduction than on values and emotions surrounding 

the issue (i.e., symbolic existence beliefs and the extent 

to which respondents felt positive emotional responses 

to wolf reintroduction were positively related to positive 

attitudes, while negative emotions were similarly related 

to negative attitudes). Additionally, it was found that 

attitudes toward reintroduction better pred icted intention 

to support or oppose reintroduction for those respondents 

who placed higher importance on the issue than those 

who did not. 

38. Defenders of Wildlife, 1996, Fact sheet: America 

votes "Yes!" for wolves, in Ferris, B., ed.: Defenders of 

Wildlife, Washington, DC 

This brief summary of national and regional public 

opinion surveys shows that most Americans favor wolf 

reintroduction. Out of 1,500 respondents to an NBC 

Dateline poll, less than 11 % of respondents were opposed to reintroduction. The primary reasons given for 

support were the ecological and cultural values associated with wolves (Le., historical presence and role in 

the ecosystem). A top reason given for opposition is belief that reintroduction will lead to losses of livestock. 

39. Duffield, lW., and Neher, C.1., 1996, Economics of 

wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park, in 

Wadsworth, K.G., and McCabe, R.E., eds.: Transactions 

of the Sixty-first North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference, v. 61, p. 285-292. 

This study examined the issue of whether wolf recovery in YeHowstone National Park was in the public 

interest. Two economic criteria were examined: changes 

in net social benefits and regional economic impacts. 

This study also estimated negative existence values and 

a measure of expected losses from reduced hunting opportunity for park visitors opposed to woIfrecovery. The 

basic finding was that the net social benefits to wolf recovery are large and positive, on the order of$11 0 million 

for a 20-year time horizon and a 5% real discount rate. 

Regional net economic impacts are also positive and on 

the order of $43 million a year because increased nonresident tourism expenditure due to the presence of 

wolves in the park far outweigh possible reduced nonATTITUDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BIBLIOGRAPHY II 

resident hunting expenditures and reduced livestock 

exports. 

40. Mangun, W.R., Lucas, J.N., Whitehead, lC., and 

Mangun, lC., 1996, Valuing red wolf recovery efforts 

at Alligator River NWR: Measuring citizen support, in 

Fascione, N., and Cecil, M., eds., Wolves of America, 

Proceedings, Washington, D.C, Defenders of Wildlife, 

p.165-171. 

This paper presents the results of a pilot survey of 

68 adults living near the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, site ofthe red wolfspecies 

recovery program. The purpose of the study was to assess public know ledge and support for the continuation 

of the recovery program and assess the economic value 

ofthe program using a measure of willingness to pay. A 

majority (58%) of respondents believed the recovery 

program to be a success, with 12% considering it a failure. Eighty percent ofrespondents believed the program 

to be at least somewhat important. Respondents were 

asked how much they would be willing to contribute to 

a 'Red Wolf Recovery Trust Fund.' Results suggested 

that respondents over 50 were willing to pay less than 

other respondents. More educated respondents and those 

who felt the reintroduction program was effective in preventing extinction were willing to pay more than other 

respondents. 

41. Pate, J., Manfredo, M.J., Bright, A.D., and Tishbein, 

G., 1996, Coloradoans' attitudes toward reintroducing 

the gray wolf into Colorado: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 24, p. 421-428. 

Results of a mail survey of Colorado residents 

showed strong su pport for reintroducing wolves into 

Colorado, as well as general1y positive attitudes toward 

wolves. Respondents in densely populated areas were 

more supportive than those in predominantly rural areas. See Manfredo et a!. (1994) for more detailed results. 

42. Responsive Management, 1996, Public opinion on 

and attitudes toward the reintroduction of the eastern 

timber wolf to Adirondack Park, report for Defenders of 

Wildlife: Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Va. 

In 1996, residents ofNew England, New York, and 

Adirondack Park were surveyed regarding wolf reintroduction to Adirondack Park. Support was high among 

all three groups (ranging from 76% to 85%). Residents 

of Adirondack Park were slightly less likely to support 

wolf reintroduction than the other two groups. In the 

Park group, hunters were more likely to be strongly opposed than non-hunters, and opposition increased with 

age. Top reasons given for supporting reintroduction 

were "wolves are part of the ecosystem," "to save them 
12 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGV REpORT--2002-0002 

from extinction," and "wolves were here before us." The 

top reason given for opposin~ reintroduction was "wolves 

are dangerous to humans." Other reasons given were 

"wolves are dangerous to livestock," "wolves would kill 

other wildlife," and "the Park has changed too much." 

Most Park residents (56%) disagreed that wolves would 

enhance tourism in the area, while residents ofthe other 

two areas tended to agree that tourism would be boosted. 

Most respondents in each group (ranging from 80% to 

89%) agreed that it was "important to me personally" to 

have wolves in the area, although Park residents (17%) 

were more likely to disagree. Respondents were asked if 

specific issues related to reintroduction were of concern 

to them. A majority of respondents believed possible 

hann to pets and livestock was a concern. Safety, restrictions on property rights, and wolves reducing deer 

populations were also concerns. New York residents were 

most concerned about safety while park residents were 

more coneerned about the other three issues. 

43. Rosen, W., 1996, Recovery of the red wolf in 

northeastern North Carolina and the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, an analysis of the social and 

economic impacts, in Fascione, N., and Cecil, M., eds, 

Wolves of America, Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 

Defenders of Wildlife, p. 172-177. 

This paper reports the results of a 1995 study of the 

socio-economic impacts of red wolf recovery in northeastern North Carolina and Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park. The survey was carried out in the two 

recovery states, North Carolina and Tennessee, and six 

neighboring states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, 

South Carolina, and Virginia. Three topics were examined: (I) attitudes and knowledge about red wolves and 

red wolf recovery; (2) the potential impact of the recovery effort on regional economies; and (3) contingent 

valuation estimates ofthe social benefits ofthe recovery 

effort. Most respondents were not knowledgeable about 

red wolves or wolf recovery. Respondents aged 20-29 

were least knowledgeable, and respondents 60 or older 

were more knowledgeable. About 75% of respondents 

favored recovery in Northeast North Carolina, and 79% 

were in support of recovery in the park. About 71 % of 

respondents indicated they were interested in vis.iting 

one ofthe recovery regions, and they would be less llkely 

to visit if the red wolf was removed from the wild. It 

was anticipated that the availability of wolf activities 

would increase tourism in the recovery areas. About 60% 

of respondents reported a willingness to pay at least $5 

per year for wolf recovery. 

44. Cromley, c., 1997, Preliminary assessment of 

attitudes and knowledge ofJackson Hole residents toward 

grizzly bears and wolves in Teton County, report 

submitted to Grand Teton National Park, National Elk 

Refuge: Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, 

Yale University. 

This study investigated the knowledge and attitudes 

of people living and working in Teton County, Wyoming 

toward the management of grizzly bears and wolves and 

other resources such as timber and livestock. The study 

surveyed ranchers, concessionaires, business owners, and 

the general pubJic in Jackson, Wyoming. Respondents 

oenerally held positive attitudes toward grizzly bears and

~volves, but held more positive attitudes toward grizzly 

bears. A majority of respondents supported wolf reintroduction (32% opposed). Primary reasons given for 

favoring reintroduction were the wolfs ecological role 

and its right to exist. Respondents disagreed most with 

recreational and extractive reasons for reintroducing 

wolves, including hunting and tourism. A majority of 

respondents strongly disagreed that wolves that prey on 

elk should be killed. Most respondents believed that state 

agencies should have major control over managing 

wolves and grizzly bears in Wyoming. 

45. Defenders of Wildlife, 1997, Fact sheet, polls show 

support for wolf reintroduction in Olympic National 

Park, Seattle, conference features visiting wolves: contact 

Ken Goldman, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 

A Seattle-based polling company conducted this 

study that is reported in this Defenders of Wildlife fact 

sheet. A telephone survey was conducted of 800 Washington residents living near Olympic National Park, 

including 400 registered voters of Puget Sound co~nties, 350 registered voters in Olympic Peninsula counties, 

and 50 interviews with individuals from areas identified as inhabited mostly by Native Americans in the 

OJympic Peninsula. It found that a majority (62%) of 

Washington state residents would support reintroduction of wolves in Olympic National Park. (26% were 

opposed and J6% were undecided). Support for reintroduction increased after discussion of the concerns and 

benefits. 

46. Responsive Management, 1997, Public opinion of 

woJves and wolfmanagement in the Greater Yellowstone 

area, report prepared for the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department: Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Va. 

Wyom ing residents were surveyed in 1997 regardino their knowledge and attitudes regarding wolves in 

Y:llowstone National Park. Respondents listed drawbacks and benefits to having wolves in Yellowstone. The 

drawback most commonly given was the danger wolves 

pose to Jivestock (58% ofrespondents). Other dra:vbacks 

included danger to humans and wolves redUCing bIg 

game populations. Twenty-four percent of respondents 
said there were no drawbacks. When asked to list benefits of having wolves, the most common response given 

(34% of respondents) was that there are no benefits. 

Other responses included "wolves are an important part 

of the ecology:' "they had an historical presence," and 

"they regulate big game." Most respondents (73%) said 

they acquired their knowledge ofthe wolfin Yellowstone 

from the newspaper. Other sources included television 

(53%), family and friends (22%), radio (20%), magazines (12%), the ranching industry (7%), and the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (6%). There was 

a split in opinion on wolves outside the park, 46% supported and 43% opposed. Hunters and those who make 

a living from the use of natural resources were more 

likely to be strongly opposed. Support was higher among 

younger age groups. Reasons for opposition included the 

danger to livestock, humans, and pets, the possible reduction of big game populations, and the cost. Reasons 

for support were wolves are an important part of the 

ecology, their historical presence, their endangered status, and their ability to regulate big game populations. 

Most respondents wanted the state agency (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department) to be involved in wolfmanagement, supported hunting of wolves as a management 

action, and supported compensation for ranchers. 

47. Schoenecker, K.A., and Shaw, W.W., 1997, Attitudes 

toward a proposed reintroduction ofMexican gray wolves 

in Arizona: Human Dimensions of Wildlife, v. 2, p. 42­

55. 

This study polled 130 residents of households in 

and around a potential reintroduction site in Greenlee 

County, Arizona. It was found that 22% supported reintroduction, 58% opposed reintroduction, and 20% were 

undecided. Reasons most often given for opposing reintroduction were related to ranching and human safety. 

Of those who opposed reintroduction, 48% said reintroduction would have no impact on their lifestyle or 

business. Over half of those in favor of reintroduction 

believed wolves are integral to the ecosystem and belong in the wild. Almost one-third said wolves were 

native and should be returned. The authors suggested 

education to inform the public of wolf behavior and provisions for management of problem wolves in order to 

decrease the resistance to reintroduction. 

48. Wilson, M.A., 1997, The wolf in Yellowstone, 

science, symbol, or politics?, desconstructing the conflict 

between environmentalism and wise use: Society and 

Natural Resources, v. ] 0, p. 453-468. 

This paper suggests that "the controversy over wolf 

reintroduction is not really about wolves, it is all about 

social control" - the future of the West. The struggle 

between the wise use lobby and environmentalists is 

A'mTuDES TOWARD WOLVES: A BmLlOGRAPHY 13 

posited to be rooted in three issues: (I) differential access 

to social power; (2) conflicting ideas about private 

property; and (3) fundamentally divergent beliefs about 

humankind's proper relationship with the natural 

environment. 

49. Kel1ert, S.R., 1999, The public and the wolf in 

Minnesota, a report of the International Wolf Center. 

This report presents findings from a 1999 telephone 

survey of 525 Minnesota residents (residents of northern Minnesota, the rest of Minnesota, and farmers) 

regarding attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward 

gray wolves in Minnesota. Results show that the Minnesota public values the wolf; with over 70% believing 

the animal symbolizes the beauty in nature. The primary reason given for having wolves in Minnesota is so 

future generations could enjoy the species. A large proportion of the sampie valued the ecological role of 

wolves, their importance for scientific study, and their 

moral right to exist, with non-northern residents more 

likely to name these views. The general public expressed 

more affection and ethical concern for wolves than did 

livestock producers, although there was no statistical 

difference found between sample groups in levels of dislike of wolves. Most respondents stated they would not 

be afraid to live near wolves, although farmers were not 

as likely to make this claim. Farmers were more in faVOr of delisting wolves in Minnesota than the general 

public. Fanners were more knowledgeable about wolves 

than the general public. Variations in attitudes toward 

and knowledge of the wolf were explained by demographic characteristics. Suburban and urban residents, 

those with a college education, and younger respondents 

tended to view the wolf more positively. Compared to 

the 1985 study conducted by the author, this study revealed an overall increase in positive perception of the 

wolf. 

50. Enck, J.W, and Brown, T.L., 2000, Preliminary 

assessment of social feasibil ity for reintroducing gray 

wolves to the Adirondack Park in northern New York: 

Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 00-3, 

Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, NY. 

Findings ofa [999 social feasibility analysis ofwolf 

reintroduction are presented in the report. The study had 

four objectives, one being to assess attitudes toward 

wolves and their reintroduction and detennine factors 

affecting those attitudes. Two surveys were conducted: 

a mail survey of422 households within Adirondack Park 

and a statewide telephone survey of 50 I New York 

households. Adirondack residents were split almost 

evenly in their approval of wolf restoration to the 

Adirondacks. A higher proportion of the statewide 
14 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REpORT--2002-0002 

sample (60%) than the Adirondack sample (42%) was 

in favor of restoration. A combination of six variables 

explained most of the variance in attitudes toward 

reintroduction, including attitudes toward wolves, 

perceptions of possible restoration impacts, and 

knowledge of wolves. Factors affecting attitude toward 

reintroduction varied by the level of importance 

respondents placed on the issues. The strongest predictor 

was attitude toward wolves. Knowledge about wolves 

was found to be relatively low. A subsample was given a 

wolffact sheet. Knowledge scores improved among this 

group but had no influence on attitudes toward wolves 

or wolfrestoration, or perceptions about possible impacts 

of restoration. Adirondack residents were most 

concerned about possible government restrictions on 

private lands, wolves killing pets and livestock, people 

killing wolves, and wolves decreasing the deer 

population. 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank the many people who assisted us in acquiring the literature. We are grateful to 

Stephen Kellert, Alistair Bath, Walter Eisenstein, Kate 

Schoenecker, and Responsive Management for sending 

us their work. We would also like to thank Mary Jane 

Dodson and Liz Lucke at the USGS MESC library for 

their assistance in the literature search. Finally, we would 

like to thank Natalie Sexton and Kate Schoenecker for 

their editorial comments. 
Form approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

OMS No. 0704-01 BB 

Publtc reponing burden for this coUttCtion is estimated to average 1 hour per response, in eluding time !awlewlng Inslrucbons, searching existing data sources, 

galhenng and malnbalnlng lhs deLa needed, end complellng and reviewing lhe collection of in1ormatlon Send comments regarding Ihls burden estimate or any other 

aspect of Ihls collecllon of Inrorrnallon, mclUding suggeslion:!'i: for reduCtng lhls burden, to Wastllnglon HQadquefters Services. OlrElclorate for Information Operations and 

Reports. 1215 Jefferson DavIS Highway, SUILe 1204, ArlIngton, VA 22202·4302, end 10 the omco or Managemenl and 8udg_t, Paperwoa Reduc1ion ProJecl (0704·018B) 

W3shiMton DC 20503 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave 2. REPORT DATE 13. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Blank) April 2002 Infonnation and Teclmology Report (Final) 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

American Attitudes Toward Wolves and Wolf Reintroduction: An Annotated 

Bibliography 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Browne-Nunez, c., and J. G. Taylor 31050 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

U.S. Department of the Interior USGSIBRDIITR-­

U.S. Geological Survey 2002-0002 ~.	 . . ,1 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 10. SPONSORING, MONIToRJNG 

USGS AGENCY REPORT NUMBER - Midcontinent Ecological Science Center 

4512 McMurry Avenue 

Fort Collins, CO 80525-3400 N/A 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Prepared as part of a cooperative agreement between the USGS Social, Economic, and Institutional 

Analysis Section (SEIAS) and Grand Teton National Park. 

12a. 01 STRIBUTION/AVAILABI UTY STATEM ENT 12b. OISTJRIBUTION CODE 

Available from the National Teclmical Infonnation Service, 5285 Port
 

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 221'61 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650).
 

Available to registered users from the Defense Technical Infonnation Center,
 

Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA
 

22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050).
 

13. ABSTRACT(Maxlrnurn 200 words) , 

During the period 1974-2000, 50 reports were published in peer-reviewed journals and in theses and 

dissertations concerning public attitudes and preferences toward wolves and their reinstatement into 

previously occupied habitat in the continental U.S. This publication provides annotated synopses of 

these 50 reports, arranged chronologically, but also cross-referenced by authors and by geographic area. 

In general, Americans favor reinstatement of wolf populations except for those people who perceive 

them to be a direct threat to their livelihood. 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 14. SUBJECT TERMS (Keywords) 

Acceptance, attitudes, human dimensions, recolonization or reintroduction, 15 pp 

wolves. 16. PRICE CODE 

- 19. SECURIlY CLASSIFICATION OF 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

OF REPORT 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

THIS PAGE ABSTRACT 

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL 

NSN 7540-01·280-5500	 Stand_rd Form 298 (rsv 2-89) 

PreSClibed by ANSI S1d Z39-18 298-102 



Midcontinent Ecological Science Center 

Production Staff 

Leader, Information ManagementProject Jennifer Shoemaker
 

OfficeAutomation Assistant Dora E. Medellin
 

NOTE: Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constilUte endorsernem or recommendation for use by the 

U.S. Government. 
u.s. Departmentofthe Interior 

u.s. Geological Survey 

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned 

public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands and water resources; protecting 

our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national park.~ and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and 

works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation 

in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities. 

~'C.NT OF"l: "- t IYL< .;!:r"<>.'·.,'.../..<'" "/ 

Q 

o 

21 

@ Pnnted on recycled paper science 

_USGS

for a changing world