Public Acceptance of Management Actions and 

Judgments of Responsibility for the Wolves of the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area: Report to 

Grand Teton National Park 

By Jonathan G. Taylor, S. Shea Johnson, and Lori B. Shelby 

Open-File Report 2005–1408 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2005 

For product and ordering information: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 


its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


Suggested citation: 

Taylor, J.G., Johnson, S.S., and Shelby, L.B., 2005, Public acceptance of management actions and 

judgments of responsibility for the wolves of the Southern Greater Yellowstone area: Report to Grand Teton 

National Park, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 2005-1408, 79 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

Cover art courtesy of Dale Crawford. 

ii 
Contents 

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 


Wolves of Grand Teton National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Area..........................................................1


Previous Human Dimensions Research .....................................................................................................................3 


Study Purpose and Management Applicability.........................................................................................................4 


The Theory - Judgments of Responsibility Model ....................................................................................................4 


Study Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................4 


Study Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................5 


The Samples ....................................................................................................................................................................5 


The Survey Instruments.................................................................................................................................................6 


Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................7 


Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................8 


Response Rates ..............................................................................................................................................................8 


Demographics for the Two Population Samples ......................................................................................................8 


Judgments of Responsibility and Acceptance of Management Actions for Wolves ......................................10 


Judgments of Effectiveness of Wolf Management Actions .................................................................................19 


Emotions Felt about Wolves .......................................................................................................................................20 


Experiences with Wolves: Personal and Potential.................................................................................................23 


Visitation and Experiences in Grand Teton National Park ....................................................................................26 


Judgments of Responsibility Model ..........................................................................................................................27 


Acceptance of Lethal Management Action.............................................................................................................31 


Conclusions: Implications for Managers .....................................................................................................................33 


Demographics ...............................................................................................................................................................33 


Responsibility ................................................................................................................................................................33 


Management Options...................................................................................................................................................33 


Emotions .........................................................................................................................................................................34 


Experience with Wolves..............................................................................................................................................34 


Responsibility Model....................................................................................................................................................34 


References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................35 


Appendix A. Onsite Visitor Survey.................................................................................................................................36 


Appendix B. Mailed Visitor Survey................................................................................................................................37 


Appendix C. Mailed Resident Survey............................................................................................................................49 


Appendix D. Reliability Results for Emotion Indices ..................................................................................................61 


Appendix E. Relationship between Judgments of Responsibility and Acceptance of Management Actions 63 


Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park ..............................................................63 


Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts ..........................................................................................................65 


Scenario Involving Pet Loss .......................................................................................................................................67 


Appendix F. Relationship between Judgments of Responsibility and Emotion Indices ......................................68 


Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park ..............................................................68 


Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts ..........................................................................................................69 


Scenario Involving Pet Loss .......................................................................................................................................72 


Appendix G. Relationship between Emotion Indices and Acceptance of Management Actions .....................73 


Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park ..............................................................74 


iii 
Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts ..........................................................................................................76 


Scenario Involving Pet Loss .......................................................................................................................................79 


Figures 

1. Sampling area for resident survey ..............................................................................................................................5 


2. Scenario 1 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................12 


3. Scenario 2 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................13 


4. Scenario 3 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................14 


5. Scenario 4 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................15 


6. Scenario 5 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................16 


7. Scenario 6 attributed responsibility ..........................................................................................................................17 


8. Average percent of responsibility assigned by residents and visitors to each of four possible agents 


involved in hypothetical human-wolf interaction, across six hypothetical scenarios .................................18 


9. Average quality of experience level for various hypothetical sightings of wolves in Grand Teton..............25 


10. Average quality of experience level for various hypothetical sightings of wolves on own land ................25 


11. Judgments of responsibility conceptual model showing potential relationships among three variables 


included in the six hypothetical human-wolf interaction scenarios................................................................28 


12. Judgments of responsibility/emotions/management acceptance model for persons who hold the 


individual primarily responsible in human wolf encounters..............................................................................30 


13. Judgments of responsibility/emotions/management acceptance model for persons who hold agencies 


responsible in human wolf encounters .................................................................................................................31 


Tables 

1. Wolf packs in and near Grand Teton National Park in 2003 and conflict information.......................................2 


2. Description fo the six scenarios depicting possible human-wolf encounters....................................................6

3. Demographic data: Local residents; census; park visitors.....................................................................................9 


4. Mean acceptability ratings for five management actions following a hypothetical hiking-trail human-wolf 


interaction (Scenario 1)............................................................................................................................................12 


5. Mean acceptability ratings for six management actions following a hypothetical cattle-wolf interaction 


(Scenario 2) ................................................................................................................................................................13 


6. Mean acceptability ratings for four management actions following a hypothetical cattle-wolf interaction 


(Scenario 3) ................................................................................................................................................................14 


7. Mean acceptability ratings for four management actions following a hypothetical pet-wolf interaction 


(Scenario 4) ................................................................................................................................................................15 


8. Mean acceptability ratings for five management actions following a hypothetical hiking trail-wolf 


interaction (Scenario 5)............................................................................................................................................16 


9. Mean acceptability ratings for six management actions following a hypothetical cattle-wolf interaction 


(Scenario 6) ................................................................................................................................................................17 


10. Cross-tabulation of wolf kill-norm with resident and visitor samples ..............................................................19 


11. Mean ratings of resident and visitor perceptions of management action effectiveness to alleviate 


human-wolf conflicts ................................................................................................................................................20 


iv 
12. Local resident and park visitor overall responses to the aggregated emotion indices ................................21 


13. Local resident and park visitor emotions toward wolves and their management in and around Grand 


Teton National Park ..................................................................................................................................................22 


14. Local resident and park visitor self-reported personal and knowledge levels about wolves .....................23 


15. Average experience ratings for tolerable numbers of encounters with wolves; local residents and park 


visitors .........................................................................................................................................................................24 


16. Visitation in Grand Teton National Park: Local residents ...................................................................................26 


17. Visitation in Grand Teton National Park: Park visitors.........................................................................................26 


18. Local resident and park visitor's activities while in Grand Teton National Park............................................27 


19. Wolf-kill norm compared with aggregate emotion classes ...............................................................................32 


20. Demographic variables compared with wolf-kill norm .......................................................................................32 


D-1. Reliability analysis of emotion indices pertaining to human-wolf interactions ............................................61 


E-1. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of management actions for 


Scenario one ..............................................................................................................................................................64 


E-2. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of management actions for 


Scenario five ..............................................................................................................................................................64 


E-3. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of management actions for 


Scenario two ..............................................................................................................................................................65 


E-4. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of management actions for 


Scenario three ...........................................................................................................................................................66 


E-5. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance for management actions for 


Scenario six ................................................................................................................................................................66 


E-6. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of management actions for 


Scenario four..............................................................................................................................................................67 


F-1. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario one..69 


F-2. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario five ..69 


F-3. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario two ....70 


F-4. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario three .71 


F-5. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario six......71 


F-6. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for Scenario four .72 


G-1. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario one .......74 


G-2. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario five........75 


G-3. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario two..........76 


G-4. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario three .......77 


G-5. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario six ...........78 


G-6. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for Scenario four .......79 


v 

Public Acceptance of Management Actions and 

Judgments of Responsibility for the Wolves of the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area: Report to 

Grand Teton National Park 

By Jonathan G. Taylor, S. Shea Johnson, and Lori B. Shelby 

Introduction 

Wolves of Grand Teton National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Area 

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) appeared in Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) in October of 

1998, two years after being reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park (YNP). Since that time, 

five packs have been within the GRTE borders - Gros Ventre Pack, Nez Perce Pack, 

Yellowstone Delta Pack, Teton Pack, and Green River Pack (Table 1). Wolves in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area are increasing and spreading out geographically (USFWS and others, 2004). 

This dispersion was demonstrated recently by the death of a 2-year-old female wolf from the 

Swan Lake pack on I-70 in Colorado (June 7, 2004; http://mountain-prairie.USFWS.gov/pressrel 

/04-43.htm). 

The organization of wolf packs in the GYA is dynamic and highly structured. In 2003, 

for example, a wolf from the Teton Pack joined with the Green River Pack, and several young 

wolves left the Teton Pack and moved south (USFWS and others, 2004). Pack size (averaging 

five to ten members) is dependent on hunting efficiency, which depends on prey size, type, and 

density. Each pack defends home ranges of several hundred square miles. The social structure of 

the pack is based on a breeding pair (an alpha male and female). Other wolves in the pack can be 

categorized as betas (males and/or females second in rank to the alphas), subordinates, pups, and 

occasional omegas (outcasts). Because generally only the alpha pair breeds, subordinate wolves 

of reproductive age must disperse from their packs and form new associations in order to breed. 

(http://www.nps.gov/grte/wolf/biolo.htm). 

The reintroduced wolves are classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

as "nonessential experimental" under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The recovery 

criteria for the GYA wolves were met in 2002 for removing the wolves from the Endangered 

Species List (30 or more breeding pairs). Currently, the USFWS manages wolf populations in the 

GYA until delisting occurs. After delisting, state Fish and Wildlife Services in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming will be responsible for managing wolves. Each state must submit a wolf 

management plan to the USFWS which then must be approved before management shifts occur. 

As of this writing, the process of delisting the wolves in the state of Wyoming is ongoing. 

However, the reclassification of wolves nationwide was completed on April 1, 2003. Wolves 

outside of YNP changed in status from endangered to threatened. The wolves classified in the 

experimental nonessential population did not change in status (USFWS and others, 2004). 

1 
This classification of experimental nonessential population allows for flexibility in 

management decisions concerning the wolves (Smith and others, 2004). For example, control 

actions in the GYA included trapping and radio-collaring four wolves; intensive monitoring; 

increasing riders on grazing allotments; harassing wolves with rubber bullets, cracker shells, and 

lights; moving livestock to different pastures; and issuing four shoot on-sight permits. When 

non-lethal control methods were not effective, wolves were killed in an attempt to prevent 

further livestock depredations (USFWS and others, 2004; Table 1). 

At the same time that wolf numbers are rising, human population statistics in the GRTE 

area are also rising. The population of Teton County, Wyoming in 1990 was just over 11,000 

people; today that number has increased to approximately 19,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 

park visitation for GRTE has been substantial over the last several years with an average 

visitation of 2.5 million visitors (NPS, 2004a). Furthermore, land ownership surrounding GRTE 

and the establishment of grazing rights within park boundaries are problem areas for wolf-human 

interactions due to livestock depredation. With increasing numbers of visitors, residents, and 

livestock it is reasonable to assume that conflicts are going to increase also. 

Table 1. Wolf packs in and near Grand Teton National Park in 2003 and conflict information.a 

Management 

Pack name Location Pack size (2003) Depredation actions 

Nez Perce b YNP - Travels 1 cow confirmed - 

extensively 2003 

Yellowstone Delta YNP and BridgerTeton Wilderness 

Teton GRTE and Gros 12-14 1 cow confirmed 0 wolves killed 

Ventre River drainage 

Green River Green River Basin 3 9 cattle confirmed 3 wolves killed 

1 sheep confirmed 

Several other probable 

kills - 2003 

Non-packs c Upper Green River 2 unknown 5 wolves killed 

drainage 3-4 

South of GRTE 3 

Near Cora 2-3 

Big Piney 

Greater Yellowstone 301 wolves 64 cattle d 59 wolves killed. 

Area totals 211 sheep d No wolves 

6 dogs d translocated. 

10 goats d 

Wyoming totals 234 wolves 30 cattle e 18 wolves killed 

36 sheepe 

10 goats e 

2 horses – injurede 

a

Information from Smith and others, (2004); USFWS, NPT, NPS, and USDA, 2004 representing 2003 data. 

b

A Yellowstone National Park pack that travels extensively. 

These wolves are in small groups that have not produced pups. The social structure of a pack is based on a breeding 

pair. 

d

Livestock numbers reflect confirmed depredations since wolves were reintroduced. 

e

Livestock numbers reflect confirmed and probable depredations since wolves were reintroduced. 

2 

c
In 1950, GRTE was expanded to include Jackson Hole National Monument, making the 

entire park 310,000 acres. Park expansion was not an easy acquisition as local ranchers feared 

losing valuable grazing land. Because of the intense controversy, a provision was included that 

protected existing grazing rights within the new park boundaries. Unlike other national parks 

these grazing rights are still protected today. Livestock grazing is allowed within park boundaries 

as well as on the surrounding Teton National Forest. In GRTE in 2004, 1,800 cows and horses 

were permitted to graze on 36,000 acres. Livestock grazing on public land, coupled with wolves 

ranging out of the park to hunt, increase the likelihood of wolf-livestock interactions. In fact, 

livestock and wolf conflicts are on the rise in the GYA. Livestock depredations by wolves within 

Wyoming but outside of YNP nearly doubled in 2003 (51 vs. 27 in 2002). Depredations within 

GYA resulted in the deaths of 45 cattle, 90 sheep, and 10 goats for the year 2003 (USFWS and 

others, 2004). In 2002, 33 cattle, 71 sheep, and 1 dog were killed by wolves in GYA (USFWS 

and others, 2004). The USFWS responded to these depredations by killing 23 wolves in 2002 

and 38 wolves in 2003 (see Table 1 for more data) (USFWS and others, 2004). In addition, 66% 

(n = 57) of depredations were documented on public grazing allotments and 34% on private 

property (USFWS and others, 2004). Although wolves may use park areas for denning, many 

will travel to find food. Wolves disperse and roam long distances to hunt, so many depredations 

are occurring outside of park boundaries as well as on public grazing allotments. 

Closing portions of trails located near denning sites can be an important management 

issue during the denning season. In the GYA, wolves generally breed in February and give birth 

in late April after a gestation period of about 63 days. At this time wolves are especially sensitive 

to human disturbance in the area around their den sites. The alpha female usually remains with 

the pups at the den site, while the other pack members are responsible for bringing food back to 

the den. When the pups are approximately two months of age, they are moved to an outdoor 

nursery. By October, the pups are usually traveling and hunting with the rest of their pack 

(http://www.nps.gov/grte/wolf/biolo.htm). 

In the length of time that wolves have reinhabited GRTE, there has not been enough time 

for managers to predict the types of conflicts that may occur as the result of their introduction. 

There were six suspected illegal killings in 2003 that are under investigation (USFWS and 

others, 2004). Some issues were not predicted as problems, but monitoring has shown conflicts. 

For example, monitoring data from 1997 in Minnesota suggests that wolves do not use frozen 

ponds in the presence of snowmobiles (Schaberl, 1998). Also, elk have been displaced and 

gathered in large numbers on private property and elk crowding on specific feeding grounds 

because of wolf presence on others has become an issue (USFWS and others, 2004). 

Previous Human Dimensions Research 

In general, past human dimensions research on public attitudes toward wolves and their 

reintroduction has shed light on the multi-dimensionality of issues surrounding the wolf. 

Conservation and management efforts can benefit from understanding human dimensions 

research on public knowledge, opinions, and sentiment. Research in wolf ecology alone will not 

determine the fate of wolves in the United States; public attitudes and actions will ultimately 

decide the future of wolf conservation efforts. These studies have alluded to the polarization 

between specific groups of the public, misconceptions about wolves, and proximity to wolves as 

key factors affecting attitudes towards wolves and their conservation. Human dimensions 

research on wolf management has also shown that cognitive factors such as beliefs and value 

orientations strongly influence an individual's support for wolf reintroduction programs 

(Cromley, 1997; Brown-Nuñez and Taylor, 2002). 

3 
Study Purpose and Management Applicability 

Does GRTE provide unique challenges for the management of wolves? Most of the 

human dimensions research on wolves in the GYA has been conducted in relation to YNP. 

Grand Teton National Park has a different historical and legislative background than YNP, 

primarily distinguished by the allotment of grazing rights within the park. Livestock grazing in 

the Teton Park creates a different dynamic in wolf-human conflict than in other park 

jurisdictions, such as YNP. As a result, will the opinions of people be different in and around 

GRTE? In addition, much is known about the attitudes of people towards wolves and wolf 

reintroduction (Brown-Nuñez and Taylor, 2002). However, the question of how people attribute 

responsibility about wolves has gone unanswered. The purpose of this study is to examine the 

attribution of responsibility about wolves and compare those results with demographics, 

emotions about wolves, and acceptability of various management actions in and near GRTE. 

The research was conducted in late summer/early fall 2003 by the Policy Analysis and 

Science Assistance [PASA] Science Program/Fort Collins Science Center/U.S. Geological 

Survey in collaboration with GRTE personnel. 

The Theory-Judgments of Responsibility Model 

Judgments of responsibility associated with conflict situations with wolves can be better 

understood by applying attribution theory from the field of social psychology. Attribution theory 

describes the way in which people explain the causes of their own and other people’s behavior. 

The theory can be viewed as a framework for understanding the rules that individuals use when 

trying to determine cause and effect in everyday life. Attributions provide a mechanism for 

controlling events and predicting future occurrences (Weiner, 1995). Central to forming 

attributions are the emotions involved when an individual tries to determine who or what is 

responsible for a situation. Also key to the attribution process are the outcomes or attitudes about 

what actions should remedy any problem that resulted from the particular situation. These three 

components - judgments of responsibility, emotions felt, and actions taken to correct a situation - 

are essential to the attribution process and interact in the human mind when we encounter life 

situations that have cause and effect components. 

Research on the attribution process, in particular judgments of responsibility, can help 

answer questions stakeholders may generate following human-wildlife conflict situations: Who 

or what is responsible for the event that occurred and how should subsequent management action 

be directed? The applicability of judgments of responsibility research to human-wildlife 

conflicts is discussed Harlow (2001). Knowledge of how stakeholders in the area surrounding 

GRTE (park visitors and local residents) form judgments of responsibility following potentially 

negative encounters with wolves can assist managers in choosing and implementing actions to 

remedy such situations. 

Study Objectives 

This study focused on Jackson-Hole area residents’ and GRTE visitors’ judgments of 

responsibility, acceptance of management actions, and emotional factor related to GYA wolves. 

The study objectives were to: 

1.	 assess both residents’ and park visitors’ judgments of responsibility [i.e., person 

involved, GRTE, USFWS, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish (WYG&F)] 

pertaining to human-wolf conflict situations, 

2.	 determine the level of acceptance of current and potential wolf management practices 

and attitudes towards Southern GYA wolf management practices, 

4 
3.	 assess the emotions that affect both residents and visitors in their judgments about 

wolves and wolf management, 

4.	 determine how judgments of responsibility, stakeholder acceptance of management 

actions directed at the wolves, and emotions interact, and 

5.	 examine the socio-demographic data for residents and park visitors. 

Study Methods 

The Samples 

Independent samples were collected to represent the local resident and park visitor 

populations. For the local resident survey, a randomly selected list of residents located within a 

100-mile radius of Jackson, Wyoming was obtained from Survey Sampling, Inc. (Figure 1). All 

surveying was conducted during the summer of 2003, so both samples have a degree of seasonal 

bias. Summer is the time of the highest occupation of part-time residences, and is also the time of 

year when the majority of visitors come to the park. This sample does omit winter part-time 

residents (e.g. skiers) and winter visitors, for example, who come to see the concentration of elk 

in the nearby National Elk Refuge. 

Artwork by Dale Crawford 

Figure 1. Sampling area for resident survey. 

Park visitors were surveyed by intercept interview (see Appendix A for specific 

questions), to collect basic information and addresses for a follow-up mail survey. Intercept 

locations were determined in collaboration with GRTE staff to sample the variety of different 

ways in which people use the park: drive-through visitors, campers, and trail hikers. The followup park visitor survey was mailed to those park visitors who agreed to participate, with the 

exception of a small number of respondents who requested a copy of the survey during the 

intercept interview at the park. An adapted Dillman (2000) method was used with both the local 

resident and park visitor surveys by sending a thank you/reminder post card and, subsequently, a 

follow-up letter with a second survey to those who had not yet responded. The local resident area 

has a census-reported population of 243,000 residents; the GRTE reports annual visitation of 2.5 

million persons. To extrapolate to the larger population-at-interest would require weighing the 

visitor results by a factor of 10. 

5 
The Survey Instruments 

The visitor survey instrument (Appendix B) and the local resident survey instrument 

(Appendix C) were divided into five distinct sections. Sections 1–3 are identical for both the 

local resident and the visitor surveys. A general description of each section is given below. 

Section 1. Public Attribution of Responsibility in Hypothetical Situations and Acceptance 

of Management Actions 

Six different hypothetical situations depicting possible human-wolf encounters were 

described to respondents in the first section of the survey (see Table 2 for details). The purpose 

of these scenarios was to allow the respondents to judge who they felt to be responsible for the 

stated conflict or potential conflict between humans and wolves described in each scenario. 

Factors that might affect assignments of responsibility were varied among the scenarios, 

including: the location of the encounter (on park property or private land); the type of encounter 

(e.g., hikers seeing wolves on trail, wolves harassing cattle, or pets and cattle being depredated 

by wolves); and the endangered species status of the wolves (listed as “endangered experimental 

population” or as delisted). These factors were determined through consultation with park 

managers. 

Respondents were given the choice of five possible agents [the individual experiencing 

the encounter, GRTE, the WYG&F, and the USFWS] plus one open-ended 'other' option, to 

whom they could assign portions of responsibility. These survey scenario items were designed to 

guide respondents to enter percentages of responsibility that would total to 100% within each 

scenario. Following the attribution of responsibility, respondents were asked to rate the 

acceptability of several management options listed to possibly remedy or prevent the conflict in 

the hypothetical situation. Acceptance of management actions were coded on a 7-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 = 'highly unacceptable' to 7 = 'highly acceptable'. 

Table 2. Description of the six scenarios depicting possible human-wolf encounters. 

Scenario # Status of wolves Encounter type Location of encounter 

1 Endangered, experimental population Wolves feeding near trail In GRTE 

2 Endangered, experimental population Wolves chase cattle In GRTE 

3 Endangered, experimental population Wolves kill cattle On private land 

4 Delisted Pet killed by wolves On private land 

5 Delisted Wolves denning near trail In GRTE 

6 Delisted Wolves kill cattle In GRTE 

Section 2. Effectiveness of Management Options 

Eleven items were used to measure respondents’ judgments of the effectiveness of 

various management options in remedying conflicts between wolves and human activities or 

property. Management options given for respondents to evaluate ranged from non-lethal 

techniques (i.e. frightening devices), preventive measures (i.e. closure of areas), and capture and 

relocation of wolves, to the most invasive measure of destroying problem wolves. Effectiveness 

of management actions were rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’; the midpoint, 4, was labeled ‘no opinion.’ 

6 
Section 3. Emotions Towards Wolves 

Seventeen items assessing different emotions about wolves and potential human-wolf 

interactions were asked of all respondents. These items allowed for the investigation of such 

emotions as fear of wolves, anger felt about the presence of wolves, sympathy for wolves, and 

sympathy felt for those negatively affected by wolves. Survey respondents were asked to rate 

their level of agreement with each of the emotion items. The items were coded on a 5-point 

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = 'strongly disagree' to 5 = 'strongly agree', plus a ‘don’t know’ 

response option. 

Section 4. Experience with Wolves 

Respondents were also asked to report their personal experiences with wolf sightings and 

to rate potential experiences of seeing wolves in varying numbers, frequencies, and settings. 

Respondents evaluated a series of hypothetical experiences involving lone wolves and/or wolf 

packs in the park or on private property. The type of experience was coded on a 7-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 = 'extremely positive' to 7 = 'extremely negative', again with a ‘don’t 

know’ option. 

The local resident survey instrument had three additional questions in Section 4 to 

determine personal experiences with wolves (Appendix C). These questions were also asked of 

park visitors during the intercept interview at the park (Appendix A). The items included the 

number of times wolves were seen in the wild and in GRTE. In addition, residents were asked 

their perceived knowledge level about wolves. A respondent’s perceived knowledge about 

wolves was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from, 1 = ‘not at all knowledgeable’ to 5 = 

‘very knowledgeable’. 

Section 5. Experiences in Grand Teton National Park and Demographics 

Respondents’ experiences in GRTE were measured by the number of visits to GRTE, 

length of stay, activities participated in during their visit, and lodging type. Respondents were 

asked socio-demographic questions, including age, sex, ethnicity, race, education, income, and 

resident community type. There are minor differences between the visitor and local resident 

survey instruments in Section 5 (see Appendix B and C for details). For example, visitors were 

asked what activities they participated in during this visit; while residents were asked what 

activities they participated in during their last visit to the park. 

Analysis 

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 11.5. Data for the two samples (local residents 

and park visitors) were analyzed comparatively for each of four general conceptual areas: 

1. judgments of responsibility in varying human-wolf encounter situations, 

2. acceptance of management actions for wolves in these situations, 

3. experience with wolves, both past and potential, and 

4. emotions felt about wolves. 

In addition to these conceptually defined components of the survey, demographic, and 

general descriptive information about park use were assessed. Analysis techniques were 

primarily limited to basic descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentage crosscomparisons. Comparative statistical tests included chi-square tests, t-tests, repeated measures 

ANOVA, and bi-variate correlations. 

7 
When a series of t-tests of the means of three or more groups are conducted on related 

items, there is a risk of violating independence assumptions; use of a Bonferroni correction 

eliminates this possibility (Neter and others, 1996). When a series of t-tests were conducted for 

these analyses (e.g., when differentiating between average acceptability ratings for each of the 

possible management actions given), a Bonferroni correction was used. For a Bonferroni 

correction, p < .05 is divided by the number of tests run to determine a corrected p-value. 

Regular ANOVA also has independence assumptions. In order to compare judgments of 

responsibility within the six hypothetical scenarios, repeated measure ANOVA was used since 

the use of six scenarios with similar lists of items violates the independence assumptions of a 

regular ANOVA. 

Results 

Response Rates 

For the local resident survey, 1,297 surveys were mailed to residents, but 120 were 

returned by the Postal Service as “undeliverable.” Local residents returned 604 surveys for a 

response rate of 51%. A follow-up phone survey was conducted to determine if the nonresponding residents deviated from the residents who returned the surveys, either 

demographically or in wolf-experience. The follow-up telephone study succeeded in collecting 

data from 10% of the non-respondents. Of the half that were not successfully interviewed, twothirds (64%) were unreachable (disconnected or wrong number) and one third (36%) again 

refused to answer questions about wolves in the GRTE area. Chi-square comparisons of crosstabulated variables of respondent vs. non-respondent interviewees showed no significant 

demographic differences for age, sex, education, income, or size of resident community. 

Experience with wolves, both within Grand Teton and in general, also showed no significant 

differences. Only in self-assessed knowledge about wolves did respondents show a significantly 

higher level than non-respondents, (mean responses were 3.1 and 2.4, respectively, on a 5-point 

Likert-type scale, p < .05). 

The park visitor survey yielded a response rate of 81%: 748 surveys were mailed, 11 

were undeliverable, and 596 were filled out and returned. A total of 1,200 surveys were used in 

this analysis. These samples provide estimates at the 95% confidence interval for each of these 

two populations. The results reported were considered to be representative of park-visitors and of 

the resident population who consider themselves more knowledgeable about wolves. How the 

samples differ from local and national census is discussed in the next section. 

Demographics for the Two Population Samples 

The proportion of males completing the local resident survey (72%) was greater than for 

the park visitor sample (55%); but in both instances, greater than the census percentage (see 

Table 3). The two groups were similar to one another in age, ethnicity, and race composition, but 

the resident sample was low in American Indian participation, and the proportion of European 

Americans was higher than the national average for both samples. Park visitors reported higher 

overall completed education than local residents (e.g. 68% PV reported achieving a college or an 

advanced degree, compared to 41% LR); and visitors certainly exceeded the national average in 

higher education. Local residents reported earning a somewhat lower approximate annual 

household income than park visitors, whose income was also quite a bit higher than the national 

average (LR median income = $50,000–75,000, PV median income = $75,000–100,000). The 

regional census median income varied greatly, over $20,000 between Teton County, Wyoming at 

$55,000 and several of the more rural counties with average annual incomes in the low 30’s. 

8 
Regarding “current resident community,” the majority of local residents lived in communities of 

50,000 or less while the majority of park visitors lived in cities of 50,000 or more. This 

difference is certainly predictable since only two communities in the local radius, Idaho Falls and 

Pocatello, have populations over 50,000 (Census.gov). 

Table 3. Demographic data: Local residents; census; park visitors. 

Census data a (%)

Socio-economic items Local resident (%) Regional National Park visitor (%) 

Gender 

Male 72 50 50 55 

Female 28 50 50 45 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic 6 6 13 3 

Raceb 

American Indian or Alaska Native 1 3 1 1 

White 98 91 75 97 

Education 

Less than high school diploma 2 1 

High school diploma or GED 19 87 80 8 

Technical/vocational degree 12 5 

Some college 26 18 

4 year college degree 21 26 24 31 

Advanced degree beyond college 20 37 

Annual household income before taxes 

$10,000 to $24,999 

$25,000 to $49,999 

$50,000 to $74,999 

$75,000 to $99,000 

$100,000 to $124,999 

$125,000 or more 

Median Income 

9 

33 

27 

13 

9 

7 

$50K $43.7K $42K 

4 

19 

21 

22 

13 

19 

$75K 

Current residence or community 

City with 250,000 or more people 

City with 100,000 to 249,999 people 

Small city - 50,000 to 99,999 people 

Town with 10,000 to 49,999 people 

Small town/village < 10,000 people 

Farm or rural area 

NAc 

NA 

41 

18 

24 

17 

27 

13 

12 

22 

15 

12 

Average age 53 years 48 years 

a

From http://quickfacts.census.gov/ - for 9-county region of WY/ID and for the nation. 

b

For local residents, n = 567 for white and n = 17 for all other races. For park visitors, n = 558 for white and n = 16 

for all other races. 

Not asked. No cities greater than 100,000 in population exist within a 100 mile radius of Jackson, Wyoming. 

9 

c
Judgments of Responsibility and Acceptance of Management Actions for Wolves 

Judgments of Responsibility 

For the six scenarios provided, average percentages of responsibility were calculated for 

each of the potentially responsible agents from estimates given by the two samples: local 

residents and GRTE visitors (Figures 2 through 7). Again these were hypothetical scenarios 

involving human-wolf conflicts where factors affecting judgments of responsibility were varied 

across scenarios. Variables included location of the encounter (in the park or outside its 

boundaries); type of encounter (depredation or a siting near a trail); plus endangered versus 

delisted species status (see Table 2). 

These scenarios, and the following discussion, are complex. To assure clarity, this would 

be an explanation of Scenario 2 findings (Figure 3, Table 5, page 13): Wolves have been 

harassing cattle on a grazing allotment within the park. Local residents consider this situation to 

be primarily the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (35%) followed by the 

rancher involved (26%), whereas the park visitors held the rancher as most responsible (41%), 

the park next (25%), and then the FWS (22%). In terms of management actions, residents felt 

monitoring, capture and release, and frightening the wolves off were the more acceptable actions. 

Visitors also felt monitoring or frightening the wolves were acceptable, but they were in favor of 

moving the cattle away from the trouble site. However, the two samples differed significantly on 

every management action, especially on whether the wolves should be destroyed. 

Overall, park visitors [PV] assigned the highest levels of responsibility to the individual 

involved in the encounter (43% overall), especially for Scenarios 1 and 5 where the encounters 

involved hikers on trails within the GRTE (65% and 48% respectively: see Figures 2 and 6). The 

second highest levels of responsibility assigned by visitors to the individual involved were for 

scenarios depicting wolves harassing or killing cattle on grazing allotments within the park (41% 

and 40%, Scenarios 2 and 6 respectively: Figures 3 and 7). The only scenario for which visitors, 

on average, did not rate the individual as the primary responsible party was Scenario 3 (Figure 4) 

which depicted wolf predation of cattle outside the park boundaries. In this case, the FWS was 

attributed slightly more responsibility (31%) than the rancher (29%). 

Visitors allotted responsibility to the GRTE higher for encounters within the park, at 

about one fourth of the total responsibility for cattle encounters (Scenario 2, 25%; Scenario 6, 

26%). The hiker encounters are not as homogeneous in visitors’ allotment of responsibility as 

might be anticipated. Scenario 5 (Figure 6), which depicts wolves denning near a trail, shows the 

highest PV allotted responsibility to GRTE (29%) while Scenario 1 (Figure 2), with wolves 

feeding on a kill, near a trail, only had 15% of overall visitor responsibility allotted to GRTE. 

Our interpretation of this seeming anomaly is that denning is a much more permanent presence 

of wolves, requiring park attention, than is feeding on a kill. Perhaps, since Scenario 1 attribution 

of responsibility was so high (65% for visitors – the highest level attributed to any agent by 

either respondent group; Figure 2), respondents were expressing the notion that any hiker with a 

modicum of good sense should keep away from a pack of wolves feeding on a wildlife kill. 

Visitors basically attribute very little responsibility to the WYG&F for encounters within 

the park: responsibility allocation to this agency ranging from 6–8% for hiker encounters to 11% 

for cattle allotment encounters. Outside of the park, the predation encounters with cattle 

(Scenario 3) and with a pet (Scenario 4) showed one fifth of responsibility attributed by PV to 

the WYG&F. 

Whereas visitors focused on individuals - hikers, ranchers, etc. - being most responsible, 

the Local Residents [LR] tended to place responsibility most heavily upon the FWS (33% overall 

average). For all scenarios except hiker encounters, FWS was allocated the highest levels of 

responsibility by the LR. Within this set of depredation or near-predation scenarios, in those 

10 
occurring outside the park the LR allotted the highest responsibility to the FWS: 44% for cattle 

predation (Scenario 3) and 38% for pet predation (Scenario 4); and the lowest levels of 

responsibility for the GRTE (14% and 12%, respectively). For cattle encounters within the park, 

LR allocated about one third of total responsibility to the FWS (Scenario 2, 35%; Scenario 6, 

33%). 

With the single exception of Scenario 1, where such great proportions of responsibility 

were allotted to the hiker, local residents attributed less responsibility to the GRTE than did the 

visitors: between one-fourth and one-fifth within the park boundaries and between one-seventh 

and one-eighth for out-of-park Scenarios 3 and 4. 

Again, compared to the FWS or the individual involved, local residents held the WYG&F 

less responsible: 16% responsibility overall. The GRTE was just slightly higher at 18% overall 

average responsibility. WYG&F was attributed more responsibility for out-of-park scenarios 

than for in-park encounters - indeed, residents and visitors agreed in attributing one fifth of 

responsibility to WYG&F for out-of-park depredation. In other words, both wildlife agencies 

(FWS and WYG&F) were allotted their highest responsibilities by both samples (PV & LR) for 

off-park kill situations and their lowest for in-park hiker situations (see also Figure 8). 

Scenarios 1 through 3 depicted wolves still in endangered species, experimental 

population status, while Scenarios 4 through 6 depicted the wolves as delisted (removed from 

endangered species status). There is no significant difference in assigned responsibility for the 

USFWS (26% overall average responsibility for Scenarios 1–3; 28% for Scenarios 4–6) nor for 

the WYG&F (14%–15%, respectively) between the endangered and delisted sets of scenarios 

(see Figure 8). The public does not understand the change in responsibility associated with 

Endangered Species Act status. 

Another unanticipated result is the nearly identical assigned responsibility for the two inpark grazing allotment scenarios: Scenario 2 (Figure 3) depicts harassment but no kills of cattle 

while Scenario 6 (Figure 7) shows depredation. It is in the area of acceptable management 

actions where respondents differentiated between harassment and kills. 

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted which revealed a significant interaction 

effect, among scenarios, of percentages of assigned responsibility and the samples of LR and PV 

(F = 2.92, p < .001, Figure 8). Park visitors’ average percentages of assigned responsibility for 

the individual involved in a potential conflict with wolves were higher than local residents’ 

across all scenarios (Figure 8-A). Conversely, local residents’ average percentages of assigned 

responsibility for the USFWS were significantly higher than park visitors’ for this agency across 

all scenarios (Figure 8-D). Park visitors were slightly more likely to assign responsibility to the 

GRTE than local residents for most scenarios (Figure 8-B), while local residents were slightly 

more likely than park visitors to assign responsibility to WYG&F (Figure 8-C). The near-parallel 

line patterns in Figure 8 indicate consistency between residents and visitors in how responsibility 

for any one agent varied from one wolf encounter situation to another. 

Acceptance of Management Actions 

Management action alternatives were tailored to match different types of human-wolf 

encounters, and therefore are not universally comparable across scenarios. For example, lethal 

methods of wolf control were not offered for trail encounters in the park, but trail and trailsection closures were. For in-park livestock encounters, moving or removing the cattle from the 

allotment were offered alternatives; these options were not offered for out-of-park encounters. Ttests were used to differentiate between average acceptability ratings for each of the possible 

management actions given (Tables 4 through 9). For all scenarios, park visitors rated the choice 

“monitor the situation” more favorably than local residents: PV mean responses were greater 

than 4.4 for every scenario; LR mean responses ranged from 3.3, for off-park depredation 

11 
scenarios, to 4.5; t = 7.46, p ≤ .001. (It should be borne in mind that the evaluations scale was 

seven points, with 4.0 being the neutral central point.) For those situations where wolves had not 

caused any loss of cattle or pets (Scenarios 1, 2, and 5; Tables 4, 5, and 8), local residents rated 

management options aimed at prevention of human-wolf interaction (i.e., trail closure or cattle 

removal from federal grazing allotments) as significantly less acceptable than did park visitors 

(LR mean range 2.6–3.6; PV mean range 3.1–4.5; t = 5.31, p ≤ .001). For those scenarios where 

wolves did cause loss of pets or cattle (Scenarios 3, 4, and 6; Tables 6, 7, and 9), local residents 

rated non-lethal management options (i.e., capture and relocate, or frighten the wolves away) 

Figure 2. Scenario 1 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, endangered, feeding near trail in GRTE. 

Table 4. Mean acceptability ratings for five management actions following a hypothetical hikingtrail human-wolf interaction (scenario 1). 

 Mean acceptability ratinga 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-valueb 

Monitor the situation 4.5 5.3 9.25 < .001 

Frighten the wolves away 3.4 3.1 2.56 .011 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 3.4 2.7 7.43 < .001 

Close only the section of the trail that the wolves are near 3.1 4.0 9.70 < .001 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left the area 2.6 3.1 5.31 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values shown are 

statistically significant at p < .01. 

12 
significantly less acceptable than park visitors (LR mean response 3.0–4.1; PV mean response 

4.0–4.5; t = 2.67, p = .008). In these latter three scenarios, local residents rated “destroy the 

wolves involved” as more acceptable to acceptable (mean response 3.8–4.1), whereas park 

visitors rated this management option as unacceptable to somewhat unacceptable (mean response 

2.4–2.7; t = 12.32, p ≤ .001). The latter, lethal options, were the only management alternatives 

where the range of overall acceptability between PV and LR did not overlap. 

Figure 3. Scenario 2 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, endangered, chasing cattle in GRTE. 

Table 5. Mean acceptability ratings for six management actions following a hypothetical cattlewolf interaction (scenario 2). 

 Mean acceptability ratinga 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-valueb 

Monitor the situation 4.1 5.0 9.67 < .001 

Frighten the wolves away 3.8 4.1 2.93 .003 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 4.0 3.4 5.55 < .001 

Move the cattle to another area of the grazing allotment 3.4 4.5 10.38 < .001 

Remove the cattle in question from the park 2.7 3.7 8.63 < .001 

Destroy the wolves involved 3.0 1.7 13.96 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values shown are 

 statistically significant at p < .008. 

13 
Figure 4. Scenario 3 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, endangered, killed cattle on private land. 

Table 6. Mean acceptability ratings for four management actions following a hypothetical cattle 

wolf interaction (scenario 3). 

 Mean acceptability ratinga 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-value b 

Monitor the situation 3.3 4.4 10.55 < .001 

Frighten the wolves away 3.5 4.5 10.06 < .001 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 4.1 4.5 4.22 < .001 

Destroy the wolves involved 3.8 2.4 13.19 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values shown are 

 statistically significant at p < .01. 

14 
Figure 5. Scenario 4 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, delisted, killed pet on private land. 

Table 7. Mean acceptability ratings for four management actions following a hypothetical petwolf interaction (scenario 4). 

 Mean acceptability rating a 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-value b 

Monitor the situation 3.3 4.4 11.14 < .001 

Frighten the wolves away 3.4 4.5 11.90 < .001 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 4.0 4.5 5.81 < .001 

Destroy the wolves involved 4.1 2.7 12.32 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values shown are 

statistically significant at p < .01. 

15 
Figure 6. Scenario 5 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, delisted, denning near trail in GRTE. 

Table 8. Mean acceptability ratings for five management actions following a hypothetical hiking 

trail-wolf interaction (scenario 5).

 Mean acceptability ratinga 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-value b 

Monitor the situation 4.3 5.0 7.46 < .001 

Frighten the wolves away 2.6 2.6 0.36 .723 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 3.1 2.7 3.73 < .001 

Close only the section of the trail that the wolves are near 3.6 4.5 9.44 < .001 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left the area 2.8 3.4 6.18 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values, except ‘frighten 

the wolves away’, are statistically significant at p < .01. 

16 
Mean Percent Responsibility 

0.11 

0.22 0.21 

0.33 

0.15 

0.26 

0.40 

0.27 

SC6 Rancher 

Responsibility 

Sc6 GTNP Responsibility 

Sc6 WYG&F 

Responsibility 

0.50 

0.40 Sc6 FWS Responsibility 

0.30 

0.20 

0.10 

0.00 

Local Resident Visitor 

Wolves (de-listed) kill cattle within the Park * 

* See Appendix B or C for full-text scenarios 

Figure 7. Scenario 6 attributed responsibility. 

Wolves, delisted, killed cattle in GRTE. 

Table 9. Mean acceptability ratings for six management actions following a hypothetical cattle 

wolf interaction (scenario 6). 

 Mean acceptability ratinga 

Management action Resident Visitor t-statistic p-valueb 

Monitor the situation 

Frighten the wolves away 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved 

Move the remaining cattle to another area of the grazing 

allotment 

Remove the remaining cattle in question from the park 

Destroy the wolves involved 

3.5 4.5 9.93 < .001 

3.4 4.2 7.86 < .001 

3.8 4.0 2.67 .008 

3.5 4.5 10.82 < .001 

3.0 3.9 8.83 < .001 

3.8 2.4 12.65 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate acceptability of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘highly 

unacceptable’ through 7 = ‘highly acceptable’. The ‘no opinion’ category was removed and the acceptability ratings 

were recoded to 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ through 6 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. All values shown are 

statistically significant at p < .008. 

17 
Average % of Responsibility Assigned to the Individual Average % of Responsibility Assigned to WYG&F in 

Involved in Human-Wolf Interaction Scenarios Human-Wolf Interaction Scenarios 

0.70 0.70 

0.60 0.60 Mean Percent Mean Percent 

Mean Percent 

Mean Percent 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

i

i

Local Res dent 

Vis tor 

i

i

Local Res dent 

Vis tor 

0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Scenario Number Scenario Number 

Average % of Responsibility Assigned to GRTE in Human Average % of Responsibility Assigned to USFWS in 

W olf Interaction Scenarios Human-Wolf Interaction Scenarios 

0.70 0.70 

0.60 0.60 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

ident 

i

Local Res

Vis tor 

i

i

Local Res dent 

Vis tor 

0.10 0.10 

0.00 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Scenario Numbers Scenario Number 

Figure 8. Average percent of responsibility assigned by residents and visitors to each of four 

possible agents involved in hypothetical human-wolf interactions across six hypothetical 

scenarios.a.b 

a

Scenarios 1 through 3 listed the wolves involved in hypothetical conflict as an endangered species, experimental 

population. Scenarios 4 through 6 listed the wolf numbers as having increased and no longer listed the wolves as an 

endangered species. 

b

A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect of situation * agent assigned responsibility * 

location of survey (resident vs. visitor), F = 2.92, p < .001 

Because the lethal management option, “kill the wolves (wolf) involved,” which was 

offered for the four scenarios showing predation, showed the strongest differentiation between 

LR and PV, among the management alternatives offered, we created a normative variable to help 

explain some of this difference. To create this variable, we identified three different response 

patterns: those who always accepted the lethal option when it was offered, those who never 

found the lethal option acceptable, and those who sometimes found this action acceptable and 

sometimes did not (Table 10). 

The first result of importance to note here is that nearly half of the total aggregate sample 

never selected the lethal management option, 64% of PV never chose kill the wolves involved. 

The second important result is that a plurality (40%) of local residents always selected the lethal 

option when it was offered, whereas only 10% of visitors always selected kill the wolves, i.e., 

LR are four times more likely to always select “kill the wolves” than are PV. 

18 
Table 10. Cross-tabulation of wolf kill-norm with resident and visitor samples.a.b 

Never kill the 

wolves 

Sometimes kill the 

wolves 

Always kill the 

wolves Total 

Local resident 

Park visitor 

176 

31.8% 

361 

64.2% 

154 

27.8% 

144 

25.6% 

223 

40.3% 

57 

10.1% 

553 

49.6% 

562 

50.4% 

Totals 537 

48.2% 

298 

26.7% 

289 

25.9% 

1115 

100% 

a

Percentages are the proportion of each respondent sample following that norm response pattern, i.e., row 

percentages. 

b

Chi-Square test of association showed significant difference between LR and PV: χ

2

 = 162.4, p < .001. 

Judgments of Effectiveness of Wolf Management Actions 

Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of several potential management 

options for preventing or remedying conflicts between wolves and human activities or properties. 

The judgment scale was from 1 = ‘not at all effective’ to 4 = ‘extremely effective’. T-tests were 

used to differentiate between average perceived effectiveness ratings for each management 

option for local residents and park visitors (Table 11). 

Closure of trails or trail sections to avoid human-wolf disturbances received the highest 

marks for effectiveness, averaging between ‘somewhat effective’ and ‘effective’ for both sample 

groups, although visitors (mean = 2.8) rated these preventive actions significantly more effective 

than did residents (means = 2.3 and 2.4; p ≤ .001). Next, “capture and relocation of an entire 

pack involved” was ranked midway between “somewhat effective” and “effective” by both 

groups. Residents rated the effectiveness of “destroy the entire pack involved” significantly 

higher (mean = 2.6) than did visitors to GRTE (mean = 2.0; t = 6.25, p ≤ .001); and residents also 

judged destroying the breeding pair or an individual wolf significantly higher in effectiveness 

than visitors. But none of these were rated very strongly effectively; the mid-point on the 4-point 

scale being 2.5. 

19 
Table 11. Mean ratings of resident and visitor perceptions of management action effectiveness 

to alleviate human-wolf conflicts. 

 Mean perceived 

effectiveness 

rating a 

Management actions Resident Visitor t-statistic p-valueb 

To prevent wolves from entering an area on private property... 

Frightening devices, loud sirens, or flashing lights 1.5 1.7 2.68 .008 

Electric fences 1.7 2.1 5.67 < .001 

Guard dogs 1.5 1.6 1.13 .258 

Shooting at wolves with non-lethal rubber bullets 1.9 1.8 .95 .340 

To avoid human-wolf disturbances within Grand Teton 

National Park... 

Closure of sections of hiking trails that are close to wolf 

denning areas 2.4 2.8 6.90 < .001 

Closure of entire hiking trails that pass near wolf denning 

sites 2.3 2.8 7.36 < .001 

To reduce future threat to human property following instances 

of conflict between wolves and human activities or property... 

Capture and relocation of an entire pack involved 2.4 2.5 1.61 .108 

Capture and relocation of an individual wolf involved 1.9 1.9 .40 .690 

Destroy an individual wolf that was in a pack involved 2.1 1.7 6.23 < .001 

Destroy the breeding pair of wolves in a pack involved 1.9 1.5 5.53 < .001 

Destroy the entire pack involved 2.6 2.0 6.25 < .001 

a

Respondents were asked to rate effectiveness of management actions, on a Likert-type scale, from 1 = ‘not at all 

effective’ through 4 = ‘extremely effective’. 

b

A Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was use to adjust significance levels. P-values shown are only 

statistically significant at p < .004. 

All other management options, for exclosure of wolves, or capturing and relocating a 

single wolf, were rated between ‘not at all’ and ‘somewhat effective’ by both groups. Most of 

these showed little difference between local residents and park visitors except on their 

perceptions of the effectiveness of electrical fences to prevent wolves from entering private 

property, although different definitions between urban and rural populations of “electric fence” 

may have influenced this result. 

Emotions Felt about Wolves 

Respondents evaluated a series of emotion statements by indicating the degree to which 

they agreed or disagreed with each. These emotion items were designed to measure four distinct 

classes of emotion that might be associated with the existence of wolves in the Jackson Hole area 

(see Table 13): anger about the presence of wolves (A, B, C, G, K); fear of wolves (D, E, N, O, 

P, Q); sympathy toward wolves (F, I, M); and sympathy toward ranchers (H, J, L). 

Park visitors and local residents are compared in these results, first in the aggregate 

emotion indices (Table 12) then in specific emotion item responses (Table 13). Reliability tests 

of these aggregate emotion indices are reported in Appendix D. 

20 
Table 12. Local resident and park visitor overall responses to the aggregated emotion indices.a 

Anger about Sympathy for Sympathy for 

wolf presence wolves ranchers Fear of wolves 

Local residents 3.5 2.4 4.0 3.6 

Park visitors 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 

Measure of associationb .152 .137 .082 .035 

a

Emotion items used a Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. 

b

Eta squared measures of association: a value of 0.1 would indicate a minimal level of association. 

Differences in emotional response were greatest in the areas of anger about wolves and 

sympathy toward wolves. Local residents tended to express anger about wolf presence while 

park visitors were more prone to feeling sympathy toward wolves. Both sample groups felt that 

fear of wolves was understandable, and both groups showed some sympathy with ranchers. None 

of these aggregate emotion classes showed strong association with the population samples. 

The following text and Table 13 give item-by-item descriptions of the components of the 

emotion classes listed above. For this comparison, the 5-point scale results were aggregated, into 

‘agree,’ ‘neutral,’ and ‘disagree’ for ease in displaying the proportions of the two samples who 

agreed and who disagreed with each emotion item. 

Chi-square tests of association showed significant differences between local residents and 

park visitors for most of the individual emotion items (Table 13). For example, although 43% of 

park visitors disagreed, fully 35% agreed with statement F, “I have sympathy for wolves that rely 

on livestock for food”; whereas among local residents only 19% agreed and 69% disagreed with 

this sentiment (χ

2

 = 79.94, p < .001). Local residents agreed (60%) with I, “I don’t have any 

sympathy for wolves that are destroyed for killing livestock,” but 68% of park visitors disagreed 

with this statement (χ

2

 = 184.85, p < .001). Finally, 59% of park visitors, compared to 34% of 

local residents, agreed with M, “I feel sorry for wolves when they are destroyed for any reason” 

(χ

2

 = 89.5, p < .001). 

Regarding emotions of anger felt towards wolves and/or wolf predation being present, 

62% of local residents agreed with A, “I get angry when I learn that a wolf has destroyed 

someone’s livestock,” whereas only 29% of park visitors agreed with this statement (χ

2

 = 143.29, 

p < .001). Conversely, park visitors (67%), more than local residents (37%), agreed with, G, “It 

angers me to learn that wolves may be destroyed if they harass livestock but don’t actually kill 

them” (χ

2

 = 131.79, p < .001). 

By far, the majority agreed (87% LR and 85% PV) that they could understand people 

fearing wolves (Q); and about 80% disagreed with the converse, D, that no one should be afraid 

of wolves. Approximately 60–70% of the two groups disagreed with N, “I would never be 

fearful of a wolf, if I saw one on my property,” and also with E, “I would never worry about my 

safety in an area that had wolves,” both of which resulted in modestly significant differences (χ

2 

= 6.00, p = 0.05 and χ

2

 = 7.06, p = .029, respectively) between residents and visitors. 

It is important for GRTE to note that the majority of both park visitors and local residents 

do not feel anger (K, disagree: PV = 86%, LR = 57%) nor fear (P, disagree: PV = 85%, LR = 

59%) that wolves are living in the park and may be encountered. Virtually none of the visitors 

(6% and 7%, respectively) agreed with those statements. 

21 
They agreed that it both saddens (H, LR = 79%; PV = 61%) and upsets them (J, LR = 

67%; PV = 39% - a plurality) “to know that ranchers lose livestock to wolves,” although to 

significantly different degrees. In addition, both groups disagreed with C, “I don’t understand . . . 

anger when wolves destroy livestock” (77% LR, 68% PV). A strong majority of local residents 

(82%) and park visitors (75%) disagreed with L, “I have no sympathy for ranchers who lose 

livestock to wolf attacks.” 

Table 13. Local resident and park visitor emotions towards wolves and their management in and 

around Grand Teton National Park. 

a 

% Agree% Neutral% Agree% NeutralΧ2

p

A. 19 62 19 46 29 25 < .001 

B. 

68 21 11 43 38 19 < .001 

C. 

77 14 9 68 19 13 

D. 80 14 6 79 13 8 

E. 69 22 9 62 28 10 

F. 69 19 12 43 35 22 

G. 

51 37 12 21 67 12 < .001 

attacks 10 79 11 20 61 19 < .001 

I. 

30 60 10 68 23 9 < .001 

J. 

17 67 16 37 39 24 < .001 

K. 

57 24 19 86 6 8 < .001 

L. 82 10 18 75 11 14 

M. 52 34 14 25 59 16 < .001 

N. 69 21 10 61 26 13 

O. 23 58 19 39 41 20 < .001 

P. 59 25 16 85 7 8 

Q. 7 87 6 7 85 8 

 Local resident Park visitor 

Emotion items

% Disagree % Disagree 

-value 

I get angry when I learn that a wolf has 

destroyed someone’s livestock 143.29 

It does not anger me to know that pet dogs 

may be attacked and killed by wild animals 

such as wolves 71.98 

I don’t understand why some people become 

angry when wolves destroy livestock 11.72 .003 

I don’t think anyone should be afraid of 

wolves for any reason 3.15 .206 

I would never worry about my safety in an 

area that I knew had wolves 7.06 .029 

I have sympathy for wolves that rely on 

livestock for food 79.94 < .001 

It angers me to learn that wolves may be 

destroyed if they harass livestock but don’t 

actually kill them 131.79 

H. It saddens me to know that ranchers may 

suffer the loss of their livestock due to wolf 45.57 

I don’t have any sympathy for wolves that 

are destroyed for killing livestock 184.85 

It upsets me to learn that livestock has been 

destroyed by re-introduced wolves 92.45 

I get angry with the NPS when I hear that 

visitors in a national park may encounter 

wolves 122.18 

I have no sympathy for ranchers who lose 

livestock to wolf attacks 10.56 .005 

I feel sorry for wolves when they are 

destroyed for any reason 89.50 

I would never be fearful of a wolf if I saw 

one on my property 6.00 .05 

It frightens me when I hear about wolves 

killing a pet dog 39.01 

It scares me knowing that wolves are living 

in GRTE 101.57 < .001 

I understand why some people are fearful of 

wolves 1.42 .493 

a

Emotion items were coded on a 5-point likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly 

agree’. These scales were collapsed to create three categories, disagree, agree and neutral to facilitate a chi-square 

test association analysis. 

22 
Emotions perform several cognitive roles, the most important in this case being to 

mobilize public energy and resources. Angry individuals are more likely to write letters, attend 

public hearings, and protest - than are calm ones. The fact that so many respondents felt strong 

emotions about this issue is important. It is also important to sort out which of the issues are 

volatile and which enjoy more general agreement in dealing with the public around issues of 

wolf management. 

Experiences with Wolves: Personal and Potential 

Personal Experience 

Respondents were asked if they had ever seen one or more wolves in the wild. 

Significantly more residents (59%) than visitors (34%) had seen one or more wolves in the wild 

(χ

2

 = 158.35, p < .001; Table 14). A small number were unsure whether or not they had seen 

wolves, but 100 people did not answer this question. This might reflect a broader uncertainty; 

often people are unsure whether they have seen a wolf or some other large canid, depending on 

distance. The two respondent groups who had seen wolves differed significantly when asked 

how many times they had seen wolves in the wild; between two and four times, with residents 

having seen wolves significantly more often than visitors. Having seen wolves in GRTE, 

however, did not result in a significant difference between the two groups. Seeing wolves was 

less common for both groups in GRTE than in other wild areas. Respondents rated themselves as 

moderately knowledgeable about wolves, while residents reported slightly more knowledge than 

visitors. 

Table 14. Local resident and park visitor self-reported personal experiences and knowledge 

levels about wolves. 

Personal experiences with wolves Resident Visitor Test statistic p-value 

Have you ever seen wolves or a single wolf 

in the wild? 

Yes 59% 34% χ

2 

= 158.35 < .001 

No 33 66 

Not sure 8 0 

How many times have you seen wolves in 

the wild?a 3.5 times 2.2 times t = 3.26 .001 

How many times have you seen wolves in 

GRTE?a 2.3 times 1.4 times t = 1.72 .087 

Do you consider yourself to be 

knowledgeable about wolves?b 3.1 2.8 t = 4.73 .001 

a

Only individuals who responded ‘yes’ to the question ‘have you ever seen wolves or a single wolf in the wild’ were 

included in these analyses. 

b

Mean self-reported knowledge level about wolves measured on a scale of 1 = ‘not at all knowledgeable’ to 5 = 

‘very knowledgeable’. 

Potential Experiences with Wolves 

Aside from their personal experience with seeing wolves, we asked respondents to rate 

several hypothetical encounters with wolves as positive or negative experiences. We used a 

Likert-type scale from 1 = ‘extremely positive’ to 7 = ‘extremely negative,’ plus a ‘don’t know’ 

option. For all hypothetical sightings and varying numbers of wolves (single wolf vs. an entire 

23 
pack), park visitors consistently rated these experiences more positively than local residents 

(Table 15; Figures 9 and 10). All respondents felt that seeing either a lone wolf or a wolf pack 

within GRTE boundaries was a more positive experience than seeing such animals on their own 

property. The most negatively rated experience for both park visitors and local residents was 

seeing a pack of wolves traveling across their own property daily (PV mean = 5.1; LR mean = 

5.8). Both groups also shared their most positively rated experience: Seeing a lone wolf in the 

distance on a hike in the park (PV mean = 2.0; LR mean = 3.0). 

Table 15. Average experience ratings for tolerable numbers of encounters with wolves; local 

residents and park visitors. 

 Mean perceived 

experience rating a 

What type of experience would this be for you? Resident Visitor t-statisticb 

You are camping at Grand Teton National Park and have seen a 

wolf near the campground where you are staying... 

Once? 3.5 2.5 9.32 

Twice? 4.1 3.1 8.65 

Several times? 4.8 3.9 7.16 

You are hiking at Grand Teton National Park and see a lone wolf in 

the distance... 

On one hike? 3.0 2.0 11.02 

On two separate hikes? 3.4 2.2 10.67 

On several hikes? 3.9 2.8 8.26 

You are hiking at Grand Teton National Park and see a pack of 

wolves in the distance... 

On one hike? 3.2 2.2 9.69 

On two separate hikes? 3.7 2.6 8.89 

On several hikes? 4.2 3.3 7.16 

You see a lone wolf traveling across your own property... 

Once a year? 3.6 2.4 11.24 

Once a month? 4.3 2.9 11.54 

Once a week? 5.0 3.9 9.72 

You see a pack of wolves traveling across your property... 

Once a year? 4.0 2.7 11.55 

Once a month? 4.7 3.5 10.38 

Once a week? 5.4 4.4 7.90 

Daily? 5.8 5.1 5.98 

a

Respondents were asked to rate the experience for tolerable numbers of encounters with wolves, on a likert-type 

scale, from 1 = ‘extremely positive’ through 7 = ‘extremely negative’. 

b

All t-values shown are significant at p < .001, a Bonferroni multiple-test comparison correction was used to adjust 

significance levels. 

 The differences between park visitors’ and local residents’ experience ratings for tolerable 

numbers of wolf sightings on park and private lands are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10 (please 

note that the x axis in both figures ranges from extremely positive at 1 to extremely negative at 

7). Although group means for these experiences are statistically different for all items asked of 

respondents (Table 15), the two groups share a pattern of tolerance. As the numbers of wolves 

24 
encountered increased, the quality of the experience decreased; and as the frequency of particular 

wolf sightings increased, the experience also became less positive. This similarity between park 

visitors and local residents is visually evident in the parallel lines in Figures 9 and 10. The 

difference between the two populations lies in the degree of positive or negative experience. For 

residents, 8 of the 17 items were rated, on average, above the neutral point of “4” (i.e., negative 

experience) while 6 were below (i.e., positive). For park visitors, a reverse pattern is true: 12 

items were rated below “4” (positive), but only 3 were rated above (negative). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

neg

positive 

once twice three 

times 

once twice three 

times 

once twice three 

times 

Camp see lone wolf Hiking see lone wolf Hiking see pack of 

wolves 

Quality of Experienc

Resident 

Visitor 

Extremely 

ative 

Extremely 

Figure 9. Average quality of experience level for various hypothetical sightings of wolves in 

Grand Teton National Park. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

e 

neg

once a 

year 

once a 

month 

once a 

week 

daily once a 

year 

once a 

month 

once a 

week 

daily 

Lone wolf on property Pack of wolves on property 

Quality of Experienc

Resident 

Visitor 

Extremely 

ative 

2

1

Extremely 

positive 

Figure 10. Average quality of experience level for various hypothetical sightings of wolves on 

own land. 

25 
Visitation and Experiences in Grand Teton National Park 

Nearly all local residents surveyed (94%) had visited GRTE before and frequently (13 

times on average; Table 16), but the majority of these visits, within 100 miles from their homes, 

were single day trips. Park visitor respondents had visited the park 5.1 times, on average (Table 

17), and the majority (51%) stayed for three days or longer. When describing their trip to GRTE, 

the majority of visitors reported that GRTE was one of several destinations (61%). It was the 

primary or final destination for 28% of park visitors. 

Table 16. Visitation in Grand Teton National Park: Local residents. 

Local resident park experiences % 

Have you ever visited Grand Teton National Park? 

Yes 94 

No 6 

How long was your latest visit to Grand Teton National Park? 

1 day visit only 63 

2 day visit 18 

3 day visit or more 19 

How many times have you visited Grand Teton National Park? 13.4 times on average 

Table 17. Visitation in Grand Teton National Park: Park visitors. 

Visitor park experiences % 

For this trip Grand Teton National Park was... 

Your primary and final destination 28 

One of several destinations 61 

A stop or a side trip on the way to another destination 11 

How long was your latest visit to Grand Teton National Park? 

1 day visit only 27 

2 day visit 22 

3 day visit or more 51 

How many times have you visited Grand Teton National Park? 5.1 times on average 

The majority of residents listed viewing scenery (37%) or driving for pleasure (17%) as 

their primary purpose for their most recent visit to the park. Similar to local residents, park 

visitors listed viewing scenery (39%) as their primary activity in the park. However, unlike 

residents, park visitors listed hiking (17%), and wildlife viewing (12%) as their next most 

popular park activities, rather than driving for pleasure (3%, Table 18). 

26 
Table 18. Local resident and park visitor’s activities while in Grand Teton National Park. 

Activities in Grand Teton National Park Local resident (%) Park visitor (%) 

During your last visit to the park what was the 

primary purpose of your visit? 

View scenery 37 39 

Driving for pleasure 17 3 

Hiking 8 17 

Wildlife viewing 7 12 

Camping (developed campground) 6 8 

Fishing 4 2 

Backcountry camping 3 3 

Canoeing or boating (lake) 3 1 

Rock climbing 3 3 

Canoeing or boating (river) 2 2 

Horseback riding 2 < 1 

Photography 1 3 

Bicycling/mountain biking 1 < 1 

Ranger led activities/programs < 1 < 1 

Other 6 6 

Judgments of Responsibility Model 

The potential interrelationships among judgments of responsibility, emotions, and 

acceptance of management actions for human-wolf conflict situations are illustrated in Figure 11. 

Detailed discussion of two-way correlations among these variables are included in Appendices E 

(Responsibility Judgments X Management Acceptability); F (Responsibility Judgments X 

Emotions about Wolves); and G (Emotions about Wolves X Management Acceptability). Each of 

these analyses is based on a series of hypothesized relationships among these variables. 

First, we proposed that persons who placed primary responsibility, in human-wolf 

encounters, upon the individual involved would be more accepting of management actions that 

impacted that individual than of management actions that had more impact upon the wolves 

(Appendix E). Conversely, persons who placed primary responsibility upon one of the wildlife 

management agencies would be more likely to accept management impacting the wolves and 

less accepting of actions that impacted the individual involved. Since respondents to these 

surveys placed most responsibility with either the individual involved or with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, correlations with these two entities are the basis for these discussions. 

The relationships between judgments of responsibility and management acceptability are 

shown to be as proposed (Tables E-1 through E-6). Survey respondents who put primary 

responsibility with the individual did accept management actions that affected those involved 

individuals more than actions that would affect the wolves. Positive correlations with individual 

management actions were “minimally” to “typically” correlated for hiker scenarios, and 

“substantially” correlated for rancher scenarios (see Vaske and others, 20021

). Management 

actions impacting the wolves were rejected by this respondent group at typical levels for hiker 

scenarios (Tables E-1 and E-2) and from typical to substantial levels for rancher scenarios. 

These authors recommend the following clarification of correlations found in social science research, since the 

range of what is statistically significant is rather great: 0.1 = minimal correlation; 0.3 is at a level typical in social 

science; 0.5 = substantial correlation. 

27 

1
Respondents who held the FWS as primarily responsible showed the hypothesized reverse 

pattern: impact on the hiker rejected, impact on the wolves accepted at typical levels; for ranch 

scenarios (Tables E-3, 4, & 5), rancher-impacting management alternatives were rejected (e.g. 

move or remove the cattle), while the lethal, “kill the wolves” alternative was accepted 

consistently across scenarios at levels between typical and substantial. 

The second interrelationship we examined was between judgments of responsibility and 

emotions about wolves (Appendix F). For this interrelationship, we hypothesized that persons 

who held the individual responsible, in human-wolf encounters, would tend to be more 

sympathetic towards wolves but would feel less anger or fear towards wolves. Conversely, we 

predicted that persons who held the FWS more responsible would show a reverse pattern of 

emotions: less sympathy towards wolves and more anger and fear towards them. 

Frighten +/-

+/- +/-

Judgments of responsibility 

Rancher hiker 

Grand Teton National Park 

Wyoming Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Acceptance of management 

actions 

Monitor 

Close trail (section) 

Move/remove cattle 

Capture and relocate 

Destroy the wolves 

Emotion indices 

Anger about presence of wolves 

Sympathy for rancher 

Sympathy for wolves 

Fear of wolves 

Figure 11. Judgments of responsibility conceptual model showing potential relationships among 

three variables included in the six hypothetical human-wolf interaction scenarios. 

28 
For those who held hikers to be responsible, sympathy for wolves was correlated 

positively and fear of wolves was correlated negatively, at about typical levels (Tables F-1 and 

F-2). Anger about wolves was rated lower more strongly – near substantial for Scenario 1 (Table 

F-1). Those who held the FWS responsible in hiker encounters felt near-substantial anger about 

wolves, typical rejection of sympathy for wolves, but rather minimal fear of wolves. 

For predation and near predation encounters with livestock and pets, Scenarios 2, 3, 4, 

and 6 (Tables F-3 to F-6), persons who held the individual responsible felt sympathy towards 

wolves at typical or higher levels (.31 to .41); rejected fear of wolves at typical levels (-.22 to 

-.36); and more strongly rejected anger about wolves, at or near substantial levels for 3 of the 4 

scenarios (Tables F-3, 5, and 6). These respondents did not feel sympathy for the rancher 

involved, especially for encounters on grazing allotments within the park (-0.49 to -0.50; Tables 

F-3 and F-5). Respondents who held the FWS responsible in these encounters felt sympathy for 

the rancher, felt anger about wolves being present (both at typical levels); rejected sympathy 

towards wolves (typical), and expressed some fear of wolves (between minimal and typical 

levels). We noted earlier that “Fear of Wolves” was jointly felt by both local residents and park 

visitors, but this emotion shows differentiation between the “individual responsible” and “FWS 

responsible” sample groups. 

Finally, we examined the interrelationship between emotions about wolves and the 

acceptance of alternative management actions (Appendix G). For this, we hypothesized that as a 

person feels more sympathy for wolves, the less likely they will be to accept management actions 

that impact the wolves. On the reverse side, as persons feel more sympathy for the individual 

involved (hiker, rancher, per owner), the less likely they will be to accept actions that impact the 

individual. Regarding fear and anger toward wolves, as these feelings increase, the likelihood of 

accepting managements that are invasive to the wolves would also increase. 

For the hiking scenarios, the positive (sympathy) and negative (anger and fear) emotions 

towards wolves were tested, but not sympathy for the hiker. Sympathy and anger towards wolves 

had opposite patterns: anger about wolves correlated with capture and relocate the wolves (.33 to 

.44, typical +) and negatively correlated with closing trails or trail sections (-.26 to -.38, typical; 

Tables G-1 and G-2). Those sympathizing with the wolves were positive towards closing trails 

(.34 to .42, typical +) while rejecting capture and release (-.21 to -.32). Fear of wolves correlated 

with the same + / - pattern as anger about wolves, but at lower correlation rates. 

In situations of predation or near-predation (Tables G-3 to G-6), correlations with 

emotions really became high, especially in relation to the lethal management alternative. Those 

who felt sympathy for the rancher and who felt anger about wolves being present rejected every 

management option except “capture and release” (and even that was not always positive), and 

“destroy the wolves involved” at levels consistently above substantial (.56 to .73). Conversely, 

those who felt sympathy towards the wolves only rejected capture and release in one in-park 

situation (Scenario 2, Table G-3), but rejected “kill the wolves involved” across the board, again 

at very high levels of correlation (-.64 to -.73; Tables G-3 to G-6). Clearly, emotions about 

wolves have a very strong relationship with decisions about whether or not wolves, involved in 

encounters with people or their property, should be killed. 

Summary of Judgments of Responsibility Model Results 

Overall, the hypothesized relationships among the three variables for the conceptual 

model of responsibility were supported. In considering the interrelationships among judgments 

of responsibility, acceptance of management actions, and emotions (Figure 11), two aspects bear 

consideration. First, the interrelationships are demonstrated among respondents attributing 

responsibility primarily to two entities: the individual involved or the USFWS. The low levels of 

attributed responsibility for the park and for WYG&F do not support many strong statistical 

29 
relationships. Second, the hypotheses listed predict relationships among judgments, emotions 

and management acceptance, but they do not define the direction of cause and effect. Emotions 

are more basic to human values, so the flow of relationship is more likely to be from emotion to 

judgment and to acceptance than in the reverse direction. 

The purpose of these two relationship charts (Figures 12 and 13) is to reposition the 

interaction model to incorporate some of the correlations discussed here. Hopefully, these charts 

will allow going deeper, beyond the surface, in dealing with the public groups with interests at 

stake. For example, Group X shows by their letters that they deplore putting wolves down for any 

reason – depredation or other, what does that mean? These persons are expressing sympathy for 

wolves, and probably hold the individuals involved in wolf encounters as more responsible than 

any of the management agencies. They are more likely to accept actions taken on the human side 

of encounters such as trail closures or moving livestock out of harms way as the appropriate 

means of resolving human-wolf conflict. 

+/-

+/- +/-

Judgments of responsibility 

Rancher 

Hiker 

Acceptance of management 

actions 

Monitor 

Close section or entire trail 

Move or remove cattle 

Emotion indices 

Sympathy for wolves - high 

Fear of wolves - low 

Figure 12. Judgments of responsibility/emotions/management acceptance model for persons 

who hold the individual primarily responsible in human wolf encounters. 

30 
Group Y insists that the wildlife agencies (USFWS/WYG&F) are responsible for humanwolf encounters, what does that imply? These people are more likely to sympathize with the 

rancher, pet owner, or hiker than with the wolves, and they are more likely to accept moving the 

wolves or destroying them than moving or removing the livestock or closing trail sections. In 

addition, they may be more prone to anger or fear about wolves or the fact that wolves have been 

brought into their living environment. 

Sympathy

Fear of 

+/-

+/- +/-

Judgments of responsibility 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Acceptance of management 

actions 

Capture & relocate 

Destroy wolves 

Emotion indices 

Anger about presence of wolves 

Sympathy for rancher 

 for wolves - 

low 

wolves 

Figure 13. Judgments of responsibility/emotions/management acceptance model for persons 

who hold agencies responsible in human wolf encounters. 

Acceptance of Lethal Management Action 

As pointed out earlier (see pages 18-19, Table 10), the management option of killing the 

wolf or wolves involved in an encounter with livestock or pets was the strongest distinguishing 

action among all those presented. In the model interaction discussion, “kill the wolves” was the 

strongest interacting management variable with the emotion classes and in distinguishing 

between local resident and park visitor acceptance. Therefore, we tested the “wolf-kill norm” 

variable we created against emotion classes (Table 19) and against several demographic 

variables (Table 20). 

31 
Persons who never selected the “kill the wolves” management option tended to be more 

sympathetic toward wolves, whereas those who always chose “kill the wolves” were sympathetic 

towards the rancher, and felt both anger and fear towards wolves. Both anger about wolves and 

sympathy towards wolves showed substantial measures of association, sympathy for rancher has 

a typical level of association. This can be interpreted as “the emotions of anger or sympathy for 

wolves are most likely to be related to decisions about whether it is acceptable to use lethal 

means to control wolf predation.” 

Table19. Wolf-kill norm compared with aggregate emotion classes. 

Sympathy for Anger about Sympathy for 

rancher wolves Fear of wolves wolves 

Never kill wolves 3.19a 2.43 3.11 3.63 

Sometimes kill wolves 3.87 3.28 3.51 2.59 

Always kill wolves 4.58 4.16 4.00 1.66 

Eta measures of associationb .348 .511 .174 .484 

a

Values are mean aggregate response for emotion class by each wolf-kill norm group. Scales for emotion items, 

aggregated here into emotion classes, were from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. 

b

Eta measures of association: .1 = minimal association, .3 = typical association, .5 = substantial association 

Demographic variables listed in Table 20 all show significant associations with the 

management norms of never – and always kill the wolves involved. Men clearly are more prone 

to opting for killing the wolves than are women. Although the overall survey sample was skewed 

towards male respondents (63.5% male), nevertheless, 82% of the always kill column is 

significant at the p < .001 level. People with college education or higher are much more likely to 

never select kill the wolves (85%) than are people with high school levels or lower. Also, 

persons with lower household incomes are more likely to always select kill the wolves than 

people with household incomes above $75,000. Age was a continuous value variable, rather than 

categorical, so this was tested with an ANOVA rather than a Chi Square test. Although 

statistically significant at the .05 level, age was less closely associated with this norm variable. 

Table 20. Demographic variables compared with wolf-kill norm. 

Demographic Never kill wolf (%) Always kill wolf (%) Chi square value Significance level 

Sex Male 

Female

53.5a 

 46.5 

82.2 

17.8 66.0 p < .001 

Education To high school 

College & higher 

15.1 

84.9 

37.9 

62.1 78.7 p < .001 

Income < $75K 

> $75K 

53.6 

46.4 

68.2 

31.8 40.4 p < .001 

Ageb (average) 48.2 years 53.1 years p < .05 

a

Percents listed are column percents: i.e., Of those never choosing “kill the wolves,” what proportion of them are 

males and what proportion are females. 

b

Age was recorded as a continuous variable and therefore is reported as what is the average age of respondents never 

or always selecting “kill the wolves involved.” Age was not as strongly related. 

32 
Conclusions: Implications for Managers 

Demographics 

In extrapolating these results to larger populations, it is important to bear in mind just 

what these samples represent. First, they are quite different from each other and different from 

census records in gender. More men than women responded to the surveys, and far more male 

local residents responded. This bias becomes critical, for example, when considering responses 

such as lethal management options: only 18% of those who always selected the action, “Kill the 

wolves” were women. As is very often the case, visitors to the park are not fully representative 

of the national population; a disproportionate percentage of visitors are Caucasian. Although our 

local resident sample included a portion of the Wind River Indian Reservation, it only included 

the western side of the Reservation which is less populated, so the American Indian difference 

may be more a factor of boundary than response rate. Also typical of national park surveys, the 

visitors were more highly educated and with higher incomes than the national average. 

Responsibility 

An unexpected result of this survey is the high degree to which park visitors attributed 

responsibility to the individuals involved in a wolf encounter or loss of animals to predation. 

These individuals (i.e., hikers, ranchers, and pet owners) were assigned the highest level of 

responsibility for all encounters by park visitors, and for the hikers in the park by local residents 

as well. This category was assigned the highest overall average responsibility across all 

scenarios. The USFWS is second highest in overall attributed responsibility, and the highest 

assigned by the local resident sample. Both LR and PV attributed more responsibility to the FWS 

in off-park depredation encounters than in comparable encounters within the park. The off-park 

livestock predation scenario was where the FWS received the highest responsibility by both 

samples. This off-park/in-park pattern is true for attributed responsibility to the WYG&F as well, 

although at half the levels attributed to the FWS. Also, ranchers with grazing allotments within 

the park were held more responsible than was the off-park rancher, which may have some 

implications about the perceived legitimacy of park grazing rights. Again, the parallel lines of the 

graphs in Figure 8 show important information. First, when individual responsibility is up, 

agency responsibility is down, and vice versa. Second, PV and LR samples consistently 

differentiated from one wolf encounter context to another. 

GRTE is held to be less responsible (20% overall) than the individual or the USFWS, 

especially for encounters outside park boundaries. Park visitors tended to attribute slightly more 

responsibility to GRTE than local residents, but for in-park encounters, the park was attributed 

only about one-fourth of the responsibility, and outside the park less than one-fifth. The highest 

responsibility (29%) attributed to the GRTE was for the wolves denning near the trail, by the 

park visitors. The WYG&F is pretty well “left off the hook,” receiving a fifth of assigned 

responsibility or less across all scenarios; local residents attributed slightly more responsibility to 

WYG&F than visitors. 

An important message for resource managers is that neither park visitors nor local 

residents, at least in the year 2003, made any distinction between management responsibilities 

when the wolves were listed as endangered vs. when they were depicted as delisted; no pattern of 

shifting responsibility from the federal to the state wildlife agencies is shown. 

Management Options 

Visitors consistently were more willing than local residents to list “monitor the situation” 

as an acceptable management action, especially where no depredation was reported. Also, in 

33 
scenarios involving livestock or pets, visitors were significantly more accepting of “frighten the 

wolves away” than local residents, and more accepting than locals of alternatives that removed 

the temptation to the wolves, e.g., “close the trail” or “move the cattle away.” Local residents 

were significantly more accepting of “destroy the wolves involved” than visitors, for each 

scenario that offered that option. Visitors, as a group, never got to accepting “destroy wolves” in 

their ratings. Both residents and visitors tended to accept the alternative of capturing and 

relocating the wolves in depredation situations, but not for hiking trail encounters. Land 

ownership had more influence on preferred management actions for visitors than for residents. 

Visitors found “move the remaining cattle” an acceptable management action, local residents did 

not. But the strongest difference in management option acceptance was visitors preferred nonlethal remedies while residents were more willing to accept lethal ones. Residents and visitors 

agreed that frightening wolves away from their den within the park was unacceptable. 

Emotions 

Park managers are already quite well aware that visitors to the park differ from local 

residents in their attitudes and feelings about wolves. Indeed, for some aspects of wolf-livestock 

encounters, residents and visitors disagreed profoundly. Residents expressed anger and upset 

with livestock being lost to wolves; visitors expressed their anger and upset about wolves being 

destroyed because of such losses. PV were quite strong in their sympathy towards wolves, LR 

tended to be angry about their presence. However, residents and park visitors were in agreement 

on some elements, especially that having some level of fear towards wolves was understandable. 

Both groups tended to feel sympathy towards ranchers who suffered losses of livestock to wolf 

predation. 

Experience with Wolves 

Residents living within 100 miles of Jackson Hole reported more wolf sightings and rated 

themselves as moderately more knowledgeable about wolves than did the visitors. When rating 

hypothetical sightings of wolves, two strong patterns emerge. First, visitors rate these encounters 

as significantly more positive than residents. Second, the positive appeal of the encounters 

described - both in a recreational setting and on one’s own property - consistently declines as 

proximity to wolves increases and as both number of wolves and frequency of occurrence 

increase: i.e.; Seeing a wolf or wolves at some distance is a positive experience, but not if it 

happens too often or too close to home. 

Responsibility Model 

Persons who feel strong sympathy for wolves tend to hold individuals involved in 

human/wolf encounters responsible. These same persons are more likely to accept management 

actions that would impinge upon the individual involved (rancher, hiker, pet owner) than actions 

that impact the wolves. Park visitors are more likely to fall into this category than are local 

residents of the Jackson Hole region. 

Persons who feel anger about the presence of wolves, and more fear of wolves, tend to 

hold the agencies, especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more responsible. These persons 

are also more likely to feel sympathy for the rancher who looses livestock to wolves than their 

counterparts listed above. This group is more accepting of management actions that would 

impact the wolves than those actions that would affect the individual involved. This group is 

especially more accepting of lethal management actions. Local residents are more likely to fall 

into this category. 

34 
Although there is a significant relationship between location (PV vs. LR) and willingness 

to accept lethal controls of wolves, there is a much stronger relationship between acceptance of 

that option and emotional position. People highly sympathetic toward wolves are much more 

likely to never select “destroy the wolves;” People angry about wolves being present are much 

more likely to accept the management option, “destroy the wolves,” every time it is offered. 

References Cited 

Brown-Nuñez, C. and Taylor, J.G., 2002, Americans’ attitudes toward wolves and wolf 

reintroduction: An annotated bibliography: USGS Information Technology Report United 

States Geological Survey/BRD/ITR-2002-0002, U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, 

CO. 

Cromley, C., 1997, Preliminary assessment of attitudes and knowledge of Jackson 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. 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.), New York, 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Harlow, S.S., 2001, Judgments of responsibility and acceptance of management actions 

following human-wildlife conflict situations, M.S. Thesis, Department of Natural Resources 

Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

National Park Service., 2004a, Grand Teton National Park facts, 

http://www.nps.gov/grte/pphtml/facts.html, Accessed on June 7, 2004. 

National Park Service, 2004b, http://www.nps.gov/grte/wolf/biolo.htm, Accessed on June 7, 

2004. 

Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and Wasserman, W., 1996, Applied linear statistical 

models (4th ed.), Chicago, Irwin. 

Nunnally, J.C., 1978, Psychometric theory (2nd ed.), New York, McGraw-Hill. 

Schaberl, J., 1998, Voyageurs challenge: Protect wildlife and provide visitor access: Natural 

Resource Year in Review-1997, National Park Service, Department of Interior, 


http://www2.nature.nps.gov/YearInReview/yr_rvw97/chapter07/to_chapter07_a02.html, 


Accessed on June 15, 2005. 


Smith, D.W., Stahler, D.R., and Guernsey, D.S., 2004, Yellowstone wolf project: Annual report, 

2003, National Park Service, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, 

Wyoming, YCR-NR-2004-04. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, Population estimate for Teton County, Wyoming, 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_sse=onand_lang=enand_state=04000U 

S56and_cityTown=teton20countyand_county=teton20countyand_zip=, Accessed on June 20, 

2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, http://mountain-prairie.USFWS.gov/pressrel/04-43.htm, 

Accessed on June 7, 2004. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife 

Services, 2004, Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2003 annual report, T. Meier, ed. USFWS, 

Ecological Services, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT. 

Weiner, B., 1995, Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct, New 

York, The Guilford Press. 

Vaske, J.J., Gliner, J.A., and Morgan, G.A., 2002, Communicating judgments about practical 

significance: Effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 

v. 7, no. 4, p. 287-300. 

35 
Appendix A. Onsite Visitor Survey 


Public Perceptions of Wolf Management in the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area 

Hello. My name is ____________________________. I am working with the U.S. Geological Survey, 

helping to conduct a public survey about wolves in Grand Teton National Park and the surrounding area. Do you 

have a couple of minutes for a few questions? 

Since their reintroduction in 1995 to Yellowstone National Park, wolves have successfully colonized areas 

within and around Grand Teton National Park. As the wolf population continues to grow in this area, the potential 

for conflicts with human activities and property also increases, requiring management remedies. 

Grand Teton National Park, and the U.S. Geological Survey, would like your opinion about the management and 

care of this wolf population. By participating in this study you have the opportunity to express how you 

feel about wolf management issues in and around Grand Teton National Park. 

First, we are interested in any experiences you may have had with wolves. Responding to this short 

survey is completely voluntary and your answers will always be kept confidential. 

Would you please tell me about personal experiences, if any, you have had with wolves . . . 

1. Have you ever seen wolves, or a single wolf, in the wild? ________YES ________NO 


IF YES - How many times have you seen wolves in the wild? # _______times. 


 IF NO - Go to Question 3 


2. How many times (if any) have you seen wolves in Grand Teton National Park? #_______times.

 3. Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable about wolves? (Please rate yourself on this scale)


1 2 3 4 5 


Not at all Very 


knowledgeable knowledgeable 


We have a 12-page mail-out survey to explore public knowledge, feelings, and preferences about wolves in the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone area. Would you be willing to fill out one of these surveys if we mailed one to you? 

Again, responding to this survey is completely voluntary and your answers will be kept confidential. 

(If YES – complete name and address information below.) 

Name 

Street Address 

City State Zip Code 

Phone Number 

E-mail address 

36 
Appendix B. Mailed Visitor Survey 


37 
Public Perceptions of Wolf Management in the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area 

In 1995 the Gray Wolf was re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park in an attempt to re-establish a 

healthy population of this animal. Since that time the wolves have successfully colonized areas surrounding 

Yellowstone National Park. In this survey, we are concerned with the wolves that have denned and reproduced in 

the Southern Greater Yellowstone Area (SGYA) - the Jackson Hole area of western Wyoming which includes Grand 

Teton National Park, the National Elk Refuge, portions of Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the town of Jackson. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list the wolves from this reintroduction as an “endangered species, experimental 

population”. That means the wolves currently are protected, but if some damage to livestock or other human 

property occurs wolves involved may be destroyed. The wolf population in the SGYA will remain an endangered 

species, experimental population, until the wolf population in the Rocky Mountain Recovery Area (MT, ID, WY) 

increases to 30 breeding pairs. At that point, this population could be removed from the endangered species list. 

However, as the wolf population continues to grow in this area, the potential for conflicts with human activities and 

property also increases, requiring management remedies. Responsible wildlife management strives to meet the needs 

of both the wildlife populations being managed and the concerns of the public. Out of concern for public interest in 

the management and care of this wolf population, Grand Teton National Park in conjunction with the United States 

Geological Survey would like to give you the opportunity to have input into how this wolf population should be 

managed under different conditions. 

This survey is designed to provide you with the chance to express how you feel about wolf management issues in 

and around the SGYA. We are interested in what you believe. The best answers are the ones that most closely reflect 

your own feelings and beliefs. 

Please answer all the questions in the survey; it takes about 15 minutes to complete. When you are finished, place 

the survey in the enclosed, stamped, self-addressed return envelope and mail it back to us. 

If you have questions concerning this survey, please contact Dr. Jonathan G. Taylor at the Fort Collins 

Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 C Centre Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970 226-9438 

or e-mail: Jonathan_Taylor@USGS.GOV 

PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement: 

16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park managers to better serve the 

public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to supply the information 

requested. Your name is requested for follow-up mailing purposes only. When analysis of the questionnaire is completed, all 

name and address files will be destroyed. Thus permanent data will be anonymous. Data collected through visitor surveys may be 

disclosed to the Department of Justice when relevant to litigation or anticipated litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local 

or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of law. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

Burden estimate statement: Public reporting for this form is estimated to average 16 minutes per response. Direct comments 

regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO 

Administrative Program Center, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, Washington, D.C. 20240. 

OMB Control Number: 1024-0224 (NPS #03-038) 

Expiration Date: 03/31/2004 

38 
SECTION I. 

The following are hypothetical situations that describe possible human-wolf encounters in the Southern Greater Yellowstone 

Area (SGYA). Different natural resource agencies take part in the management of any conflicts that may occur between wolves 

and human activities or property. Many different factors influence public opinion about who is responsible for wolves in any 

conflict situations that may arise. Possible factors include: 

• If the encounter occurred on private or public land (LOCATION); 

• The type of human-wolf encounter (ENCOUNTER); and 

• Whether the local wolf population is listed as an endangered species or removed from the endangered species list 

(STATUS OF WOLVES). 

In addition to these factors, public acceptance of management actions taken to reduce human-wolf conflicts is of equal 

importance to natural resource managers. Following each scenario are several potential management actions that might be used to 

remedy the situation. 

Scenarios 1 though 3 describe hypothetical situations where the wolves involved are LISTED AS AN ENDANGERED 

SPECIES, EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION. 

Scenario 1. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

On a popular backcountry hiking trail in Grand Teton National Park. 

 A hiker sees several wolves feeding on a dead deer close to the trail. The wolves seem reluctant to 

leave their kill. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

In order to prevent ANY POTENTIAL conflict between wolves and human activity, which could result from the situation 

described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to the following: 

The hiker % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause any concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Close only the section of 

the hiking trail that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

wolves are near. 

Close the entire hiking trail 

until the wolves have left 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the area. 

39 
Scenario 2. 

• LOCATION: Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER: 

•

Federal grazing allotment within

A pack of wolves has been chasing cattle from a small herd from time to time over the past 2 weeks. 

The wolves have not killed any cattle. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The rancher who owns the cattle % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Move the cattle to another area 

of the grazing allotment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Remove the cattle in question 

from the park. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

40 
Scenario 3. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

due to wolf kills. 

•

On private ranch land next to Grand Teton National Park. 

 A local rancher in the Jackson-Hole area has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month 

STATUS OF WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The rancher % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further loss. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolves 

involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

41 
Scenarios 4 though 6 describe hypothetical situations where the wolves involved are NO LONGER LISTED AS AN 

ENDANGERED SPECIES. 

Scenario 4. 

• LOCATION: On private land next to Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

 A homeowner has recently had their pet dog killed by a wolf. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would 

you assign to the following: 

The homeowner % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.) 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolf will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further loss. 

Frighten the wolf away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolf involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolf involved. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

42 
Scenario 5. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

On a popular backcountry hiking trail in Grand Teton National Park. 

 A hiker sees several wolves and their pups near what appears to be a denning site. As the hiker 

watches, the wolves become aware of the hiker’s presence. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE WOLVES’ DENNING SITE, from any potential human influence, which could result 

from the situation described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to the following: 

The hiker % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause any concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Close only the section of 

the hiking trail that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

wolves are near. 

Close the entire hiking trail 

until the wolves have left 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the area. 

43 
Scenario 6. 

• LOCATION: Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

Federal grazing allotment in

 A cattle rancher has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month, killed by wolves. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The cattle rancher % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take the following actions? 

(Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.) 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause further concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Move the remaining cattle 

to another area of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

grazing allotment. 

Remove the remaining 

cattle in question from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

park. 

Destroy the wolves 

involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

44 
SECTION II. 

In the previous section, you indicated how acceptable it was to take certain management actions following situations 

depicting conflicts between wolves and human activities or property. In this section, please indicate how EFFECTIVE you 

feel each of the management options listed below would be in remedying those conflicts. 

(Please Circle the number that best describes how effective you believe each action would be.) 

The Conflict Not at all Somewhat Extremely Don’t 

Management Actions Effective Effective Effective Effective Know 

To prevent wolves from entering an area on private property... 

 Frightening devices, such as loud sirens and flashing lights 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Electric fences 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Guard dogs 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Shooting at wolves with non-lethal rubber bullets 1 2 3 4 DK 

To avoid human- wolf disturbances within Grand Teton National 

Park... 

Closure of sections of hiking trails that are close to wolf denning 1 2 3 4 DK 

areas. 

Closure of entire hiking trails that pass near wolf denning areas. 1 2 3 4 DK 

To reduce future threat to human property following instances of 

conflict between wolves and human activities or property... 

 Capture and relocation of an entire pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Capture and relocation of an individual wolf involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy an individual wolf that was in a pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy the breeding pair of wolves in a pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy the entire pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

SECTION III. 

People feel a variety of emotions when encountering wild animals or hearing about conflicts between people and wild 

animals. Please indicate below how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about different 

feelings towards wolves. (Please circle the appropriate number for each) 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 

Strongly 

Agree Undecided 

• I get angry when I learn that a wolf has destroyed 

someone’s livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• It does not anger me to know that pet dogs may be 

attacked and killed by wild animals, such as 

wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I don’t understand why some people become angry 

when wolves destroy livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I don’t think anyone should be afraid of wolves for 

any reason. 

1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I would never worry about my safety in an area 

that I knew had wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I have sympathy for wolves that rely on livestock 

for food. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• It angers me to learn that wolves may be destroyed 

if they harass livestock but don’t actually kill them. 

1 2 3 4 5 U 

45 
SECTION IV. 

People have many different ideas about what is a tolerable number of encounters to have with wild animals. Please 

indicate if it would be a positive, negative or neutral EXPERIENCE if you had the following encounters with wolves. 

Strongly Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Undecided 

• It saddens me to know that ranchers may suffer 

the loss of their livestock due to wolf attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I don’t have any sympathy for wolves that are 

destroyed for killing livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• It upsets me to learn that livestock has been 

destroyed by re-introduced wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I get angry with the National Park Service when I 

hear that visitors in a national park may 1 2 3 4 5 U 

encounter wolves. 

• I have no sympathy for ranchers who lose 

livestock to wolf attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I feel sorry for wolves when they are destroyed 1 2 3 4 5 U 

for any reason. 

• I would never be fearful of a wolf if I saw one on 1 2 3 4 5 U 

my property. 

• It frightens me when I hear about wolves killing a 1 2 3 4 5 U 

pet dog 

• It scares me knowing that wolves are living in 

Grand Teton National Park. 1 2 3 4 5 U 

• I understand why some people are fearful of 1 2 3 4 5 U 

wolves 

(Please circle the appropriate number for each experience.) 

1. 

once? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

2. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

3. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

What type of experience would this 

be for you? 

Extremely 

Positive Positive 

Somewhat 

Positive Neutral 

Somewhat 

Negative Negative 

Extremely 

Negative 

Don’t 

Know 

You are camping at Grand Teton 

National Park and have seen a wolf 

near the campground where you 

are staying ... 

 twice? 

 several times? 

You see a lone wolf traveling across 

your own property... 

once a year? 

once a month? 

once a week? 

daily? 

You are hiking at Grand Teton 

National Park and see a pack of 

wolves in the distance... 

on one hike? 

on two separate hikes? 

on several hikes? 

46 
4. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

5. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

What type of experience would this 

be for you? 

Extremely 

Positive Positive 

Somewhat 

Positive Neutral 

Somewhat 

Negative Negative 

Extremely 

Negative 

Don’t 

Know 

You see a pack of wolves

 traveling across your

 property... 

once a year? 

once a month? 

once a week? 

daily? 

You are hiking at Grand Teton 

National Park and see a lone wolf 

in the distance... 

 on one hike? 

 on two separate hikes? 

 on several hikes? 

SECTION V. 

Finally, we would like to ask you about your visit to Grand Teton National Park and your background. 

The information you supply will remain completely confidential. 

1. For this trip, Grand Teton National Park was. . . 

____ your primary and final destination. 

____ one of several destinations planned for this trip. 


____ a stop or a side trip on the way to another final destination. 


2. During this visit to GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, what was the PRIMARY purpose of your trip? 

 (What motivated you to visit Grand Teton National Park?) (Check the one most important purpose for this trip) 

___Camping ___View Scenery ___Driving for pleasure 

(developed campground) 

___Backcountry camping 

(undeveloped campground) 

___Canoeing or boating (River) ___Ranger led activities/programs 

___Hiking ___Canoeing or boating (Lake) ___Fishing 

___Wildlife viewing ___Rock climbing ___Bicycling/Mountain biking 

___Photography ___Horseback riding ___Other ___________________ 

3. How many times have you visited Grand Teton National Park? ________ # times. 

4. During the trip when you were contacted about this survey, how long was your visit to Grand Teton National Park ? 

(Check one only)


___ 1 day visit only ___2 day visit ___3 day visit or more 


47 
5. If you were an overnight visitor in the SGYA, where did you stay? (check all that apply) 

___Camped in developed campground in the park ___Lodge or hotel in the park ___Lodge or hotel outside of the park 

___Camped in the backcountry of the park ___Camped in developed campground outside of the park 

___Other, please describe ________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Are you? ____Male ____Female 

7. How old are you? ____Years 

8. In what ethnic group (A) and race (B) would you put yourself? 

A. Ethnicity (select one) ____Hispanic or Latino ____NOT Hispanic or Latino 

B. Race (select one or more) ____ American Indian or Alaska native (if yes: please answer question 9) 

____Asian 

____Black or African American 

____Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

____White 

9. If you checked “American Indian”, please identify your tribal affiliation: _______________________________ 

10. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? 

____Less than high school diploma ____Technical/vocational degree ____4 year college degree 

____High school diploma or GED ____Some college ___Advanced degree beyond 4-year degree 

11. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes? 

____Less than $10,000 ____$25,000 to $49,999 ____$75,000 to $99,999 ____$125,000 to $149,000 

____$10,000 to $24,999 ____$50,000 to $74,999 ____$100,000 to $124,999 ____$150,000 or more 

12. Where are you from? __________________Country; _______________________State or Province:________________ 

If from Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho, in what COUNTY do you reside? _____________________ County 

13. How would you describe your current residence or community? 

____a large city with 250,000 or more people ____a town with 10,000 to 49,999 people 

____a city with 100,000 to 249,999 people ____a small town/village with fewer than 10,000 people 

____a small city with 50,000 to 99,999 people ____a farm or rural area 

Thank you for participating in this study. Your opinions are very valuable! 

48 
Appendix C. Mailed Resident Survey


49 
Public Perceptions of Wolf Management in the 

Southern Greater Yellowstone Area 

In 1995 the Gray Wolf was re-introduced into Yellowstone National Park in an attempt to re-establish a 

healthy population of this animal. Since that time the wolves have successfully colonized areas surrounding 

Yellowstone National Park. In this survey, we are concerned with the wolves that have denned and reproduced in 

the Southern Greater Yellowstone Area (SGYA) – the Jackson Hole area of western Wyoming which includes 

Grand Teton National Park, the National Elk Refuge, portions of Bridger-Teton National Forest, and the town of 

Jackson. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list the wolves from this reintroduction as an “endangered species, 

experimental population”. That means the wolves currently are protected, but if some damage to livestock or other 

human property occurs wolves involved may be destroyed. The wolf population in the SGYA will remain an 

endangered species, experimental population, until the wolf population in the Rocky Mountain Recovery Area (MT, 

ID, WY) increases to 30 breeding pairs. At that point, this population could be removed from the endangered species 

list. However, as the wolf population continues to grow in this area, the potential for conflicts with human activities 

and property also increases, requiring management remedies. Responsible wildlife management strives to meet the 

needs of both the wildlife populations being managed and the concerns of the public. Out of concern for public 

interest in the management and care of this wolf population, Grand Teton National Park in conjunction with the 

United States Geological Survey would like to give you the opportunity to have input into how this wolf population 

should be managed under different conditions. 

This survey is designed to provide you with the chance to express how you feel about wolf management issues in 

and around the SGYA. We are interested in what you believe. The best answers are the ones that most closely reflect 

your own feelings and beliefs. 

Please answer all the questions in the survey; it takes about 15 minutes to complete. When you are finished, place 

the survey in the enclosed, stamped, self-addressed return envelope and mail it back to us. 

If you have questions concerning this survey, please contact Dr. Jonathan G. Taylor at the Fort Collins 

Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 C Centre Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970 226-9438 or 

e-mail: Jonathan_Taylor@USGS.GOV 

PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement: 

16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park managers to better serve the 

public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to supply the information 

requested. Your name is requested for follow-up mailing purposes only. When analysis of the questionnaire is completed, all 

name and address files will be destroyed. Thus permanent data will be anonymous. Data collected through visitor surveys may be 

disclosed to the Department of Justice when relevant to litigation or anticipated litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local 

or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of law. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

Burden estimate statement: Public reporting for this form is estimated to average 16 minutes per response. Direct comments 

regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO 

Administrative Program Center, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, Washington, D.C. 20240. 

OMB Control Number: 1024-0224 (NPS #03-038) 

Expiration Date: 03/31/2004 

50 
SECTION I. 

The following are hypothetical situations that describe possible human-wolf encounters in the Southern Greater Yellowstone 

Area (SGYA). Different natural resource agencies take part in the management of any conflicts that may occur between wolves 

and human activities or property. Many different factors influence public opinion about who is responsible for wolves in any 

conflict situations that may arise. Possible factors include: 

• If the encounter occurred on private or public land (LOCATION); 

• The type of human-wolf encounter (ENCOUNTER); and 

• Whether the local wolf population is listed as an endangered species or removed from the endangered species list (STATUS 

OF WOLVES). 

In addition to these factors, public acceptance of management actions taken to reduce human-wolf conflicts is of equal 

importance to natural resource managers. Following each scenario are several potential management actions that might be used to 

remedy the situation. 

Scenarios 1 though 3 describe hypothetical situations where the wolves involved are LISTED AS AN ENDANGERED 

SPECIES, EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION. 

Scenario 1. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

On a popular backcountry hiking trail in Grand Teton National Park. 

 A hiker sees several wolves feeding on a dead deer close to the trail. The wolves seem reluctant to 

leave their kill. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

In order to prevent ANY POTENTIAL conflict between wolves and human activity, which could result from the situation 

described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to the following: 

The hiker 	 % 

Grand Teton National Park 	 % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department 	 % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 	 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause any concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Close only the section of 

the hiking trail that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

wolves are near. 

Close the entire hiking trail 

until the wolves have left 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the area. 

51 
Scenario 2. 

• LOCATION: Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER: 

•

Federal grazing allotment within

A pack of wolves has been chasing cattle from a small herd from time to time over the past 2 weeks. 

The wolves have not killed any cattle. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The rancher who owns the cattle % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Move the cattle to another 

area of the grazing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

allotment. 

Remove the cattle in 

question from the park. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolves 

involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

52 
Scenario 3. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

due to wolf kills. 

•

On private ranch land next to Grand Teton National Park. 

 A local rancher in the Jackson-Hole area has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month 

STATUS OF WOLVES: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The rancher % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further loss. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolves 

involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

53 
Scenarios 4 though 6 describe hypothetical situations where the wolves involved are NO LONGER LISTED AS AN 

ENDANGERED SPECIES. 

Scenario 4. 

• LOCATION: On private land next to Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

 A homeowner has recently had their pet dog killed by a wolf. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The homeowner % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.) 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolf will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

cause further loss. 

Frighten the wolf away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolf involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Destroy the wolf involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

54 
Scenario 5. 

• LOCATION: 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

On a popular backcountry hiking trail in Grand Teton National Park. 

 A hiker sees several wolves and their pups near what appears to be a denning site. As the hiker 

watches, the wolves become aware of the hiker’s presence. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE WOLVES’ DENNING SITE, from any potential human influence, which could result 

from the situation described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to the following: 

The hiker % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take each of the following 

actions? (Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.). 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause any concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Close only the section of 

the hiking trail that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

wolves are near. 

Close the entire hiking trail 

until the wolves have left 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

the area. 

55 
Scenario 6. 

• LOCATION: Grand Teton National Park. 

• ENCOUNTER:

•

Federal grazing allotment in

 A cattle rancher has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month, killed by wolves. 

STATUS OF THE WOLVES: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species. 

For the event that happened, in the scenario described above, what proportion of RESPONSIBILITY would you assign to 

the following: 

The cattle rancher % 

Grand Teton National Park % 

Wyoming Game & Fish Department % 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service % 

Other _____________________________ % 

TOTAL responsibility 100 % 

Based on this encounter how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE is it for managers to take the following actions? 

(Please Circle the number that best describes your level of acceptance for each action.) 

Highly Somewhat No Somewhat Highly 

Management Action Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Opinion Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 

Monitor the situation to 

determine if the wolves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

will cause further concern. 

Frighten the wolves away 

using non-lethal methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Capture and relocate the 

wolves involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Move the remaining cattle 

to another area of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

grazing allotment. 

Remove the remaining 

cattle in question from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

park. 

Destroy the wolves 

involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

56 
SECTION II. 

In the previous section, you indicated how acceptable it was to take certain management actions following situations 

depicting conflicts between wolves and human activities or property. In this section, please indicate how EFFECTIVE you 

feel each of the management options listed below would be in remedying those conflicts. 

(Please Circle the number that best describes how effective you believe each action would be.) 

The Conflict Not at all Somewhat Extremely Don’t 

Management Actions Effective Effective Effective Effective Know 

To prevent wolves from entering an area on private property... 

 Frightening devices, such as loud sirens and flashing lights 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Electric fences 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Guard dogs 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Shooting at wolves with non-lethal rubber bullets 1 2 3 4 DK 

To avoid human- wolf disturbances within Grand Teton National 

Park... 

Closure of sections of hiking trails that are close to wolf denning 1 2 3 4 DK 

areas. 

Closure of entire hiking trails that pass near wolf denning areas. 1 2 3 4 DK 

To reduce future threat to human property following instances of 

conflict between wolves and human activities or property... 

 Capture and relocation of an entire pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

 Capture and relocation of an individual wolf involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy an individual wolf that was in a pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy the breeding pair of wolves in a pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

Destroy the entire pack involved. 1 2 3 4 DK 

SECTION III. 

People feel a variety of emotions when encountering wild animals or hearing about conflicts between people and wild 

animals. Please indicate below how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about different 

feelings towards wolves. 

(Please circle the appropriate number for each) 

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 

Strongly 

Agree 

Don’t 

Know 

• I get angry when I learn that a wolf has destroyed 

someone’s livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• It does not anger me to know that pet dogs may be 

attacked and killed by wild animals, such as wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I don’t understand why some people become angry when 

wolves destroy livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I don’t think anyone should be afraid of wolves for any 

reason. 1 2 3 4 5 

DK 

• I would never worry about my safety in an area that I 

knew had wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I have sympathy for wolves that rely on livestock for 

food. 1 2 3 4 5 

DK 

• It angers me to learn that wolves may be destroyed if 

they harass livestock but don’t actually kill them. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

57 
Strongly Strongly Don’t 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Know 

• It saddens me to know that ranchers may suffer the loss of 

their livestock due to wolf attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I don’t have any sympathy for wolves that are destroyed 

for killing livestock. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• It upsets me to learn that livestock has been destroyed by 

re-introduced wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I get angry with the National Park Service when I hear that 

visitors in a national park may encounter wolves. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I have no sympathy for ranchers who lose livestock to 

wolf attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I feel sorry for wolves when they are destroyed for any 1 2 3 4 5 DK reason. 

• I would never be fearful of a wolf if I saw one on my 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

property. 

• It frightens me when I hear about wolves killing a pet dog 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• It scares me knowing that wolves are living in Grand 

Teton National Park. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

• I understand why some people are fearful of wolves 1 2 3 4 5 DK 

SECTION IV. 


People have many different ideas about what is a tolerable number of encounters to have with wild animals. Please 


indicate if it would be a positive, negative or neutral EXPERIENCE if you had the following encounters with wolves. 


(Please circle the appropriate number for each experience.) 

1. 

once? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

twice? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

2. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

3. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

What type of experience would this be 

for you? 

Extremely 

Positive Positive 

Somewhat 

Positive Neutral 

Somewhat 

Negative Negative 

Extremely 

Negative 

Don’t 

Know 

You are camping at Grand Teton 

National Park and have seen a wolf 

near the campground where you are 

staying ... 

several times? 

You see a lone wolf traveling across 

your own property... 

once a year? 

once a month? 

once a week? 

daily? 

You are hiking at Grand Teton National 

Park and see a pack of wolves in the 

distance... 

on one hike? 

on two separate hikes? 

on several hikes? 

58 
4. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

5.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DK 

6. YES NO 

7. times. 

8. 

1 2 3 4 5 

What type of experience would this be 

for you? 

Extremely 

Positive Positive 

Somewhat 

Positive Neutral 

Somewhat 

Negative Negative 

Extremely 

Negative 

Don’t 

Know 

You see a pack of wolves

 traveling across your

 property... 

once a year? 

once a month? 

once a week? 

daily? 

 You are hiking at Grand Teton National 

Park and see a lone wolf in the 

distance...

 on one hike? 

 on two separate hikes? 

 on several hikes? 

Please tell us about your personal experiences with wolves . . . 

Have you ever seen wolves, or a single wolf, in the wild? _________ _________ _________NOT SURE 

 IF YES—How many times have you seen wolves in the wild? # _________times. 

How many times (if any) have you seen wolves in Grand Teton National Park? # _________

Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable about wolves? (Please circle the appropriate number.) 

Not at all Very

 knowledgeable knowledgeable 

SECTION V. 

Finally, we would like to ask you about your visit to Grand Teton National Park and your background. 

The information you supply will remain completely confidential. 

1. Have you ever visited Grand Teton National Park? (If NO, please skip to question #6) ____Yes 	____No 

 How long ago was your last visit to Grand Teton National Park? _____Days _____Months _____ Years 

2. During this visit to GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, what was the PRIMARY purpose of your trip? 

 (What motivated you to visit Grand Teton Nat’l Park?) (Check the one most important purpose for this trip) 

___Camping ___View Scenery ___Driving for pleasure 

(developed campground) 

___Backcountry camping ___Canoeing or boating (River) ___Ranger led activities/programs 

(undeveloped campground) 

___Hiking ___Canoeing or boating (Lake) ___Fishing 

___Wildlife viewing ___Rock climbing ___Bicycling/Mountain biking 

___Photography ___Horseback riding ___Other ___________________ 

59 
3. How many times have you visited Grand Teton National Park? ________ # times. 

4. How long was your latest visit to Grand Teton National Park ? (Check one only) 

___ 1 day visit only ___2 day visit ___3 day visit or more 

5. If you were an overnight visitor in the SGYA, where did you stay? (check all that apply) 

___Camped in developed campground in the park ___Lodge or hotel in the park 

___Camped in the backcountry of the park ___Lodge or hotel outside of the park 

___Camped in developed campground outside of the park ___Stayed in own home 

___Other, please describe ________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Are you? ____Male ____Female 

7. How old are you? ____Years 

8. In what ethnic group (A) and race (B) would you put yourself? 

A. Ethnicity (select one) ____Hispanic or Latino ____NOT Hispanic or Latino 

B. Race (select one or more) ____ American Indian or Alaska native (if yes: please answer question 9) 

____Asian 

____Black or African American 

____Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

____White 

9. If you checked “American Indian”, please identify your tribal affiliation: _______________________________ 

10. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? 

____Less than high school diploma ____Technical/vocational degree ____4 year college degree 

____High school diploma or GED ____Some college ____Advanced degree beyond 4-year degree 

11. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes? 

____Less than $10,000 ____$25,000 to $49,999 ____$75,000 to $99,999 ____$10,000 to $24,999 

____$125,000 to $149,000 ____$50,000 to $74,999 ____$100,000 to $124,999 ____$150,000 or more 

12. How would you describe your current residence or community? 

____a small city with 50,000 to 99,999 people ____a small town/village with 1,000 to 10,000 people 

____a town with 10,000 to 49,000 people ____a village with fewer than 1,000 people 

 ____a farm or rural area 

Thank you for participating in this study. Your opinions are very valuable! 

60 
Appendix D. Reliability Results for Emotion Indices 

To investigate emotions related to wolves and human-wolf encounters, four composite 

index variables were created based on sixteen emotion items. Reliability results for these 

composite variables indicated that the three items for ‘sympathy for a rancher’, the five items for 

‘anger about wolf presence’, the five items for ‘fear of wolves’, and the three items for 

‘sympathy for wolves’ were internally consistent with Cronbach’s alpha values from 0.81 to 0.83 

(Table D-1). These items worked consistently together to explain the larger composite variable 

(index), and removal of any one item would have reduced the explanatory power of the index. 

Table D-1. Reliability analyses of emotion indices pertaining to human-wolf interactions.a 

Item total Alpha if item Cronbach’s 

Emotion items b correlation c deletedd alpha e 

Sympathy for a rancher 

It saddens me to know that ranchers may suffer the loss of 

their livestock due to wolf attacks. 

It upsets me to learn that livestock has been destroyed by 

reintroduced wolves. 

I have no sympathy for ranchers who lose livestock to wolf 

attacks.f 

Anger about wolf presence 

I get angry when I learn that a wolf has destroyed someone’s 

livestock. 

It does not anger me to know that pet dogs may be attacked 

and killed by wild animals, such as wolves.f 

I don’t understand why some people become angry when 

wolves destroy livestock.f 

It angers me to learn that wolves may be destroyed if they 

harass livestock but don’t actually kill them.f 

I get angry with the National Park Servcie when I hear that 

visitors in a national park may encounter wolves. 

Fear of wolves 

I don’t think anyone should be afraid of wolves for any f reason.


I would never be fearful of a wolf if I saw one on my
 f

property.


It frightens me when I hear about wolves killing a pet dog.


It scares me knowing that wolves are living in Grand Teton


National Park. 


I understand why some people are fearful of wolves. 


I would never worry about my safety in an area that in knew 


had wolves.f


Sympathy for wolves 

I have sympathy for wolves that rely on livestock for food. 

I don’t have any sympathy for wolves that are destroyed for 

killing livestock.f 

I feel sorry for wolves when they are destroyed for any reason. 

.74 .71 .83 

.69 .76 

.63 .81 

.76 .73 .82 

.63 .78 

.48 .82 

.61 .78 

.58 .79 

.62 .79 .83 

.67 .78 

.56 .81 

.52 .82 

.47 .82 

.74 .76 

.62 .78 .81 

.71 .68 

.65 .75 

a

Emotion items were coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. 

b

Items with more than two missing values, for each respondent, were excluded from the creation of the index and 

received a missing value for that score on the index scale. 

c

Item total correlation is a diagnostic used in conjunction with Cronbach’s alpha to determine scale internal 

consistency, values over .40 indicate good internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978) 

61 
d

Alpha if item deleted is a diagnostic used in conjunction with Cronbach’s alpha to assist in scale formation. Values 

higher than Cronbach’s alpha indicate an item may need to be removed from the scale (Nunnally, 1978). 

e

Cronbach's alpha measures the internal consistency of the emotion indices. It is a reliability coefficient based on the 

average correlation of any one item with all other items that are to be included in the composite index. An alpha 

coefficient of ≥ 0.60 indicates a reliable scale (Nunnally, 1978). 

f

Items were reverse coded. 

62 
Appendix E. Relationship between Judgments of Responsibility and 

Acceptance of Management Actions 

We proposed the following interactions between responsibility judgements and 

acceptability of management actions: If a person places primary responsibility with the 

individual (Hiker, Rancher, Pet Owner), then he would be more willing to accept management 

that directly affected the individual. Conversely, if a person thinks responsibility resides 

primarily with a wildlife management agency, then her acceptance of actions impacting the 

wolves, through the agency, would be greater. From this, we proposed these three hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 1: The more a person places responsibility on the individual (i.e., hikers, ranchers, 

and pet owners), the less likely that person is to accept management actions that are invasive to 

wolves. 

Hypothesis 2: The more responsibility a person places on an agency, the more likely that person 

will accept management actions that are invasive to wolves. 

Hypothesis 3: The more responsibility a person places on the individual, the more likely that 

person is to accept management actions that impact the individual. 

Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park (Scenarios One and 

Five; Tables E-1 and E-2) 

For scenarios involving hiker-wolf conflicts, the results generally supported the 

hypothesized relationships, with the exception of GRTE relationships (Tables E-1 & E-2). For 

these scenarios, the more responsibility placed on the hiker, the less likely management actions 

invasive to wolves were acceptable (Hypothesis 1). On the other hand, those assigning more 

responsibility to the wildlife agencies, WYG&F and USFWS, were more likely to accept 

management actions that are invasive to wolves (Hypothesis 2). In the case of the WYG&F, the 

comparisons show "minimal" or less than minimal relationships. For the USFWS, positive, 

statistically significant correlations were with 'capture and relocate the wolves involved' 

(Scenario 1, r = .30; Scenario 5, r = .24). The correlations between GRTE and invasive 

management action acceptability did not fully support Hypothesis 2. The relationships were 

positive for Scenario 1 (r = .11, Table E-1), however for Scenario 5, the relationships were 

negative (r = -.03 and -.07, Table E-2). Hypothesis 3 was supported, although it is interesting to 

note that the correlations were higher for 'monitor the situation' than for the management actions 

that impact the hiker. 

63 
c

Table E-1. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario one.a 

Judgments of responsibility b 

Acceptability of management actionc Hiker 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Monitor the situation .31** .04 -.07* -.33** 

Frighten the wolves away -.09** .11** .12** .02 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.38** .11** .29** .30** 

Close only the section of the trail that the 

wolves are near .28** .08** -.11** -.32** 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left 

the area .15** .07* -.03 -.19 

a

Scenario 1 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

feeding on a dead deer close to the trail. The wolves seem reluctant to leave their kill, Status of the wolves: Listed 

as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

Table E-2. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario five.a 

Judgments of responsibilityb 

Acceptability of management actionc Hiker 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Monitor the situation .26** .09** -.10** -.32** 

Frighten the wolves away -.03 -.03 .12** .02 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.22** -.07* .22** .24** 

Close only the section of the trail that the 

wolves are near .22** .15** -.10** -33** 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left 

the area .11** .12** -.03 -.21** 

a

Scenario 5 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

and their pups near what appears to be a denning site. As the hiker watches, the wolves become aware of the hiker’s 

presence, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

64 

c
Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts (Scenarios Two, Three, and Six; Tables E-3, 

E-4, and E-5) 

For scenarios involving rancher-wolf conflicts, the hypothesized relationships between 

the judgments of responsibility and acceptance of management actions were supported for 

Hypothesis 1 with the exception of 'frighten the wolves away'. Thus, as more responsibility was 

placed on the rancher, the less likely management actions invasive to wolves were supported 

such as capturing or destroying the wolves. However; frightening the wolves away was viewed 

differently, possibly as less invasive. When considering agency responsibility and acceptance of 

management actions (Hypothesis 2), the hypothesized relationships were generally supported 

statistically for WYG&F and USFWS. 'Frighten the wolves away' is again an exception (for 

USFWS, r = -.06 to -.22; for WYG&F r = .002 to .05, none significant). Also, the relationships 

for GRTE did not consistently support the hypothesized relationships since 'destroy the wolves' 

had negative correlations in all three scenarios (r = -.05 to -.14). However, GRTE correlations 

are low (minimal to less than minimal for all relationships). Hypothesis 3 was applicable in 

Scenarios 2 and 6 but not Scenario 3 in which no ‘invasive to the rancher’ (e.g., move or remove 

the cattle) was offered on the rancher’s own property. Not only was the hypothesized 

relationship supported (as more responsibility is placed on the rancher, the more likely 

management actions that impact the rancher will be acceptable), but also the correlations were of 

typical (r ≥ .3) to substantial (r ≥ .5) strength. 

Table E-3. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario two.a 

Judgments of responsibility b 

Acceptability of management actionc Rancher 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

Monitor the situation .29** .12** -.05 -.30** 

Frighten the wolves away -.03 .19** .04 -.06* 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.37** .12** .21** .24** 

Move the cattle to another area of the 

grazing allotment .48** .04 -.16** -.42** 

Remove the cattle from the park .50** -.04 -.17** -.39** 

Destroy the wolves involved -.43** -.14** .17** .41** 

a

Scenario 2 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A pack of wolves has been chasing cattle 

from a small herd from time to time over the past 2 weeks. The wolves have not killed any cattle, Status of the 

wolves: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

65 

c
c

Table E-4. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario three.a 

Judgments of responsibilityb 

Acceptability of management actionc Rancher 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Monitor the situation .28** .09** -.02 -.27** 

Frighten the wolves away .17** .11** .05 -.19** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.09** .13** .12** -.03 

Destroy the wolves involved -.35** -.09** -.02 .35** 

a

Scenario 3 (Location: On private ranch land next to GRTE, Encounter: A local rancher in the Jackson-Hole area 

has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month due to wolf kills, Status of the wolves: Listed as an 

endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

Table E-5. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario six.a 

Judgments of responsibilityb 

Acceptability of management actionc Rancher 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Monitor the situation .33** .02 -.05 -.32** 

Frighten the wolves away .12** .16** .002 -.22** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.17** .21** .09** .02 

Move the cattle to another area of the grazing 

allotment .41** .05 -.11** -.39** 

Remove the cattle from the park .48** -.02 .15** -.39** 

Destroy the wolves involved -.46** -.05 .17** .42** 

a

Scenario 6 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A cattle rancher has reported the loss of 

several cattle within the last month, killed by wolves, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are 

no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

66 

c
c

Scenario Involving Pet Loss (Scenario Four; Table E-6) 

For the scenario depicting pet loss, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported with the 

exception of 'frighten the wolves away' where Homeowner and USFWS responded contrary to 

the hypothesized relationships. When an agency was held responsible, management actions 

invasive to wolves generally were supported: for GRTE and WYG&F, ‘capture and relocate’; for 

USFWS ‘destroy the wolves’ (Hypothesis 2). Hypothesis 3 was supported in this pet-loss 

situation as it was in the wolf-cattle encounter scenarios. 

Table E-6. Correlations of proportional judgments of responsibility with acceptance of 

management actions for scenario four.a 

Judgments of responsibilityb 

Acceptability of management actionc Homeowner 

Grand Teton 

National Park 

Wyoming 

Game & Fish 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Monitor the situation .31** .01 -.001 -.31** 

Frighten the wolves away .25** .06 .06 -.31** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.07* .11** .15** -.06* 

Destroy the wolves involved -.39** .01 .08** .36** 

a

Scenario 4 (Location: On private land next to GRTE, Encounter: A homeowner has recently had their pet dog 

killed by a wolf. Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered 

species.) 

b

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. Cell entries 

represent bi-variate correlations. * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

67 
Appendix F. Relationship between Judgments of Responsibility and 

Emotion Indices 

It was reasoned that emotions about wolves and affected human activities would be 

related to judgments of responsibility as well as to perceived accptability of different 

management alternatives. In the first instance, as a person assigned greater responsibility to the 

individual involved in a wolf conflict situation, they would feel less sympathy for that individual, 

and more sympathy toward the wolves. Likewise, assigning responsibility to the person involved 

might reflect less anger felt about the presence of wolves. On the other hand, persons who 

assigned more responsibility to an agency, especially a wildlife agency, would likely feel more 

sympathy for the rancher or other individuals involved and more anger and fear about the 

presence of wolves in the area. This reasoning led to the following two hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 4: The more responsibility a person places on the individual involved (i.e., hiker, 

rancher, or pet owner) in a human-wolf conflict, the lower that person’s anger and fear will be 

toward wolves, and the greater their sympathy toward wolves. 

Hypothesis 5: The more responsibility a respondent places on a management agency, the greater 

the anger and fear will be toward wolves, the lower the sympathy will be toward wolves, and the 

greater the sympathy for the person involved (i.e., hiker, rancher, or pet owner). 

Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park (Scenarios One and 

Five; Tables F-1 and F-2) 

For the scenarios involving hikers encountering wolves within the park, the hypothesized 

relationships were supported for all but one of the relationships among the three variables in the 

model (Tables F-1 & F-2). For these scenarios, those assigning more responsibility to the hikers 

felt sympathy for the wolves and significantly less anger or fear about wolves, in all comparisons 

at or near “typical relationship” levels. Conversely, those who held the wildlife agencies more 

responsible felt more anger and fear toward wolves and significantly less sympathy toward them 

(Hypothesis 5). In the case of the USFWS, these comparisons were at or near “typical 

relationship” levels. For the WYG&F, these comparisons are statistically significant but were at 

the level of “minimal relationship,” in part because of the low level of responsibility assigned to 

the state agency overall. 

The correlations between GRTE as the responsible party and the emotions of fear (r = -

.03) and anger (r = -.09) felt towards the presence of wolves for Scenario 5 were in a negative 

direction (Table F-2), while sympathy for wolves was positively correlated. For Scenario 1, the 

pattern of relationship is mixed: positively correlated with anger but negatively correlated with 

fear of wolves. Thus Hypothesis 5 is not supported for GRTE. It should also be noted that all 

correlations between GRTE and the emotion indices were small (less than minimal effects) in 

both scenarios. This suggests some ambiguity in the minds of the public as to the wildlife 

management role the park may play. 

68 
c

c

Table F-1. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario one.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibility c 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy for 

wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Hiker -.48** .39** -.34** 

Grand Teton National Park .07* -.03 -.09** 

Wyoming Game & Fish .27** -.18** .20** 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .44** -.38** .27** 

a

Scenario 1 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

feeding on a dead deer close to the trail. The wolves seem reluctant to leave their kill, Status of the wolves: Listed 

as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: *p < .05 **p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

Table F-2. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario five.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibilityc 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Hiker -.37** .28** -.29** 

Grand Teton National Park -.09** .09** -.03 

Wyoming Game & Fish .23** -.13** .18** 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife .41** -.35** .27** 

a

Scenario 5 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

and their pups near what appears to be a denning site. As the hiker watches, the wolves become aware of the hiker’s 

presence, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bivariate correlations: **p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts (Scenarios Two, Three, and Six; Tables F-3, 

21, and F-5) 

For scenarios involving rancher-wolf conflicts, the hypothesized relationships between 

the judgments of responsibility and the emotion indices were supported for Hypothesis 4. In 

other words, responsibility for the rancher was positively related to sympathy for wolves and 

negatively correlated with anger and fear of wolves. In the scenarios involving grazing 

allotments within the park (Scenarios 2 & 6, Tables F-3 & F-5), the negative correlations 

between “rancher responsibility” and sympathy for the rancher and anger about wolf presence 

are at the “substantially” negative level and other correlations are at or near the typical level. All 

of these correlations are about 10% stronger for in-park grazing allotments than for the private 

land rancher scenario. 

69 
c

Again, wildlife agency responsibility shows a reverse pattern to rancher responsibility, 

particularly for the in-park scenarios. Note that for Scenarios 2 & 6, sympathy for rancher and 

anger about wolf presence correlate, positively, about 10% more strongly – at typical 

relationship levels - than for the off-park Scenario 3 (Table F-4 vs. F-3 & F-5). Fear of wolves 

shows the same pattern, but at a lower overall correlation level. Although the USFWS is held to 

be significantly more responsible for the off-park scenario (37% compared to 27–28% - see 

Figures 3, 4, & 7), the emotional relationship is much stronger for in-park grazing allotments. 

Again, the WYG&F responsibility and emotions correlations are much lower (minimal 

relationships) than for the USFWS, but maintain the predicted pattern for the in-park scenarios 

(Tables F-3 & F-5). For the off-park Scenario 3, Hypothesis 5 does not hold for the WYG&F, 

where the correlations are below minimal significance for sympathy for or fear of wolves. 

Table F-3. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario two.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibility c 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Rancher -.49** -.52** .41** -.28** 

Grand Teton National Park .05 .01 .04 -.01 

Wyoming Game & Fish .21** .20** -.12** .14** 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .35** .42** -.37** .21** 

a

Scenario 2 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A pack of wolves has been chasing cattle 

from a small herd from time to time over the past 2 weeks. The wolves have not killed any cattle, Status of the 

wolves: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: **p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

As in the hiker-wolf conflict scenarios, the correlations between GRTE and the emotion 

indices were small (less than minimal effects), and most were not statistically significant. This is 

true for the in-park scenarios as well as the off-park rancher scenario. However, the relationships 

in Hypothesis 5 were supported for all statistically significant correlations in rancher-wolf 

conflict scenarios. 

70 
c

c

Table F-4. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario three.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibilityc 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Rancher -.39** -.39** .31** -.22 

Grand Teton National Park .03 .02 .07* .03 

Wyoming Game & Fish .10** .06* .001 .05 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .25** .28** -.30** .12** 

a

Scenario 3 (Location: On private ranch land next to GRTE, Encounter: A local rancher in the Jackson-Hole area 

has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month due to wolf kills, Status of the wolves: Listed as an 

endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

Table F-5. Correlations of four emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario six.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibilityc 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Rancher -.50** -.50** .38** -.32** 

Grand Teton National Park .09** .03 .04 .02 

Wyoming Game & Fish .17** .18** -.13** .13** 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .35** .39** -.34** .22** 

a

Scenario 6 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A cattle rancher has reported the loss of 

several cattle within the last month, killed by wolves, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are 

no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: ** p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

71 
c

Scenario Involving Pet Loss (Scenario Four; Table F-6) 

For the scenario depicting pet loss due to a wolf attack (Scenario 4, Table F-6), the 

statistically significant correlations are in the predicted direction between responsible parties and 

emotion items for Hypothesis 4 & 2. However, the sympathy for wolves index and two 

management agencies (GRTE and WYG&F) yielded less than minimal correlations and were not 

statistically significant. 

Table F-6. Correlations of three emotion indices with proportional judgments of responsibility for 

scenario four.a

 Emotion indices b 

Judgment of responsibilityc Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy for 

wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Pet-owner -.44** .32** -.36** 

Grand Teton National Park .08** .00 .11** 

Wyoming Game & Fish .08** -.03 .10** 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .37** -.33** .24** 

a

Scenario 4 (Location: On private land next to GRTE, Encounter: A homeowner has recently had their pet dog 

killed by a wolf. Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered 

species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ 

to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: *p < .01. 

Respondents assigned proportions of responsibility, as a percentage, to each of the four choices listed. 

Overall, in all six scenarios Hypothesis 4 was supported. Responsibility placed on the 

individual involved (i.e., the hiker, rancher, or pet owner) was related to less anger and fear 

towards wolves and more sympathy towards wolves. For Hypothesis 5, the results for all 

significant correlations were in the predicted directions, especially for the USFWS. However, 

judgments of responsibility for GRTE tended to yield non-significant correlations with the 

emotion indices, and the WYG&F yielded at best minimal correlations. 

72 
Appendix G. Relationship between Emotion Indices and Acceptance of 

Management Actions 

It is hypothesized that emotions felt about a human-wolf encounter will correlate with the 

acceptability of different management actions taken to remedy or avoid the situation. This 

expected interrelationship is defined in the following hypotheses: 

Hypothesis 6: The more sympathy a person feels towards wolves, the less likely that person will 

accept management actions that are invasive to wolves and the more likely to accept 

management actions that impact the individual involved. 

Hypothesis 7: The more fear or anger held towards wolves, the more likely that person will 

accept management actions that are invasive to wolves and the less likely to accept management 

actions that impact the individual involved. 

Hypothesis 8: The more sympathy a person holds for the individual involved in a conflict, the 

more likely that person will accept management actions that are invasive to wolves and the less 

likely to accept management actions that impact the individual. 

73 
c

Scenarios Involving Hiking Encounters in Grand Teton National Park (Scenarios One and 

Five; Tables G-1 and G-2) 

For the scenarios involving hikers encountering wolves within the park, Hypotheses 3 

and 4 were supported (Hypothesis 8 was not tested for hikers). As sympathy towards wolves 

increased the less likely management actions that are invasive to wolves were acceptable and the 

more likely management actions that impact the individual were acceptable (Hypothesis 6). 

Table G-1. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario one.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management actionc 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy for 

wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.38** .34** -.26** 

Frighten the wolves away .15** -.09** .18** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved .44** -.32** .41** 

Close only the section of the trail that the wolves are near -.38** .42** -.23** 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left the area -.26** .34** -.11** 

a

Scenario 1 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

feeding on a dead deer close to the trail. The wolves seem reluctant to leave their kill, Status of the wolves: Listed 

as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

Also, the two management options that were invasive to wolves (i.e., frighten the wolves away and capture and 

relocate the wolves involved) were positively correlated with the anger and fear indices (Hypothesis 7). Anger and 

fear towards wolves was negatively related to management actions that impact the individual - close the trail 

(Hypothesis 7). 

74 
c

Table G-2. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario five.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management action c 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.33** .32** -.24** 

Frighten the wolves away .11** -.06 .14** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved .33** -.21** .33** 

Close only the section of the trail that the wolves are near -.37** .41** -.24** 

Close the entire trail until the wolves have left the area -.28** .36** -.13** 

a

Scenario 5 (Location: On a popular backcountry hiking trail in GRTE, Encounter: A hiker sees several wolves 

and their pups near what appears to be a denning site. As the hiker watches, the wolves become aware of the hiker’s 

presence, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

75 
c

Scenarios Involving Rancher-Wolf Conflicts (Scenarios Two, Three, and Six; Tables G-3, 

G-4, and G-5) 

For the relationship between sympathy for wolves and acceptability of management 

actions (Hypothesis 6), Scenarios 2 and 6 held the predicted relationship that sympathy for 

wolves would be positively related to management actions that were not invasive to wolves 

(‘monitor the situation’ and ‘move’ of ‘remove the cattle’). Sympathy for wolves and 

acceptability of the one management action that was not invasive to wolves, ‘monitor the 

situation’ showed a positive correlation in Scenario 3. However, ‘frighten the wolves away’ 

showed typical to near-typical correlations with ‘sympathy for the wolves’ in Scenarios 3 & 6. 

All correlations related to ‘frighten the wolves away’ showed less than minimal effects in 

Scenario 2. ‘Capture and relocate the wolves involved’ did not consistently follow the predicted 

pattern of ‘invasive management actions.’ However, the predicted negative correlation did show 

at substantial levels in all three scenarios for ‘destroy the wolves involved.’ Thus, the more 

sympathy for wolves the less destroying the wolves was acceptable, however other invasive 

management actions such as frightening and capturing were acceptable (Hypothesis 6 partially 

supported), perhaps to get the wolves out of harm’s way. 

Table G-3. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario two.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management actionc 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.35** -.41** .38** -.27** 

Frighten the wolves away -.004 -.07* .06* -.01 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved .36** .37** -.26** .32** 

Move the cattle to another area of the grazing 

allotment -.53** -.56** .55** -.37** 

Remove the cattle from the park -.57** -.58** .54** -.41** 

Destroy the wolves involved .56** .69** -.64** .44** 

a

Scenario 2 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A pack of wolves has been chasing cattle 

from a small herd from time to time over the past 2 weeks. The wolves have not killed any cattle, Status of the 

wolves: Listed as an endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations:. * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

76 
c

Table G-4. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario three.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management actionc 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.41** -.47** .46** -.30** 

Frighten the wolves away -.34** -.43** .40** -.26** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.02 -.12** .17** -.003 

Destroy the wolves involved .58** .70** -.73** .42** 

a

Scenario 3 (Location: On private ranch land next to GRTE, Encounter: A local rancher in the Jackson-Hole area 

has reported the loss of several cattle within the last month due to wolf kills, Status of the wolves: Listed as an 

endangered species, experimental population.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

Hypothesis 7 was not fully supported in any of the three rancher-wolf conflict scenarios. 

The management action of ‘frighten the wolves away’ was less than minimally related to any of 

the emotions in Scenario 2; minimally related in the other in-park Scenario 6, and typically 

correlated in the off-park Scenario 3. However, in Scenarios 2 and 6, anger and fear were 

positively correlated with ‘capture and relocate the wolves involved.’ Anger and fear of wolves 

were positively correlated with ‘destroy the wolves involved.’ Indeed, this specific management 

alternative emerges as predominant in the relationship between emotions and management 

actions. Relationships between emotions and “destroy the wolves involved” are close to or above 

the substantial relationship cut-off (r = .5) in each interaction (negative for ‘sympathy for 

wolves’ r = -.64 to -.73; positive for ‘sympathy for rancher,’ ‘anger about wolf presence,’ and 

‘fear of wolves’ r = +.42 to +.73). “Sympathy for the rancher,” “anger about wolf presence” and 

“sympathy for wolves” all correlate as predicted, at substantial levels, with the management 

options of moving or removing the cattle in the in-park Scenarios 2 and 6 (Hypotheses 3 and 5). 

77 
c

Table G-5. Correlations of four emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario six.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management actionc 

Sympathy for 

rancher 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy 

for wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.41** -.46** .46** -.29* 

Frighten the wolves away -.18** -.27** .28** -.12** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved .12** .04 .07* .12** 

Move the cattle to another area of the grazing 

allotment -.55** -.58** .59** -.38** 

Remove the cattle from the park -.58** -.58** .57** -.41** 

Destroy the wolves involved .61** .73** -.71** .45** 

a

Scenario 6 (Location: Federal grazing allotment in GRTE, Encounter: A cattle rancher has reported the loss of 

several cattle within the last month, killed by wolves, Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are 

no longer listed as an endangered species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations: * p < .05 ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

78 
c

Scenario Involving Pet Loss (Scenario Four; Table G-6) 

For the scenario depicting pet loss, Hypothesis 6 and 7 were partially supported 

(Hypothesis 8 was not tested for pet owners). The greater the sympathy for wolves, the more 

non-lethal management actions were acceptable, however non-lethal but invasive management 

actions had a positive relationship with sympathy for wolves (Hypothesis 6). One management 

option that was invasive to wolves, but did not involve destroying them (i.e., frighten the wolves 

away) was negatively correlated with the anger and fear indices (Hypothesis 7), but “capture and 

relocate the wolves involved” was not. However, the management action of destroying the 

wolves was substantially positively correlated with fear and anger, supporting Hypothesis 7. 

Table G-6. Correlations of three emotion indices with acceptance of management actions for 

scenario four.a

 Emotion indices b 

Acceptability of management actionc 

Anger felt about 

wolf presence 

Sympathy for 

wolves 

Fear of 

wolves 

Monitor the situation -.50** .48** -.33** 

Frighten the wolves away -.49** .47** -.29** 

Capture and relocate the wolves involved -.16** .25** -.02 

Destroy the wolves involved .71** -.69** .46** 

a

Scenario 4 (Location: On private land next to GRTE, Encounter: A homeowner has recently had their pet dog 

killed by a wolf. Status of the wolves: Wolf numbers have increased; they are no longer listed as an endangered 

species.) 

b

Indices are comprised of various emotion items coded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly 

disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’. Cell entries represent bi-variate correlations. ** p < .01. 

Acceptance of management action coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘highly unacceptable’ to 

7 = ‘highly acceptable’. 

79