Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana

Management of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) for cougars (Puma concolor) presents a formidable challenge for wildlife managers concerned with coexistence of this species with humans, although considerations of WSAC may provide supplemental or even alternative approaches to direct manipulation of cougars and their habitat. We used personal interviews (n=34) and a mail-back questionnaire (n=805) from a stratified random sample of households to measure WSAC for cougars in Montana and identify factors that affect WSAC. A 3-variable model that included stakeholder perception of cougar population levels, attitudes toward cougars, and risk beliefs about cougars correctly predicted respondents' WSAC 85% of the time. Compared to persons desiring stable or increased populations, respondents who desired a decrease in cougar numbers were more likely to perceive that populations of cougars were increasing, have negative attitudes toward cougars, have risk beliefs that implied dread toward cougars, and perceive an inequity between people who benefitted from cougars and people who were exposed to potential risks. Demographic variables such as location and tenure of residency, gender, and level of formal education gained by respondents did not significantly affect WSAC. Our study suggests that WSAC for cougars may be modified most effectively through communication and management actions that affect stakeholder attitudes and beliefs about cougars and their population levels and affect perceptions of risks to humans from cougars. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.159 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:19:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 932 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):931-939 understanding and influencing biological conditions (Clark et al. 1996, Fuller and Kittredge 1996). Actions taken to manage cougar-human interactions have mostly focused on manipulation of cougar populations or factors thought to influence the carrying capacity of their habitat. Interventions that influence WSAC provide additional management strategies or even alternatives to direct manipulation of cougar populations (Decker and Purdy 1988). Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity is an estimate of the maximum number of a wildlife species that is acceptable to people in a particular area. Acceptance capacity is based on stakeholders' perceptions of a species' impacts on human land-use, environments, other wildlife, or people's well-being, rather than an estimate of populations in relation to their habitat. Important determinants of WSAC are thought to include stakeholder experience with wildlife, esthetic appeal of the referent species, beliefs and attitudes about the referent species, economic circumstances of stakeholders, type and amount of benefits and costs created by the referent species, risk tolerance of stakeholders, perceptions of population trends, and attitudes about management (Decker and Purdy 1988, Craven et al. 1992). A common but untested assumption is that stakeholders will accommodate problems posed by wildlife and adjust their WSAC after they have lived with a problem for an extended period of time. A serious shortcoming of WSAC considerations in cougar management is a lack of detailed knowledge of factors affectingWSAC for various kinds of stakeholders. Our research was an initial inquiry into WSAC for cougars in Montana, and focused on determining important variables that affect WSAC. We believe that if predictive factors can be identified, communication programs aimed at influencing WSAC then can be tailored to help accomplish desired stakeholder objectives for cougars. Based upon previous research into WSAC of other species and initial interviews with stakeholders in Montana, we expected that WSAC for cougars would be greater with positive attitudes toward cougars, positive beliefs about the nature of risks to humans posed by cougars, and longer tenure of residency in areas occupied by cougars. We collected data from across diverse ecological and socioeconomic landscapes that reflect the range of cougar and human densities found in the Rocky Mountains. We discuss implications of our findings for influencing WSAC for cougars and the applicability to conservation of other large carnivores.