Open AccessPendulum Swings in Wolf Management Led to Conflict, Illegal Kills, and a Legislated Wolf Hunt
Author(s) -
Olson Erik R.,
Stenglein Jennifer L.,
Shelley Victoria,
Rissman Adena R.,
BrowneNuñez Christine,
Voyles Zachary,
Wydeven Adrian P.,
Van Deelen Timothy
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
conservation letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.153
H-Index - 79
ISSN - 1755-263X
DOI - 10.1111/conl.12141
Subject(s) - wildlife , endangered species , wildlife management , north american model of wildlife conservation , legislation , wildlife conservation , state management , state (computer science) , geography , business , political science , environmental resource management , environmental planning , ecology , law , economics , biology , algorithm , habitat , computer science
Rapid change in wildlife populations can challenge managers to promote species conservation while maintaining public support for wildlife. Wolf management during recolonization in Wisconsin, United States demonstrates the complexities of inconsistent management authority, public attitudes, and illegal killing of wolves. State management authority to control depredating wolves oscillated during a period of intense sociopolitical conflict over wolf status under the federal Endangered Species Act. We demonstrate that swings in wolf status led to inconsistent management authority, declining local public support for wolves, and possibly the unintended backlash of more illegal kills and a legislatively mandated public wolf hunt. A new Wildlife Management Matrix illustrates an idealized relationship between lethal control options and perceptions of wildlife. Moderating the sociopolitical drivers of swings in policy over short periods is essential to allow wildlife managers greater flexibility in achieving species‐specific goals. To our knowledge, this research provides the first demonstrated link between illegal wildlife killing and management authority under the Endangered Species Act, and suggests that illegal behavior may be moderated with responsible and effective wildlife management programs. We recommend states avoid prescriptive harvest legislation, and we suggest a more incremental shift from federal to state management authority.