VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS By Rachel Menale A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Fisheries and Wildlife—Master of Science 2021 ABSTRACT VALUE ORIENTATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS By Rachel Menale Large-scale sociological changes affect the way people interact with and value wildlife. Commensurate with these geographical, demographical, and sociological changes, the beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders toward wildlife management and uses of wildlife are also shifting. Changes in societal attitudes toward wildlife could create an alignment issue between wildlife professionals and society. My objective was to assess and compare change-over-time from 1998 to 2020 in value orientations, beliefs, and attitudes toward uses of wildlife, and wildlife management practices of members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) as a proxy for practicing wildlife professionals toward wildlife. In addition, I explored factors influencing approval of legal hunting and trapping among professionals. I present results from a 2020 web-based survey (n= 3,247) that closely approximates TWS membership demographically and geographically. I compare these data to findings from a nearly identical 1998 mail-back survey of TWS members. My results indicate wildlife conservation professionals currently express a broad spectrum of beliefs about consumptive uses of wildlife with modest change over 2 decades. Two factors, 1 and 2, were found to be most influential in predicting approval of legal hunting and trapping by TWS members and are consistent with beliefs associated with current mutualistic and utilitarian wildlife value orientations occurring within the public. Research from this study provides insights into potential areas of training or education to focus on within the profession. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research and my overall experience as a graduate student in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University would not have been possible without the support of many individuals and organizations. First and foremost, thank you to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation for funding and supporting this research. I am also grateful to the Joseph G. Schotthoefer Memorial Student Award from the Michigan Involvement Committee of Safari Club for their generous scholarship support during my master’s program. Special thanks to Dr. John Organ and Dr. Rodney Zwick for all your effort on the original 1998 survey and for continuing to help with the updated survey. I would also like to thank Dr. Zachary Lowe, Thomas Decker, and Samara Trusso for making this updated survey possible and their insightful edits to the survey. Thank you to the staff and leadership at The Wildlife Society (TWS) for help with communication and technical assistance during the online survey administration to members of society. I want to acknowledge Ed Thompson, Dr. Gary White, Dr. Darren Miller, Cameron Kovach, Keith Norris, Dana Koblinisky of The Wildlife Society. I am grateful for the support of my present lab mates: Amber Goguen, Meg Cross, and Chris Henderson. Thank you for your friendship and perspectives. I am indebted to my graduate committee- Dr. Shawn Riley, Dr. John Organ, and Dr. Steven Gray. Thank you, Shawn, for your encouragement and mentorship as I navigated through this research. Lastly, thank you to my friends and family for the continued support mentally and emotionally through the two years of my research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................2 Thesis Organization .........................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2: CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES OF TWS MEMBERS OVER TIME .............................................................................................................4 Background .....................................................................................................................5 1998 Comparative Survey ...............................................................................................9 Research Objectives ......................................................................................................10 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................11 Study Population ...........................................................................................................11 Survey Instrument ..........................................................................................................11 Questionnaire Implementation ......................................................................................12 Pilot Survey ...................................................................................................................15 Nonresponse ..................................................................................................................15 Data Collection .............................................................................................................16 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................16 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................18 Response Rates ..............................................................................................................18 Respondent Characteristics of 1998..............................................................................18 Respondent Characteristics of 2020..............................................................................19 Change Over Time.........................................................................................................23 General Differences in 2020 .........................................................................................27 Geographical Representation on Key Statements .........................................................29 Acceptability of Trapping and Foothold Traps .............................................................33 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................33 Limitations .....................................................................................................................40 Implications ...................................................................................................................40 iv CHAPTER 3: FACTORS INFLUENCING WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS’ APPROVAL OF SUSTAINABLE USES OF WILDLIFE ...................42 Background ...................................................................................................................46 Research Objectives, Assumptions and Hypothesis ......................................................50 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................51 Study Population ...........................................................................................................51 Survey Instrument ..........................................................................................................51 Questionnaire Implementation ......................................................................................52 Pilot Survey ...................................................................................................................54 Nonresponse ..................................................................................................................54 Data Collection .............................................................................................................55 Measurement ................................................................................................................56 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................57 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................58 Response Rates ..............................................................................................................58 Respondent Characteristics of 2020..............................................................................59 Assessment of Factor Model Fit and Reliability of Factor Scales ................................59 Influence of Factors and Demographics on The Approval of Legal Hunting ...............60 Influence of Factors and Demographics on The Approval of Legal Trapping .............62 Appropriateness of Management Activities ...................................................................63 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................67 Limitations .....................................................................................................................74 Implication.....................................................................................................................75 CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............76 Limitations .....................................................................................................................81 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................82 APPENDIX A: Survey Email Invitation and Reminders .................................................83 APPENDIX B: Survey Instrument, Consent Form and Percent Response ....................89 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................116 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Self-reported demographic variables by members of The Wildlife Society (TWS)...…21 Table 2: Survey responses to the level of approval of others participating in legal hunting and legal trapping regardless of their opinion ......................................................................................30 Table 3: A comparison of self-reported responses by members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) 1998 vs. 2020, about whether foothold traps should be outlawed to trap species classified as a furbearer .........................................................................................................................................33 Table 4: Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis containing 14 statements reflecting beliefs of members of The Wildlife Society, 14 Jan–10 Mar 2020, toward uses of wildlife and wildlife management ...................................................................................................................................64 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward beliefs about wildlife management ...................................................................................................................................23 Figure 2: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward ethical considerations of wildlife management activities ..................................................................................................24 Figure 3: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife ........................................................................................................25 Figure 4: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward beliefs about specific management activities.. ..................................................................................................................26 Figure 5: Age frequency distribution of the survey population of members in The Wildlife Society (TWS) in 2020 ..................................................................................................................28 Figure 6: Age frequency distribution of the survey population of members in The Wildlife Society (TWS) in 1998 ..................................................................................................................29 Figure 7: Survey responses to appropriateness of statements toward beliefs of specific wildlife activities .........................................................................................................................................66 vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION “We need to broaden our concept of professionalism to include legitimate self-examination.” (Clark 1988) Wildlife conservation in the United States and Canada has a long and intertwined history with consumptive uses of wildlife (Reiger 1975, Trefethen 1975). The roots of North American wildlife management were planted at the end of an era of domination and exploitation of natural resources. Events of that era and the domination of the Anglo-European population resulted in a utilitarian view of wildlife and how populations should be managed for human benefit. The earliest efforts of wildlife conservation as an institution are attributed to prominent individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold (Reiger 1975), yet were also influenced by lesser-known individuals (Kessler and Glasscock 2020). Early approaches to conservation centered on wise use of resources such as regulated consumptive use of wildlife commensurate with prevailing societal values. At the same time, restrictive measures were put into place that prevented the use of some species. The social landscape in America has continued to change since those early days in ways characterized by modernization (Manfredo et al. 2020a), urbanization (Bell 1973), and increased, albeit uneven, societal affluence (Manfredo et al. 2009). Other sociological drivers include diversifying human populations and globalization (Learn 2019). Utilitarian values based on wildlife as a resource have coincidentally shifted through time toward more mutualistic views because humans interact less directly with wildlife and the environment (Teel and Manfredo 2010). One outcome has been broad declines in participation in regulated hunting and trapping (U. S. Department of Interior 2016). 1 If current trends in hunting and trapping continue to decline, cohorts of hunters and trappers age out of the population or participation (Winkler and Warnke 2013), approval of hunting and trapping from the perspective of society but also wildlife conservation professionals may change. State and federal wildlife agency professionals are considered trust managers under the Public Trust Doctrine (Smith 2011) and have the key role of achieving the day-to-day management of wildlife for the benefit of all beneficiaries. Understanding these changes in approval among conservation professionals should help bridge the gap between trust managers and the beneficiaries. Problem Statement Shifting societal values creates a potential incongruency with current wildlife uses under the rubric of sustainable wildlife management. This possible misalignment of what the public values is likely to continue and affect how conservation professionals’ function in their roles as trust managers and maintain wildlife and wildlife management relevancy to society. The objective of my study is to assess how attitudes, beliefs, and value orientations of wildlife professionals toward uses of wildlife have changed over the past 2 decades. To accomplish this objective, I administered an online survey based on a 1998 questionnaire administered to members of The Wildlife Society as a proxy for practicing wildlife conservation professionals (Muth et al. 1998). I focused on the approval of regulated uses of wildlife through legal hunting and legal trapping and the antecedents of those attitudes. Insights gained from my study will support the adaptation of hiring practices, professional development, and educational materials to maintain the alignment of wildlife professionals with the beneficiaries of wildlife as a public resource. 2 Thesis Organization This thesis is organized into 4 chapters: Chapters 2 and 3 are separate manuscripts intended for submission to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, plus this introductory chapter and a concluding chapter. Throughout, this thesis follows the style of the Wildlife Society Bulletin. Chapter 1 consists of an introduction and a problem statement to the thesis. Chapter 2 is the focus of the thesis and presents an analysis of the change over time (1998–2020) of key beliefs and attitudes expressed by TWS members toward wildlife and the uses of wildlife. Chapter 3 explores factors influencing approval of legal hunting and legal trapping by members of TWS. Lastly, Chapter 4 offers my perspective on the implications of my research and recommendations for agencies and organizations. Appendices contain the data collection instrument, additional data tables, and summary statistics. 3 CHAPTER 2: CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES OF TWS MEMBERS OVER TIME Urbanization-suburbanization, human population growth, and other large-scale sociological changes characterized as modernization are affecting the way people interact and value wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2009, Decker et al. 2012). Twenty-first-century values in the United States are trending away from utilitarian views of wildlife and wildlife management (Teel and Manfredo 2010). A utilitarian view of wildlife is the belief wildlife principally is for the benefit of humans (Manfredo et al. 2018). The belief of humans and wildlife co-existing together and wildlife deserving similar rights and care as humans are considered mutualistic beliefs, which are becoming a dominant belief, especially in urban-suburbanized environments. Traditional utilitarian views still exist among a significant enough portion of stakeholders, however, to create the potential for a divisive backlash in governance of public wildlife resources (Manfredo et al. 2017). Changes in values and beliefs expressed by society toward wildlife are creating potential shifts in the alignment of wildlife management and beneficiaries of those public resources. Wildlife conservation emerged from protectionist roots in order to prevent overexploitation and extension of species. The wildlife profession developed from a concern that wildlife was still in decline and restorative measures were needed. Although, activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping and the profession were dominated by men, women groups played a vital role in early conservation measures. Wildlife management developed as an enterprise tailored toward these utilitarian views and uses of wildlife (Reiger 1975). Societal and 4 professional values are suspected to be shifting away from those described as utilitarian as demographic changes such as urbanization and decline of rural communities, as well as the growth of activities that compete for time and interest with hunting and trapping (Karns et al. 2015). In addition to the increasing diversity of academic backgrounds, the number of women working in the wildlife profession has increased. This gender shift contributed to or accelerated a shift in values (Muth et al. 2002). These values held by wildlife professionals are believed to largely reflect changes occurring in society. Calls for transformation within wildlife agencies (Jacobson and Decker 2008, Jacobson et al. 2010) recognize changes are required to maintain alignment with society, assessment of current beliefs and trends among wildlife professionals is needed to thoughtfully inform change efforts (Ford et al. 2021). Background Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell founded The Boone and Crocket Club after witnessing the exploitation and destruction of natural resources and wildlife occurring in the West (Trefethen 1975). Club members led the efforts to preserve the American landscape and the wildlife found within. Conservation of wildlife and its habitat were possible, in part, through efforts of hunters and trappers throughout the country that valued wildlife. A transition toward stewardship of natural resources developed from a central life interest based on a connection to the land and its resources (Daigle et al. 1998, Mahoney and Jackson III 2013). American society was achievement-oriented, valuing accomplishment and hard work (Wuthnow 2008). Wildlife management reflected these values by focusing on maintaining wildlife populations for harvestable surplus, a primary concern at the time (Manfredo et al. 2009). This management style benefited hunters, trappers, and recreational fishing and resulted in revenue for wildlife agencies through license sales (Leopold 1930, Trefethen 1975). Accomplishments by 5 iconic men such as George Bird Grinnell, Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold usually overshadow lesser recognized women who also contributed to the profession. Women such as Maria Martin, Amelia Laskey, and Harriet Hemenway, and many more through efforts as wildlife scientists, naturalists, and conservation activists contributed immensely to the foundations of the wildlife profession (Kessler and Glasscock 2020). The wildlife profession would not be what it is today without the efforts of these women and others who are not as glorified in history. The numbers of participating hunters and trappers are decreasing in much of North America (U.S. Department of Interior 2016). The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reported a decrease in the number of hunters from 13.7 million in 2011 to 11.5 million in 2016 (U.S. Department of Interior 2016). An estimated 176, 573 trappers existed in the US in 2015 (Response Management 2015). Trapping of wildlife throughout history provided income, clothing, food, and enabled a traditional lifestyle (White et al. 2015a). Nonetheless, unregulated exploitation of wildlife from trapping in the 19th Century contributed to declines in beaver, river otter, and other furbearer populations. Through regulated harvest programs, furbearer populations were restored, and the development of best management practices (BMPs) by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in collaboration with state and federal agencies, has improved the welfare of trapped animals (White et al. 2010, 2021). Modernization, as an outcome coincidental with increased urbanization-suburbanization, is contributing to a society less dependent on utilitarian uses of wildlife such as hunting and trapping for food or revenue sources (Decker et al. 2012). One byproduct is an anthropomorphic way of thinking about human-animal relationships (Manfredo et al. 2020b). Urban-suburban lifestyles may contribute to, or at least be associated with, increasing wealth, decreasing the need 6 for subsistence use of animals and correspondingly increasing the need for social affiliation and belongingness (Manfredo et al. 2003). Human demographics are changing as well. For example, the number of Hispanic and Asian families in the US has increased, which provides more diverse values in society (Learn 2019). Hispanic, Asian and African American families reported less approval of activities such as trapping and having more mutualistic wildlife value orientations (NSSF 2019, Manfredo et al. 2020a). The mix of cultures and values provide opportunities but also pose a challenge with wildlife management and how to handle human- wildlife conflicts for the future. In addition to diversification of cultures, some states are experiencing a division of mutualistic and utilitarian beliefs toward wildlife (Teel et al. 2005, Teel and Manfredo 2010, Manfredo et al. 2018). This separation of values is likely to create continual differences of opinion about how wildlife should be managed and how publics respond to management decisions involving wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2017). The animal rights movement and negative representation of trapping through media, coincidental to the broad social shift described as modernization, moved society toward a more protectionist view of animal welfare and wildlife. Attitudes associated with trapping are focused on ethical and humane treatment of the animal (White et al. 2015b). Wildlife agencies recognizing the public are highly uninformed on the subject would benefit by informing the public on ways trapping is ethical and humane. Approval of trapping is greatest among the public when the reason is for wildlife restoration, population control, food or to protect property (NSSF 2019). Similar results regarding reasons for the approval of trapping were reported in a study conducted with residents of Colorado (Manfredo et al. 1999). Colorado residents (61.1%) were not in favor of trapping and believed “the ban of trapping would eliminate a cruel form of animal capture and ensure the preservation of some types of wildlife.” Armstrong and Rossi 7 (2000) investigated perspectives of state furbearer biologists on the status of avocational trapping and revealed 5 emergent issues that affect participation. Armstrong and Rossi describe avocational trapping as the group of trappers considered being recreational, fur, hobbyist or commercial. Avocational trapping was collectively considered a more appropriate descriptor than recreational according to wildlife biologists. That study of state furbearer biologists reported anti-trapping sentiment, recruitment, pelt values, image, and land access as barriers or factors affecting the participation of avocational trappers (Armstrong and Rossi 2000). Potential ways to change the public perception of an avocational trapper are to modify trapping education through evaluating its effectiveness and for biologists to better communicate the role of BMPs, and the values of trappers, to the public. A decrease in direct experience with hunting and trapping among conservation professionals was proposed as a factor creating a workforce less knowledgeable in the subject of trapping and its role in wildlife management (Muth et al. 2006). Turnover of personnel within the wildlife profession is inevitable due to retirement, new fields of expertise, and changing staff dynamics in the workplace. To stay relevant and align with the values of beneficiaries of the wildlife trust, an updated assessment is needed to reveal underlying beliefs and attitudes of current professionals. New employees with different sociodemographic backgrounds entering wildlife agencies may be opposed to some historic approaches to wildlife in management or the pursuit of wildlife as recreation (Teel and Manfredo 2010). Much of the new generation of conservation professionals may not share similar experiences with wildlife as previous generations. By the early 20th century, state and federal agencies had been given responsibility for the management of wildlife. To continue to fulfill their duties to the public, state wildlife agency (SWA) professionals establish trust by being fair and transparent with the growing diversity of stakeholders (Riley et al. 2018). This outcome 8 may be more likely when stakeholders view SWA professionals as reflecting similar values and beliefs as their own (Teel and Manfredo 2010). 1998 Comparative Survey Use of foot-hold traps to capture wildlife is one of the most controversial topics within public view and among conservation professionals (Muth et al. 2006). The 1998 questionnaire asked respondents whether they agreed with outlawing the use of leghold traps and their reasons for or against (the term leghold, as opposed to the current accepted term, foothold, was used in the 1998 survey; Muth et al. 1998). Nearly 58% of TWS members at that time expressed opposition to outlawing use of leghold traps while 27.8 % supported and 14.1% conveyed no opinion. Common reasons to support a included unnecessary pain or stress on furbearers that are trapped (96.6%), and trapping poses the possibility of harming or killing non-target species (82.8%). Reasons for opposition to outlawing the use of leghold traps included: it is an efficient method to harvest furbearers (87.4%) and it is an important tool for managing furbearer populations (83.9%). Responses to use of leghold traps as a wildlife management tool were divided between the groups of respondents. Personal experience, professional knowledge, and subcultural norms may account for the difference in responses by conservation professionals (Muth et al. 2006). The wildlife profession is continuing to change in many ways, especially in the sociodemographic backgrounds of conservation professionals in the workforce (Urbanek et al. 2018). Differences in sociodemographic backgrounds, experiences, and education are contributing to a shift in the values and beliefs of professionals toward wildlife management. A difference in response by age groups (<38 years, 34–48 years, > 48 years) to the statement, “wildlife and fish species are resources to be harvested in a sustainable way and used for human 9 benefit” was evident in 1998 (Muth et al. 2002). The older age groups of respondents agreed with statements depicting wildlife as resources more frequently than the 2 younger age groups. More of the younger age group agreed than other age groups with statements such as, “I believe that wildlife animals have the same rights as human beings” and “it is morally wrong to kill wildlife for human sport.” Differences were detected between youngest (52.2%) and oldest age groups (39.3%) in favor of outlawing the use of leghold traps (Muth et al. 2002). Potential changes occurring within the profession appear consistent with those of the public. Assessment of trends in wildlife professionals’ attitudes toward specific issues and ethics relating to wildlife management provides insights for both agencies and professional organizations in efforts to ensure relevancy. I expect to see a modest change similar to what is occurring in the public with wildlife value orientations leaning toward more support of mutualism and less utilitarian. This modest change I predict will occur more in younger generations than older. The information provided in this chapter and throughout this thesis will help inform leaders in the profession regarding trends in the degree of divergence between professionals and traditional stakeholders, as well as convergence toward broader societal attitudes and beliefs. Research Objectives The goal of my research was to determine change over time in attitudes and beliefs of TWS members. My primary objectives were to: (1) measure current attitudes and beliefs in 2020 of TWS members; (2) determine if beliefs and attitudes of TWS members’ toward wildlife and uses of wildlife differed from those measured in 1998; and (3) identify generational differences between members on specific statements. 10 METHODS Study Population I assumed members of TWS served as a proxy for wildlife conservation professionals in North America, who were the population of interest. The Wildlife Society is an international professional scientific organization of 10,855 members (at time of survey) in wildlife science, management, and conservation (The Wildlife Society 2020). The organization’s purpose is to enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science-based management and conservation. The Society was founded in 1937 to address the need of a central organization to establish professional and ethical standards and promote communication within the wildlife conservation and management profession. Members exist in every U.S. state, Canadian Province, and 164 members are from at least 15 other countries. The 1998 comparison survey used stratified sampling in which 500 questionnaires were sent to female TWS members and 500 were sent to male TWS members. Survey Instrument A survey instrument, updated from a 1998 version (Muth et al. 1998), was designed and conducted through a web based Qualtrics online survey software (Qualtrics International Inc., Provo, Utah, USA). Qualtrics survey software is a platform used to design, distribute, and analyze surveys through a more research user base experience. Online survey software enabled our survey to be more accessible, test and edit in real time, as well as gain insights into the survey results through time. The 18-page mail-back questionnaire used in the 1998 study consisted of 119 questions aimed at identifying the attitudes and beliefs of conservation professionals related to management philosophy, ethical considerations, sociocultural factors, specific management 11 practices, selected wildlife and fish harvest activities and uses, and sociodemographic characteristics. Questions relating to hunting, fishing and trapping were asked throughout the 5 sections of the survey. The 1998 survey was administered to a sample frame comprised of a subset of members from 4 professional organizations, including The Wildlife Society. The 2020 questionnaire consisted of 6 sections that included questions about sources of information, outdoor activity frequency, views about management, level of appropriateness toward specific management activities, trapping and demographics. A total of 26 questions, comprised of 10 multi-item Likert scale questions, were included in the online questionnaire (Appendix B) with combined sections from the 1998 version. Questionnaire Implementation The survey instrument asked respondents to identify the level of importance of 21 sources of information they would use to inform themselves about wildlife conservation issues. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1= “not at all important” to 5= “extremely important.” Section 2 of the questionnaire prompted the respondents to select how frequently they have participated in 18 outdoor activities in the last 5 years. Frequency of outdoor activity ranged from 0= “not at all” to 3= “more than 20 times.” Section 3 of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide information on their personal views about management. It consisted of 6 sets of multi-item questions and measured beliefs on a 6-point scale on level of agreement where 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree” and 6= “don’t know.” Views about management included 4 statements of the acceptability of hunting and trapping, 14 statements about wildlife management in North America, 6 statements of ethical issues related to all management activities, 8 statements about ethical acceptability of harvest of wildlife, 8 statements associated with the opportunity to participate in hunting and an additional 12 8 associated with the opportunity to participate in trapping. Section 4 consisted of 26 statements about specific management activities and were measured on a 6-point scale ranging from 1= “extremely inappropriate” to 5= “extremely appropriate” and 6= “don’t know.” A section devoted to trapping consisted of 3 subset questions about respondents’ view on outlawing the use of foothold traps, the level of familiarity with Best Management Practices (BMPs) of trapping and the overall level of support for trapping BMPs. Skip-and-display logic were used in this section on trapping, which enabled participants to move forward in the survey if they had little knowledge or familiarity with trapping. The first question in the trapping section asked respondents whether the use of foothold traps to trap species classified as a furbearer should be outlawed and was comprised of 3 answer choices: 1= “strongly agree”, 2= “strongly disagree” and 3= “no opinion.” Depending on the level of agreement a respondent answered the previous question with a display logic presented a set of 8 reasons why the foothold trap should be outlawed or should not be outlawed. A text box labeled “other” was included in the list of reasons for each response choice to provide further explanation for their reasoning. A “no opinion” option was available for participants who chose not to answer the question about the use of foothold traps. Participants who chose this option were prompted with a follow up question to ask why they do not have a formulated opinion. Two response choices were provided as a follow up question: “I don’t know enough about the topic” or “I have an opinion, but I don’t care to express it.” The level of familiarity with BMPs for trapping was measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1= “not at all familiar” to 4= “extremely familiar.” If a respondent chose “not at all familiar” with BMPs the survey automatically skipped to the final section that contained questions about demographics. If participants indicated they were familiar with BMPs, they 13 were asked for their level of support of BMPs on a 6-point scale ranging from 1= “strongly oppose” to 5= “strongly support and 6= “don’t know.” Depending on the answer chosen, display logic displayed either 6 reasons to support or 6 reasons to oppose BMPs. Participants were provided with 6 reasons listed to choose from, 1 write in text box and a “don’t know” option was included. The final section of the questionnaire was 14 questions regarding demographics. Questions included the highest level of education completed, what academic or professional field respondents earned a degree in, whether they were currently a student, participation in any professional development programs, current employment status, years of employment in the profession, what kind of organization employed in, responsibilities of your job, membership of professional organizations, description of current and childhood residence, current state residing in, year born, and gender. The questionnaire concluded with a text box for additional comments or views participants would like to share. The survey instrument was evaluated and approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (Study number: 00003262). We identified key variables to measure in the 1998 questionnaire to make cross sectional comparisons of how attitudes and beliefs of the TWS membership population had changed from 1998 to 2020. Key variables included specific statements on views and ethical considerations about management, specific harvest activities, views about management activities, specific trapping activities, and demographics. In addition to focusing on key variables to make a comparison over time, we needed to include more trapping specific questions to understand familiarity and overall support of recent trapping initiatives as well as contemporary issues to both hunting and trapping. Fishing related questions asked in 1998 were omitted from the 2020 survey to accommodate new questions. 14 Pilot Survey I conducted a pilot survey to gain feedback and insight into how the questionnaire read, determine if focus questions were understandable, detect any leading questions and elicit overall concerns with the survey. Constructive feedback gained from the pilot survey participants identified wording that was misleading and questions that needed clarification. The pilot was conducted 4 November - 01 December 2019. A reminder email was sent out on 14 November 2019 to those who had not responded. The sample population included participants from professional development workshops in 2019 from the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and Trapping Matters programs. Forty participants were randomly selected from the cumulative list of both programs (n= 131) and sent an anonymous survey link from Qualtrics software to their email addresses. Participant email addresses were provided by administrative support through both programs. A total of 22 respondents (55%) completed the pilot survey. Revisions to the final survey included changing the format of the online questionnaire software, reordering questions, and addressing minor grammatical errors. Nonresponse To obtain the email address list of members of TWS, all communication and access to the email address list was limited to only TWS staff. This did not permit me access to records to perform an examination of nonresponse bias using a different method based off known respondents. I examined responses of the last 100 respondents received and participants who submitted a survey during the final reminder compared to earlier respondents. The differences from the early respondents and the last 100 and final wave reminder respondents assumes they might reflect key differences among respondents and non-respondents. Respondents who submit 15 a survey later in the collection period may be similar to nonrespondents in cases where there are several points of contact (Choi et al. 1992, Coon et al. 2020). Data Collection My approach to administering the questionnaire was an attempted census of the entire TWS membership (N=10,588 at the time of survey) for whom email addresses were available. An anonymous survey link was generated through the Qualtrics survey software and included an invitation email sent out by administrative staff at TWS. The survey was implemented following a modified version of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al. 2014). Administration of the survey included 4 waves of emails sent to membership by systematic timing through the months of January and February. An email was sent out on 08 January 2020 to all members of TWS by the current president to announce a questionnaire was forthcoming the following week, describe the purpose, and who was conducting the research. The official email invitation with an active link to Qualtrics, was emailed 14 January 2020 with a first reminder email sent out on 22 January 2020. A second reminder email was sent out to membership on 4 February 2020. On 22 February a third reminder was sent out to membership and a last plea was sent on 28 February 2020. Each reminder contained a link to the survey instrument, but respondents were only able to complete the survey one time per computer. Settings in the Qualtrics program helped to safeguard against participants attempting to submit multiple survey responses. Data Analysis IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 was used for these analyses (IBM Corp, 2019). Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated for each variable for comparison with the 1998 data. I conducted an ordinal logistic regression to examine differences in statements toward wildlife and uses of wildlife within the context of wildlife management of 16 TWS members from 1998 and 2020. The reference group used throughout to distinguish change over time were TWS members from the 1998 questionnaire. Statements included in this analysis were treated as ordinal since they have an order to their levels. Social sciences commonly use scales as continuous variables (Vaske 2008). Time was treated as the independent or predictor variable coded as 0 for 1998 and 1 for 2020. Select statements were used as the dependent variable. Interpretation of results from the ordinal logistic regression were converted from ordered log odds (logits) to odds ratio. Odds express the likelihood of an event occurring relative to the likelihood of an event not occurring. To change log odds to odds-ratio requires exponentiating the log odds: Odds = exp [log odds]. To determine generational differences of mean attitudinal scores, I performed an ordinal logistic regression to assess if age was a predictor on specific statements. The predictor or independent variable was grouped into 6 age groups in increments of 10 ranging from 20 through 70. The item score from the selected statement was the dependent variable. In order to choose the reference category in SPSS, I recoded the age group for the 20–29 age group to be the reference group. Interpretation of results are similar to the change over time analysis and comparison of the reference group to the older age group (60– 69 yrs). For this chapter, I focus on statements with the greatest change during the past 22 years. These statements include topics such as ethical issues about management activities, views about management, and the ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife. The first statement regarding ethical issues about management activities is minimizing the pain and suffering of individual animals should be important criteria in wildlife management. The second statement is humans can harvest surplus production of wildlife populations without harming their long-term 17 population viability if done properly. Lastly, the harvest of wildlife is more ethically acceptable if it involves fair chase and sportsmanship. RESULTS Response Rates Of 10,588 emailed invitations, 4,844 (45.7%) recorded submissions were obtained. There were 1,276 submissions (26.3%) removed due to incomplete responses to key survey items or the entire survey. Identifiable survey responses of 3,568 (33.7%) members, of whom 3,247 (91.0%) self-identified as being a TWS member when asked in the survey. The other 223 (6.3%) responses identified as non-TWS membership and 98 (2.7%) responded to being a former member. Respondents who identified as non- and no longer members of TWS were excluded from the sample. After excluding all non-TWS members, 3,247 (30.7%) usable responses remained. No statistical differences were found between the last 100 respondents or respondents from the last reminder when compared to earlier respondents. Mean scores for specific statements were calculated between the 3 groups and little difference was detected. The proportion of respondents who identified as male (59.7%) or female (37.7%) closely matched the demographics of the society’s membership (C. Kovach, The Wildlife Society, unpublished data). Respondent Characteristics of 1998 Of respondents surveyed in 1998 (n= 842), 53.8% reported being male and 46.2% female, which reflects the equal sex ratio used in the stratified sampling. The average age was 39.2 years (SD: 11.9 Range: 19–88). Of the 91.1% of TWS members who responded to being employed in a Natural Resources-related field, 58.4% reported being employed by a state or federal agency. Members who reported being employed in a Natural Resources field had a relatively even distribution of years employed with 32.4% having 11–20 years. Members 18 reported a high level of education: 96.4% reported having earned >1 college degree, with 58.1% having gained a graduate level degree. Information on respondent’s state of residence was not available on the survey at that time. Respondent Characteristics of 2020 Table 1 shows respondent characteristics: 59.7% were male and 37.7% were female. The mean age was 46.9 years (SD= 16.0, range: 19–91). Female participants reported a mean age of 39.7 yrs. (SD= 12.9, range: 19–87 yrs.) and male participants had a mean age of 51.5 yrs. (SD= 16.2, range: 19–91 yrs.). A slight increase but similarly elevated levels of education were reported in comparison to 1998, with 96.9% of respondents indicating they completed a college degree and 69.4% having gained a graduate degree. Respondents ranged in the kind of organization they were employed: state agency (29.2%) and institution of higher education (22.9%) being most frequent. Participants reported 41.3% having been employed for > 20 years in their professional field. TWS respondents were almost evenly divided in current place of residence along a gradient from rural to large urban. Similar results were reported for place of childhood residence. Respondents were well-represented geographically within all 50 states, 6 Canadian provinces, and 15 other countries (Appendix B). Respondents reported a diverse background of job responsibilities ranging from land acquisition to education and training to policy formulation. The question allowed participants to select all that apply to 17 different job responsibilities listed; the majority included research (53.1%), monitoring (42.6%), and non-game species management (40.2%). Popular outdoor activities reported by members included non-consumptive activities such as wildlife viewing (74.5%), hiking (72.1%), and citizen science (44.2%). Hunting opportunities included small (18.4%) and big game hunting (33.5%). 19 Membership in professional organizations, societies, and associations were reported with 56.8% of members being involved in an environmental or conservation-related organization. Respondents had the opportunity to write in other organizations with whom they held a membership, which ranged from specific disciplines to broader professional fields. Respondents reported 16% having attended professional development opportunities and trainings such as Trapping Matters, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and The National Conservation Leadership Institute. Two additional open-ended text boxes were available for write-in responses. Members reported a diverse set of workshops and trainings they attended during their years of employment. Members recounted a collection of sources of information they rely on as important conservation information. Professional associations (M= 4.76) and personal experiences (M= 4.56) were found most important. Scientific journals, professional colleagues, professional conferences, and professional workshops were among those listed as extremely important. Less important sources of information included television, animal protection organizations and sporting magazines. 20 Table 1: Self-reported demographic variables by members of The Wildlife Society (TWS). Shown are the sample sizes of respondents (n) and percent (%) of the sample. Data were derived from a self-administered, web-based questionnaire (Qualtrics) sent in 2020 to all known members of TWS (14 Jan–10 Mar). Demographic variable n % Highest level of education 3,244 Graduate of Technical/trade school 24 0.7% Completed some college courses but did not graduate 58 1.8% Two-year community college degree (Associate’s degree) 21 0.6% College/University degree (Bachelor’s) 891 27.5% Master’s degree 1,383 42.6% Professional school degree (e.g., Veterinary Medicine) 38 1.2% Doctorate (Ph.D. or equivalent) 829 25.6% Current student status 3,235 Yes 456 14.1% No 2,779 85.9% Best describes you currently 3,234 Currently employed in a natural resource organization 2,100 64.9% Currently employed not in a natural resource organization 265 8.2% Previously employed in a natural resource field 296 9.2% Never employed in the natural resource field 120 3.7% Retired 453 14.0% How long have you been or were employed in your 3,212 professional field Less than 5 years 678 21.1% 5–10 years 575 17.9% 11–20 years 634 19.7% More than 20 years 1,325 41.3% Kind of organization are you employed 3,139 Federal agency 626 19.9% State agency 918 29.2% Local government agency 106 3.4% Private sector corporation or business 445 14.2% Institution of higher education 720 22.9% Non-profit/ non-governmental organization 324 10.3% Describe the place you currently live 3,237 Rural Area (<2,500 people) 687 21.2% Town (2,500–10,000 people) 575 17.8% Small City (10,001–50,000 people) 749 23.1% Medium City (50,001–250,000 people) 713 22.0% Large City (>250,000 people) 513 15.8% 21 Table 1 (cont’d) Demographic variable n % Describe the place where you lived most of your childhood 3,231 Rural Area (<2,500 people) 855 26.5% Town (2,500-10,000 people) 651 20.1% Small City (10,001–50,000 people) 644 19.9% Medium City (50,001–250,000 people) 585 18.1% Large City (>250,000 people) 496 15.4% What is your gender 3,229 Male 1,928 59.7% Female 1,218 37.7% Non-binary 12 0.4% Prefer not to answer 71 2.2% Age 3,145 19 and under 3 0.1% 20–29 504 16.0% 30–39 726 23.1% 40–49 606 19.3% 50–59 483 15.4% 60–69 516 16.4% 70 and beyond 306 9.7% 22 Change Over Time *** Wildlife should not be managed… Killing wildlife for management purposes… *** Managers should give priority to… Wildlife are resources to be harvested in a… *** Wildlife need to be managed to… *** Hunting and trapping of certain… *** Primary responsibility of managers… *** Focus of wildlife management should… *** Harvest of wildlife can be done… * Regulated harvest of wildlife compatible… Some wildlife need to be managed to limit… *** Wildlife have value in and of itself… 1 2 3 4 5 1998 2020 Figure 1: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward beliefs about wildlife management. Statements were measured on a scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) by members of The Wildlife Society for surveys conducted in 1998 (Muth et al. 1998) and 2020. Statistically detectable differences are indicated by asterisks *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. There was little detectable change in beliefs about management 1998–2020 (Figure 1). An increased frequency of agreement, however, was detected with statements related to active management such as “humans can harvest surplus production of wildlife populations without harming their long-term population viability if done properly.” The odds of participants in 2020 responding more favorably to this statement (item statement score) was 1.69 (95% CI, 1.46 to 1.95) times that of participants in 1998 (Wald χ2 (1)= 49.08, P= <0.001). Members in 2020 23 scored greater on the level of agreement of this item than in 1998. Coincidentally, the mean belief scores related to intrinsic values retained by wildlife increased 1998–2020. Belief about intrinsic values did not, however, lead directly to an animal rights orientation. *** Hunting is a cruel activity that dehumanizes people who participate in it. *** It is morally wrong to kill wildlife for human sport or recreation. *** Trapping is a cruel activity that dehumanizes people who participate in it. * Wild animals have the same rights as humans. *** Minimizing the pain and suffering of animals should be important criteria. 1 2 3 4 5 1998 2020 Figure 2: Survey responses on the level of agreement of statements toward ethical considerations of wildlife management activities. Statements were measured on a scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) by members of The Wildlife Society for surveys conducted in 1998 (Muth et al. 1998) and 2020. Statistically detectable differences are indicated by asterisks *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. Of 5 replicated statements (1998 vs 2020) toward the ethical considerations of wildlife management activities, minimizing the pain and suffering of animals had the most reported change over time (Figure 2). Time was a predictor (P= 0.001) in the statement “minimizing the pain and suffering of individual animals should be important criteria in wildlife management” indicating a difference between responses in 1998 and 2020. A greater proportion of respondents in 2020 agreed with the statement than in 1998. The odds of participants in 2020 24 responding more favorably toward this statement was 2.66 (95% CI, 2.30 to 3.07) times that of participants in 1998 (Wald χ2 (1)= 179.12, P=<0.001). *** Ethical acceptability- it reduces nonagricultural land damage. *** Ethical acceptability- it involves fair chase and sportsmanship. Ethical acceptability- it reduces the period of time that a harvested animal may… *** Ethical acceptability- it benefits the long term health and viability of the… *** Ethical acceptability- it utilizes the harvested animal. 1 2 3 4 5 1998 2020 Figure 3: Survey responses on level of agreement of statements toward ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife. Statements were measured on a scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) by members of The Wildlife Society for surveys conducted in 1998 (Muth et al. 1998) and 2020. Statistically detectable differences are indicated by asterisks *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. The greatest level of change was associated with the statement, “the ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife if it involves fair chase and sportsmanship” (Figure 3). The odds of 2020 participants responding more favorably toward this statement was 2.83 (95% CI, 2.44 to 3.28) times that of 1998 participants (Wald χ2 (1)= 191.99, P=<0.001). A slight increase in what would be considered utilitarian orientation was observed in consideration of the ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife. However, it is recognized that ethics are standards of behavior rather than beliefs. This increase included considerations of use of animals, if practices increased health, or reduced damages. 25 Lethal poisoning as a method of predator… *** Use of bait to hunt black bears. "Varmint" hunting (the shooting of… *** Releasing captive-reared upland game… *** Hunting wildlife for a set of… *** Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree)… *** Game ranching, in which big game… *** Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree)… *** Use of foothold traps by fur trappers… *** Raising furbearer species in… Fertility control as a method for managing… *** Shooting by trained professionals to… ** Use of cage-type or box traps by… *** Use of advanced archery equipment to… *** Trapping by private animal pest… Use of "quick kill" traps by fur trappers to… ** Fur trapping by people who sell pelts to… *** Trapping by trained wildlife agency… *** Use of traditional archery equipment… *** Stocking of native game animals to… 1 2 3 4 5 1998 2020 Figure 4: Survey responses to level of agreement of statements toward beliefs about specific management activities. Statements were measured on a scale of 1 (“extremely inappropriate”) to 5 (“extremely appropriate”) by members of The Wildlife Society for surveys conducted in 1998 (Muth et al. 1998) and 2020. Statistically detectable differences are indicated by asterisks *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. Attitudes toward appropriateness of hunting and trapping activities 1998–2020 indicated stable to slightly more positive attitudes about active or intrusive types of wildlife management (Figure 4). Notable increases in acceptability include the use of dogs, trapping by pest control firms or trained professionals, and archery hunting. Exceptions included activities such as game ranching and raising of furbearer species in commercial facilities for eventual sale. Mean 26 attitude scores about shooting by trained professionals to manage wildlife populations, however, increased 1998–2020. Generational Differences in 2020 Age structures of 1998 and 2020 respondents are shown in figure 5 and figure 6. Participants of all 6 age groups responded in strong agreement to wildlife species having value in and of themselves above and beyond use by humans. Similar results were observed among other statements including “minimizing the pain and suffering of individual species should be an important criteria of wildlife management,” “hunting on property where wildlife are confined by high fences is unethical” and “the harvest of wildlife is ethically acceptable if it utilizes the harvested animal.” Several differences, however, were detected between age groups. The older the respondent age group, the greater the frequency of that group to indicate agreement with the statement “wildlife are resources to be harvested in a sustainable way and used for human benefit.” Compared with the youngest group (20–29 yrs.), the odds for respondents in the older group (60–70 yrs.) to respond more favorably to the statement (indicating more agreement) is 2.85 times (CI 95% 2.20 to 3.69) more likely (Wald χ2 (1)= 63.36, P= <0.001). An inverse trend was revealed in response to the statement “I believe wild animals have the same rights as humans.” Compared with the youngest group, the odds for the respondents in the older group to respond favorably to the statement indicating more agreement is 0.33 times (CI 95% 0.27 to 0.42) less likely (Wald χ2 (1)= 91.58, P= <0.001). In other words, the older the respondents, the more likely they disagree with the statement. Management activities that further elicited generational differences included “raising furbearer species in commercial facilities for eventual sale of the pelts on the commercial fur market” and “hunting for a large set of antlers/horns, or to have the animal mounted by a taxidermist.” Compared with the youngest 27 group, odds for respondents in the older group to respond more favorably to the statement (indicating more agreement) was 4.23 times (CI 95% 3.36 to 5.32) more likely (Wald χ2 (1)= 150.13, P= <0.001). The older the respondents, the most likely they were to agree with the statement “raising furbearer species in commercial facilities for eventual sale of pelts on the commercial fur market.” Age frequency of TWS members in 2020 100 90 80 70 Frequency 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 Age Figure 5: Age frequency distribution of the survey population of members in The Wildlife Society (TWS) in 2020. Data were derived from a web-based questionnaire (Qualtrics) sent in 2020 to all known members of TWS (14 Jan–10 Mar). 28 Age frequency of TWS members in 1998 100 90 80 70 60 Frequency 50 40 30 20 10 0 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 Age Figure 6: Age frequency distribution of the survey population of members in The Wildlife Society (TWS) in 1998. Data were derived from a self-administered, mail-back questionnaire in 1998 to a sample of 1,000 members of each organization. Geographical Representation on Key Statements Attitudinal scores for the statement “wildlife are resources to be harvested in a sustainable way and used for human benefit” were reported higher in states such as Mississippi (M= 3.83), Missouri (M= 3.96), and West Virginia (M= 3.86). Measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 2 shows the geographical representation of each state and TWS section on key statements and categories. Similar results were reported for mutualistic statements such as “wildlife have the same rights as humans” and “it is morally wrong to kill wildlife for human sport or recreation.” States with greater scores but still less than full agreement on the statement “wildlife have the same rights as humans” included those in the east (e.g., Connecticut (M= 2.88), and Washington D.C (M= 2.86)) or west (e.g., California (M= 2.95), and Hawaii (M= 2.90)). 29 Table 2: Survey responses to the level of approval of others participating in legal hunting and legal trapping regardless of their opinion. Statements measured on a scale of 1 (“strongly disapprove”) to 5 (“strongly approve”) by members of The Wildlife Society for the survey conducted in 2020 displayed by the state of residence. Wildlife are resources and animals have the same rights were measured on a 5-point scale 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Factor 1 represents 7 statements about the care of animals and ecosystem within wildlife management. Factor 2 represents 7 statements about utilitarian approaches to wildlife management. Ethical acceptability category is a combined 8 statements of the ethical acceptability toward the harvest of wildlife. Shown are the sample sizes of respondents (n) and mean scores ( x ) of the sample. Data were derived from a web-based questionnaire (Qualtrics) sent in 2020 sent to all known members of TWS (14 Jan–10 Mar). Hunting Trapping Wildlife are Animals have Ethical Section and State n approval approval resources the same rights Factor 1 Factor 2 acceptability Canadian 95 4.30 3.83 2.77 2.78 2.87 3.43 3.91 Western 312 4.14 3.16 2.69 2.90 2.95 3.47 4.02 California 253 4.11 3.13 2.66 2.95 2.98 3.46 4.01 Hawaii 11 4.00 3.00 2.55 2.90 2.91 3.50 4.03 Nevada 48 4.33 3.31 2.94 2.69 2.82 3.52 4.05 Southwest 297* 4.67 3.91 3.36 2.33 2.59 3.83 4.22 Arizona 70 4.49 3.45 3.13 2.72 2.80 3.65 4.04 Mexico 2 5.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 4.43 4.25 New Mexico 49 4.76 3.61 3.37 2.29 2.66 3.86 4.29 Texas 176 4.73 4.18 3.45 2.18 2.49 3.89 4.27 Northwest 513 4.66 3.67 3.11 2.37 2.65 3.72 4.18 Alaska 89 4.71 3.88 3.37 2.18 2.58 3.83 4.17 Idaho 94 4.70 3.78 3.32 2.56 2.68 3.74 4.21 Montana 110 4.83 3.34 3.11 2.28 2.61 3.74 4.29 Oregon 108 4.49 3.55 2.99 2.48 2.74 3.65 4.13 Washington 112 4.59 3.83 2.84 2.34 2.63 3.66 4.10 Central Mountains 414 4.70 3.90 3.29 2.32 2.55 3.83 4.22 and Plains Colorado 145 4.68 3.66 3.14 2.42 2.63 3.80 4.20 Kansas 40 4.75 4.40 3.42 2.10 2.42 3.95 4.30 30 Table 2 (cont’d) Hunting Trapping Wildlife are Animals have Ethical Section and State n approval approval resources the same rights Factor 1 Factor 2 acceptability Nebraska 46 4.76 4.26 3.37 2.27 2.43 3.85 4.18 North Dakota 40 4.90 4.55 3.56 2.11 2.38 3.81 4.23 South Dakota 25 4.92 4.44 3.68 2.12 2.45 3.98 4.17 Utah 49 4.49 3.69 3.33 2.51 2.69 3.77 4.22 Wyoming 69 4.75 3.54 3.20 2.28 2.54 3.82 4.23 North Central 477 4.74 4.28 3.39 2.24 2.49 3.89 4.25 Illinois 50 4.59 4.24 3.14 2.58 2.58 3.84 4.29 Indiana 36 4.78 4.39 3.22 2.23 2.45 3.85 4.25 Iowa 29 4.83 4.24 3.52 2.46 2.61 3.95 4.13 Michigan 73 4.70 4.24 3.44 2.18 2.47 3.83 4.23 Minnesota 75 4.73 4.16 3.24 2.32 2.52 3.83 4.16 Missouri 51 4.90 4.78 3.96 1.80 2.23 4.07 4.35 Ohio 44 4.70 4.07 3.36 2.24 2.61 3.89 4.23 Wisconsin 119 4.75 4.23 3.35 2.21 2.48 3.91 4.28 Northeast 368 4.67 4.11 3.23 2.39 2.54 3.77 4.24 Maine 40 4.48 3.85 3.22 2.62 2.73 3.72 4.27 Connecticut 10 3.90 3.40 2.50 2.88 2.97 3.45 3.90 Massachusetts 31 4.87 4.03 3.13 2.30 2.48 3.77 4.32 New Hampshire 21 4.62 3.71 3.19 2.30 2.61 3.76 4.16 Rhode Island 9 4.56 4.33 2.89 2.67 2.60 3.40 4.17 Vermont 27 4.70 4.11 2.96 2.15 2.51 3.74 4.18 New Jersey 25 4.48 3.96 3.08 2.36 2.66 3.68 4.05 Delaware 11 4.91 4.27 3.82 2.36 2.52 4.06 4.28 New York 90 4.70 4.09 3.23 2.36 2.48 3.72 4.26 Pennsylvania 74 4.72 4.27 3.25 2.49 2.53 3.84 4.34 West Virginia 30 4.87 4.67 3.86 2.17 2.33 4.02 4.20 31 Table 2 (cont’d) Hunting Trapping Wildlife are Animals have Ethical Section and State n approval approval resources the same rights Factor 1 Factor 2 acceptability Southeast 660 4.72 4.22 3.43 2.18 2.49 3.88 4.27 Alabama 34 4.85 4.50 3.68 1.88 2.34 4.01 4.40 Arkansas 53 4.77 4.57 3.72 1.77 2.40 4.01 4.30 Washington D.C. 8 4.00 3.13 2.63 2.86 2.97 3.09 3.88 Florida 86 4.58 4.06 3.17 2.26 2.55 3.72 4.17 Georgia 58 4.90 4.40 3.34 2.07 2.38 3.94 4.41 Kentucky 33 4.79 4.21 3.39 2.41 2.56 4.00 4.40 Louisiana 27 4.78 4.41 3.59 2.23 2.47 3.95 4.26 Maryland 40 4.73 4.23 3.40 2.15 2.49 3.94 4.33 Mississippi 47 4.91 4.41 3.83 1.85 2.27 4.10 4.41 North Carolina 67 4.69 4.24 3.56 2.11 2.38 3.81 4.23 Oklahoma 25 4.72 3.88 3.48 2.28 2.57 3.97 4.26 South Carolina 47 4.68 4.04 3.32 2.62 2.65 3.81 4.26 Tennessee 56 4.71 4.25 3.57 2.07 2.46 3.88 4.25 Virginia 79 4.57 3.97 3.29 2.37 2.60 3.81 4.18 32 Acceptability of Trapping and Foothold Traps Members of TWS reported a strong level of approval for others participating in legal hunting and legal trapping regardless of their opinion. Respondents in 2020 approved legal hunting (M= 4.62) more than legal trapping (M= 3.93). Members living in West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas and Alabama had a higher attitudinal approval score than other states (Table 2). A greater percentage of TWS members in 2020 strongly disagreed (45.0%) with the statement “foothold traps should be outlawed to trap species classified as a furbearer.” More respondents in 2020 reported (21.6%) not having an opinion on the topic than in 1998 (14.7%) (Table 3). Table 3: A comparison of self-reported responses by members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) 1998 vs. 2020, about whether foothold traps should be outlawed to trap species classified as a furbearer. Shown are the sample sizes of respondents (n) and percent (%) of the sample. Data were derived from a self-administered, mail-back questionnaire in 1998 and a web-based questionnaire (Qualtrics) sent in 2020 sent to all known members of TWS (14 Jan–10 Mar). TWS 1998 TWS 2020 n= 865 n= 3,232 Strongly disagree 46.1% 45.0% Strongly agree 38.4% 33.0% No opinion 14.7% 21.6% - I don’t know enough about the topic 75.5% - I have an opinion, but I don’t care to 24.5% express it DISCUSSION Attitudes and beliefs toward wildlife and about uses of wildlife remained relatively stable among TWS members since 1998. Responses from my 2020 survey, however, reveal a modest increasing trend toward mutualistic value orientations. In addition to acceptance of various uses of wildlife, even regulated trapping, TWS members reported a strong desire for humane 33 treatment and fair chase of wildlife. My research findings are consistent with previous work completed at a national level in the United States (Manfredo et al. 2003, Teel et al. 2005). Mutualistic value orientations toward wildlife are becoming more prevalent throughout the US (Manfredo et al. 2018). The trend revealed by my data depicts a gradual change in dominance away from utilitarian roots of the membership toward more mutualistic value orientations; the trend is most apparent in the youngest age classes, especially in Generation Z (those born in 1995 to 2012). The proportion of wildlife professionals that express value orientations characterized as utilitarian, however, appears greater than what might be expected from estimates of society as a whole, where 28% of the U.S. population is considered traditionalist or utilitarian (Manfredo et al. 2018). Mutualists throughout the US make up an estimated 35% of the population, with the remaining population considered pluralist or distanced. A comparative study in 2004 (Teel et al. 2005) of Western states in the US show an increase in mutualists of 4.7% and a commensurate decrease in utilitarian value orientations (Manfredo et al. 2018). States such as Alaska, Montana, North and South Dakota and West Virginia show high percentages of traditionalists while more mutualist states include California, Hawaii and Connecticut. Similar results to the national study were found in our results with the western states having more mutualistic than utilitarian wildlife value orientations toward wildlife and uses of wildlife. Positive attitudes associated with wildlife species such as coyotes and wolves have increased from 1978 to 2014 throughout the US (George et al. 2016). These results show an increase in the belief and concern for wildlife species outside of domestic animals. This trend in the US could be from the sociological driver of modernization and its effects on the population. 34 The support wildlife professionals express for trapping, differing from more general societal beliefs (Responsive Management 2016) may be because they judge trapping based on an understanding of the role in providing goods and services such as population and damage control. Professionals may have a greater direct knowledge of the activity, as opposed to members of the public at large who are swayed by anti-trapping misinformation (White et al. 2015b). Both agency professionals and the public were supportive of lethal wildlife management under certain circumstances such as controlling wildlife diseases, survival of species, preservation of habitats, wildlife damage, human safety, population management and food (Koval and Mertig 2004). Agency professionals were more supportive than the public in all situations. Acceptability of lethal management increases with the public the more severe a wildlife interaction is (Bruskotter and Way 2012). Members of society in the US may view trapping species such as beaver, that cause damage to land or human safety, negatively (Jonker et al. 2006). These experiences may lead to less support for trapping initiatives and result in nuisance problems associated with the species. A study conducted in 2016 of residents in Indiana, Wisconsin and Connecticut found that residents were supportive of trapping for reasons that include ecological, damage control and subsistence reasons (Responsive Management 2016). In addition to negative attitudes toward specific furbearer species, a lower acceptance capacity for beavers was found to be associated with higher acceptability of lethal beaver management actions (Siemer et al. 2013). Wildlife managers and professionals may have a different understanding of how to handle human-wildlife conflicts that include providing beneficiaries with services such as beaver population management, beaver dam removal permits and damage prevention education. A critical component of understanding management involving trapping is to understand the motivations a trapper might have toward participating. A study of trappers in 35 the Northeast found 5 factors that contribute to participation of a trapper including lifestyle orientation, animal control, nature appreciation, self-sufficiency, and affiliation (Daigle et al. 1998). In addition to the support of trapping, consistent beliefs toward specific active management practices suggested continued utilitarian orientations (Muth et al. 2006). Professionals working for agencies deal with ethical dilemmas during their roles as trust managers and managing wildlife (Lunney 2012). Conservation professionals reported the act of lethal control for large carnivores is justified if the humans are in immediate risk (Lute et al. 2018). Management actions such as lethal control were favorable to professionals who had more experience in the profession than those of younger professionals. This finding may account for the generational differences I detected. Research and monitoring are among the fundamental job responsibilities members of TWS handle in their professional roles. Education and understanding their roles as trust managers may contribute to them having a more insightful understanding of activities such as hunting and trapping. Value orientations toward wildlife and uses of wildlife have changed more slowly than I expected over the last 22 years by TWS members as proxy for practicing wildlife conservation professionals. Educational institutions are expanding, and wildlife science is becoming more specialized with diverse sub-disciplines. Programs involving conservation biology, wildlife ecology and social sciences are becoming more prominent in the profession along with a concurrent decrease in traditional wildlife management content. These new academic disciplines could be contributing to a new set of values and beliefs from younger professionals (Muth et al. 2002). With urbanization, families may not have the same opportunities to provide for traditional lifestyles involving outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing or trapping. Land access, time and 36 money could also contribute to a lack of experiences involving traditional activities (Karns et al. 2015). Value shifts within society take time to change and usually occur within generations. More than 2 decades of time may not be enough to detect complete changes of value orientations, but it is enough to see the shift within a professional society. Members of general society may be shifting toward a more protectionist view of the world and of wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2003) and my data suggest those in TWS may be changing with a slight lag in time, or conversely, immersion in the wildlife profession may result in adherence to and appreciation of more traditional attitudes and beliefs. The acceptability of sustainable uses such as legal hunting and legal trapping was evaluated for TWS members in 2020. Although both activities had high levels of approval, legal hunting was found to have more approval than legal trapping. Members of TWS were asked if they believed if leg hold (1998) and foothold (2020) traps should be outlawed in both 1998 and 2020. Participants in both time periods strongly disagreed with the statement which provided consistent results over time. More members in 2020 responded with having no opinion on the topic of foothold traps. Of the members who reported not having an opinion on the outlawing of foothold traps, more than half responded with not knowing enough about the topic and the remaining had an opinion but did not care to express it. The increase in not having an opinion could indicate some members may simply not have enough knowledge on the subject to make a definitive choice on their level of agreement, or it could mean they are conflicted because of empathy toward animals combined with an understanding and appreciation of the activity. Lack of knowledge could be the result of not having experiences with traditional outdoor activities such as trapping, or not being exposed to it in their job responsibilities (Muth et al. 2002). Those who responded to having an opinion about outlawing foothold traps but did not care to share it 37 may believe the topic is too sensitive or controversial to discuss and may lack trust in the survey’s confidentiality. The public is found to be accepting of trapping in certain circumstances, but they may not be knowledgeable of the benefits trapping brings to habitats, humans and wildlife management (White et al. 2015a). A decline in the participation of trapping and relevancy may be creating a gap in knowledge between the public and wildlife professionals toward the activity. This allows for improvement in agency professionals communication of the benefits of continued trapping, as well as knowledge gain in the subject as trust managers. Although the sample sizes of respondents in both time periods is different, the professional profile of TWS members is consistent. Employment of TWS members in 1998 and 2020 were highest with state agencies, and a greater proportion had a graduate level degree. Tenure in the profession differed between samples, with 1998 respondents had a higher percentage of professionals being employed 10–20 years whereas 2020 respondents had a higher percentage employed more than 20 years. The current and childhood residences were almost evenly divided between all 5 categories in both 1998 and 2020. Professionals in 2020 did however have more diverse academic degree programs. Lastly, job responsibilities of those in natural resource organizations in 1998 were similar to 2020 and included non-game species management, research and monitoring. A generation can be thought of as a collection of people born in each time period or as an inter-related social group that evolves as history unfolds over time (Lyons and Kuron 2014). A common trend found across generations is individualization where people are finding personal satisfaction and are more self-focused – what sociologists refer to as differentiation of the value structure of American society, of the “cult of the individual” (Muth 1991). Importance of material rewards, leisure time and career mobility are increasing in younger generations. 38 However, authority within a workplace organization still lies with age or older generations (Rasch 2018). Understanding workplace dynamics and attributes that may arise from different generations could help management integrate all generations in the workplace better. Adding to the trend of individualization, younger generations are spending more time near technology and less time outdoors and in nature (Louv 2008). This detachment to nature could result in a decline in nature relatedness in younger generations (Rasch 2018). Relatedly, my results indicate older participants have more agreement with statements involving utilitarian uses of wildlife such as believing wildlife are resources to be harvested in a sustainable way and used for human benefit than those in younger generations, while younger respondents agreed more with mutualistic statements including believing animals have the same rights as humans. The generational results from my study provide further confirmation of expectations I had regarding the difference between younger and older generations. With younger generations perhaps not having the same traditional experiences as older generations, results from my study show slight differences in responses from younger generations than mid-career or older adults in the profession. Professionals in the wildlife field are bringing in new perspectives from life experiences and sociodemographic backgrounds to the work force and to their profession. The alignment of professional values and beliefs with those of society will continue to make wildlife management relevant for the future as value orientations continue to shift. Wildlife professionals have responsibility to beneficiaries to conserve wildlife for present and future generations. Trust in departments of natural resources by stakeholders is reported to be critical to creating a relationship between beneficiaries and trust managers of wildlife (Gigliotti et al. 2020) 39 Limitations Although the 2020 survey instrument attempted to be as similar to the 1998 instrument as possible, some sampling differences occurred. The 1998 sampling scheme attempted to attain an equal sex ratio. Our 2020 sample, however, attempted to closely mirror the current demographics of TWS membership. This difference in sampling schemes may have some effect on estimates. My data are exclusively from a portion of TWS members whose total membership exceeds 10,500 members employed at various levels in all types of jobs within diverse organizations and are distributed widely throughout North America. My respondents geographically represent 50 states and 15 other countries, yet this population likely does not represent the full spectrum of people who consider themselves wildlife conservation professionals. Implications If support among wildlife professionals for various uses of wildlife such as trapping and hunting is desirable to sustain, an investment in continual education about their roles in wildlife management are likely to be helpful. Emphasis on techniques that explicitly address concerns about humane treatment of animals are predicted to sustain support among professionals. In addition to techniques that address concerns about humane treatment, further investigation and description into what constitutes fair chase could facilitate deliberation and awareness among professionals. Programs such as Trapping Matters, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and many others could be helpful for wildlife conservation professionals gaining experience and 40 knowledge in the areas of expertise they are not knowledgeable about, but are important for their role as trust managers in wildlife management. Age structure of the TWS membership suggests there may be considerable turnover in personnel during the next 10 years. The younger age classes of professionals have greater mutualistic value orientations that are likely to only increase the importance of these discussions and deliberations within the society. 41 CHAPTER 3: FACTORS INFLUENCING WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS’ APPROVAL OF SUSTAINABLE USES OF WILDLIFE Demographics, educational and professional development, and career paths of wildlife conservation professionals have changed meaningfully in the last 22 years (Organ and Fritzell 2000, Muth et al. 2002, Lauber et al. 2009, Millenbah et al. 2009, Urbanek et al. 2018). Those changes, along with myriad long- and short-term societal changes (Inglehart 1997, Mertig et al. 2002) are suspected to have created a workforce with fewer people steeped in sustainable, utilitarian uses of wildlife and more who hold protection-oriented beliefs about wildlife (Teel et al. 2005). If society’s value orientations become more mutualistic and protectionist toward wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2018), the public and professionals may become less accepting of previously considered sustainable uses of wildlife such as hunting solely for recreational purposes or trapping. Insights are needed about factors affecting value orientations expressed by wildlife conservation professionals to better understand changes in the conservation workforce as well as informing needs to consider in hiring and training of personnel. It is expected that these practitioners will be more accepting of harvest practices that center around explicitly humane treatment of wildlife such as those that promote fair chase in hunting and best management practices of trapping. In Chapter 2, I reported that beliefs expressed by members of The Wildlife Society (TWS) about wildlife and the uses of wildlife changed modestly during 1998–2020. Although a greater percentage of members in 2020 express agreement with statements that focus on animal welfare and fair chase opportunities for wildlife, members in 2020 also expressed high levels of 42 approval for legal hunting and trapping. Approval of hunting was greater among TWS members than was approval of trapping. From the level of disagreement with a comparative question asking participants whether foothold traps should be outlawed was relatively consistent among respondents in the 1998 and 2020 surveys. An increased number of respondents in 2020, however, identified not having an opinion on the topic of whether foothold traps should be outlawed. The 21.6% members who responded as not having an opinion reported the reason as they did not care to share their opinion (5.1%) or did not have enough knowledge on the topic (16.5%). The levels of appropriateness reported for specific active management activities (i.e., “varmint” hunting or fertility control) remained relatively consistent through time with the exception of the appropriateness of activities such as game ranching and raising furbearer species in commercial facilities declining. Except for the Southeast Section, TWS members broadly expressed similar patterns in value orientations of publics occurring throughout most of the US but at a reduced level. Those values are trending toward mutualistic orientations about wildlife, uses of wildlife, and common practices in wildlife management (Teel and Manfredo 2010, Manfredo et al. 2018). Mutualistic value orientations are beliefs of human and wildlife co-existing together and wildlife deserving the same rights as humans (Manfredo et al. 2018). A utilitarian value orientation describes the belief that wildlife principally is for the benefit of humans. Sustainable uses of wildlife are implicit in the North American model of wildlife conservation and fundamental to how wildlife is managed to produce benefits while reducing costs incurred by society (Decker et al. 2017). Sustainable use in the wildlife context is defined as “utilization of the wildlife resource in a manner that maintains its potential to meet current and future human needs and aspirations and prevent its long-term decline” (Decker et al. 2017). 43 Principles necessary to maintain public support of sustainable use include: uses serve a practical purpose; species or population used is not threatened or endangered; and when necessary, the method of take is considered socially acceptable (Hamilton et al. 1998, Decker et al. 2017). Mechanisms in place for sustainability throughout wildlife management include policy and regulation as well as the development of best management practices pertaining to trapping of wildlife. As such, an important objective of wildlife management, consistent with public trust responsibilities, is to conserve wildlife populations for future generations, and to do so, concepts and principles such as sustainable use and best management practices will be most effective if continually evaluated and amended to meet societal needs (Decker et al. 2017). A value shift from utilitarian toward mutualistic within some publics could result in pressures on the social license – the public consent to exist and operate – of wildlife agencies and wildlife professionals who serve those agencies (Hampton and Teh-white 2019). Not all wildlife conservation professionals find uses considered sustainable as acceptable or appropriate practices (Muth et al. 2002, Batavia et al. 2018, Batavia et al. 2019). It is important to address differences among wildlife conservation professionals including the development of an animal rights orientation (Hutchins and Wemmer 1986, Muth et al. 2000) because those professionals may be in leadership roles within an agency and need to manage a workforce with differing beliefs and values (Muth et al. 2002). For example, conservation professionals disagreed over whether the use of leghold traps should be outlawed (Muth et al. 2006). Factors including personal experiences, professional knowledge and subcultural norms influence a person’s support or approval of a type of management or harvest practice. Some members of the wildlife conservation profession, however, are expressing a desire for alternative approaches that reflect different value orientations from traditional ones. There are different 44 perspectives on acceptability of uses traditionally considered sustainable. For example, a concept termed “compassionate conservation” (Wallach et al. 2018) implies conservation and management of animals should be focused on well-being or rights of wildlife and non- anthropocentric valuations to sustain biological diversity (Bruskotter et al. 2017, Vucetich et al. 2021). This approach to wildlife conservation and similar ones proposed through time (Callicot 1990), however, are not widely accepted among many conservation professionals because the approaches posit animal rights philosophy and seldom take into consideration perspectives of humans who live near and are affected by wildlife (Oommen et al. 2019). As society becomes more disconnected to wildlife and nature (Manfredo et al. 2020), it is also important to monitor where wildlife professionals stand on topics such as the approval of sustainable uses of wildlife. If participation in hunting and trapping continue to decline (U.S. Department 2016), determining the level of approval by the public in such sustainable use activities may be critical for the future of wildlife conservation, policy formation, and funding (Jacobson et al. 2010, Manfredo et al. 2017). Sociological drivers such as modernization are contributing to society becoming less supportive of utilitarian uses of wildlife such as hunting and trapping for food or revenue sources (Manfredo et al. 2009a). As society becomes more disconnected to wildlife and nature (Manfredo et al. 2020), it is also important to monitor where wildlife professionals stand on topics such as the approval of sustainable uses of wildlife. Reasons proposed to explain public approval of hunting include to protect humans from harm, wild harvested meat, protect property and population control objectives of wildlife management (Byrd et al. 2017, NSSF 2019). Similar reasons for approval of trapping reported are habitat restoration, population control, food, or to protect property (White et al. 2015, NSSF 2019). Decline in approval may center 45 around hunting or trapping being motivated by recreational, sport, or trophy desires (Batavia et al. 2018) and perceptions of cruelty and empathy toward individual animals. To maintain relevancy of wildlife professionals and understand the comparison between attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders and practitioners, it’s important to examine beliefs internal to the wildlife profession because it will help practitioners function in their role as public trust managers (Smith 2011). Background I am focusing on how beliefs and attitudes of wildlife conservation professionals influence approval and the level of stated appropriateness of activities involving hunting and trapping. A cognitive hierarchical approach was introduced to understand how humans process information and develop behaviors in the order of values, beliefs, attitudes, social norms, behavioral intention, and behavior (Fulton et al. 1996, Decker et al. 2012). Rokeach (1973) defined values as enduring beliefs that indicate preferred modes of conduct or end-states of existence. Values are few in number and are central to one’s mental construct as they transcend situations (Rokeach 1973). Beliefs, in turn, are what one person holds true or factual within their thoughts (Decker et al. 2012). Wildlife value orientations are the direction and pattern of beliefs about wildlife (Fulton et al. 1996). Attitudes are an evaluation of an object, person or place whether they be good or bad (Heberlein 2012). Two wildlife value orientations emerged from studies conducted on the public’s basic wildlife beliefs and value orientations toward wildlife (Teel et al. 2005, Manfredo et al. 2009b). Those with a domination or utilitarian value orientation reflect agreement toward appropriate uses of wildlife and hunting beliefs (Manfredo et al. 2009b, Manfredo et al. 2018). On the opposite of the spectrum is mutualistic, reflecting people who hold an egalitarian ideology toward to wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2009b). Mutualistic 46 value orientations reflect agreement with more social affiliation and caring beliefs. A utilitarian wildlife value orientation regards as wildlife as a resource for humans to benefit from while a mutualistic orientation regards wildlife as a part of the community and care more about the well- being of the animals (Manfredo et al. 2018). Two wildlife value orientations have stood out in previous studies over the last decade, but they have stayed consistent with the beliefs associated to each one. An original study in 1996 described 2 value orientations within 8 basic wildlife belief dimensions and referred to them as wildlife benefits/existence and wildlife rights/use (Fulton et al. 1996). Wildlife benefits/existence clustered together with beliefs such as wildlife education, recreational wildlife experience and existence while wildlife rights/use clustered together with hunting, fishing and wildlife use. Further research in 2003 led to terms such as protection use orientation and wildlife appreciation orientation (Manfredo et al. 2003). Protection use orientation associates with a belief that wildlife should be managed and is positive toward hunting and fishing. Wildlife appreciation orientation associates with beliefs such as wildlife should have same rights as humans and wildlife should be protected for the future (Manfredo et al. 2003). Earlier work on typology of basic attitudes and values toward animals (Kellert 1976) and nature (Kellert 1996) have helped to describe present day patterns of beliefs toward wildlife. The typologies included naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, moralistic, scientistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic and neutralistic (Kellert 1976). Terms such as domination and mutualistic value orientations that emerged in 2009 draw upon Kellert’s previous value typology studies and have similar association of beliefs with the wildlife value orientations discussed earlier (Manfredo et al. 2009b, Teel and Manfredo 2010). Domination value orientation beliefs include: wildlife should be managed for human benefit, and human well-being 47 should be prioritized over wildlife. Actions that result in death or harm to wildlife are acceptable. Mutualistic value orientation beliefs reflect an egalitarian ideology that fostered perceptions of social inclusion and equality that extend to human-animal relationships (Teel and Manfredo 2010). A mutualistic value orientation is more likely to view wildlife in human terms and more likely to engage in welfare-enhancing behaviors for individual animals. Domination orientation is found to be associated with hunting and use of wildlife while mutualistic orientation is associated with caring and social affiliation. Four types of wildlife value orientations emerged in 2010 building off beliefs associated with previous studies and included traditionalist, mutualist, pluralists and distanced (Teel and Manfredo 2010). A comparative study from 2004 to 2018 of Western states in addition to all 50 states surveyed in 2018 estimated the 4 value orientations throughout the US as traditionalist (28%), mutualist (35%), pluralists (21%) and distanced (15%) (Manfredo et al. 2018). Wildlife value orientations of residents in 19 western states, normally considered conservative leaning, appear to be shifting from utilitarian and traditional toward a mutualistic value orientation in the way they view and interact with wildlife (Teel et al. 2005). This same phenomenon is reported to be happening throughout the US (Manfredo et al. 2018). Recently, a greater proportion of society is reported as expressing more mutualistic value orientations (35%) compared to the 28% considered as utilitarian or traditionalists (Manfredo et al. 2018). Values in society began shifting from materialist toward post-materialist or expressing a need for belonginess and self-esteem after World War II (Inglehart 1997). This shift in values is attributed to the growth of attributes associated with the concept of modernization, a societal driver in which urbanization and anthropomorphic thinking creates a distance between humans and direct interaction with the environment and wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2020). Causal factors 48 of modernization, including income, education and urbanization, were positively associated with mutualistic value orientations at an individual-level and negatively associated with domination (Manfredo et al. 2009a). In addition to modernization characteristics, the diversity of cultures throughout the US carries different values toward wildlife and nature (Lopez et al. 2005). These dynamics may cause a difference or shift in values within each state. Family and cultural dynamics, as well as having the same attributes, have helped to shape values and beliefs of minorities throughout the US. Social license, a concept used in public policy and the human dimensions field, is used to understand how the public responds to situations in wildlife use activities such as hunting and trapping (Kendal and Ford 2017, Hampton et al. 2019). Wide-spread opposition to practices such as trophy hunting may pose a threat to the long-term social license of hunting as an activity in wildlife conservation (Nelson et al. 2016, Darimont et al. 2017, Wanger et al. 2017). Darimont et al. (2020) suspected the social license of hunting for specific species that are not commonly used for meat or trophies will continue to be of concern. The relevancy of activities such as hunting or trapping in present day society are brought to the forefront of discussion in wildlife conservation and management due to the decline in these activities and the potential impact on future generations. Determining how the public views management actions or situations may be important in the long-term social license and relevancy of hunting and trapping. Members of TWS may be involved in situations where they interact or engage the public and being aware of how the public interprets certain management actions can help them function in their roles as trust managers. Wildlife value orientations (WVOs) are patterns of beliefs a people express toward wildlife and are beneficial for wildlife agencies to understand when making management 49 decisions involving wildlife and stakeholders (Bright et al. 2000). The belief statements that shape the factors addressed in this chapter may help to give insight into what TWS members believe and whether they influence approval of sustainable uses such as hunting and trapping. Demographic variables will be used in addition to explanatory factors to better understand what other information is influential. Although the predictive value of WVOs may be limited when it comes to predicting specific behaviors, value orientations are important in their influence on other cognitions such as attitudes and behavioral intentions (Fulton et al. 1996). It may be important to know the domination and mutualism wildlife value orientations a person may hold are not mutually exclusive, meaning an individual can hold multiple orientations at the same time toward wildlife, or just one, and even none at all (Teel and Manfredo 2010). The mutualistic value orientation is associated with support of habitat and wildlife protection (Teel and Manfredo 2010, Dietsch et al. 2016). Vucetich et al. (2021) found individuals prioritizing 5 conservation perspectives and competing values are often decided by case-specific context. A qualitative approach to understanding the determinants of wildlife value orientations revealed 4 major dimensions that influence WVOs, including socialization, experience, personal characteristics, and place, as in influences on pattern of beliefs (Deruiter and Donnelly 2002). Most research studies focus on broader segments of society or on narrow user groups such as hunters. My data are unique in that they reflect practicing wildlife conservationists to the extent that members of TWS are a proxy for the wildlife profession. Research Objectives, Assumptions, and Hypothesis My goal was to determine how beliefs about wildlife and wildlife management, as well as control variables such as demographics and occupations, influence approval of legal hunting and trapping by practicing wildlife professionals. A second objective was to reveal the extent to 50 which TWS members believe specific management activities are appropriate. A key assumption is that members of TWS (n~10,500) serve as a proxy for wildlife conservation professionals, and my large sample of that population is reflective of the membership as a whole. My hypothesis is that TWS members who express mutualistic wildlife value orientations will express lower approval of legal hunting and legal trapping. METHODS Study Population I assumed members of TWS served as a proxy for wildlife conservation professionals in North America, who were the population of interest. The Wildlife Society is an international professional scientific organization of 10,855 members (at time of survey) in wildlife science, management, and conservation (The Wildlife Society 2020). The organization’s stated purpose is to enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through science- based management and conservation. The Society was founded in 1937 to address the need of a central organization to establish professional and ethical standards and promote communication within the wildlife conservation and management profession. Members exist in every U.S. state, Canadian Province, and 164 members are from at least 15 other countries. Survey Instrument A survey instrument, updated from a 1998 version (Muth et al. 1998), was designed and conducted through web based Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics International Inc., Provo, Utah, USA). Qualtrics survey software is a platform used to design, distribute, and analyze surveys through a research user base experience. Online survey software enabled my survey to be more accessible, tested and edited in real time, as well as gain insights into the survey results through time. 51 Questionnaire Implementation The survey instrument asked respondents to identify the level of importance of 21 sources of information they would use to inform themselves about wildlife issues. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1= “not at all important” to 5= “extremely important.” Section 2 of the questionnaire prompted the respondents to select how frequently they have participated in 18 outdoor activities in the last 5 years. Frequency of outdoor activity ranged from 0= “not at all” to 3= “more than 20 times.” Section 3 of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide information on their personal views about management. It consisted of 6 sets of multi-item questions and measured beliefs on a 6-point scale on level of agreement where 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree” and 6= “don’t know.” Views about management included 4 statements of the acceptability of hunting and trapping, 14 statements about wildlife management in North America, 6 statements of ethical issues related to all management activities, 8 statements about ethical acceptability of harvest of wildlife, 8 statements associated with the opportunity to participate in hunting and an additional 8 associated with the opportunity to participate in trapping. Section 4 consisted of 26 statements about specific management activities and were measured on a 6-point scale ranging from 1= “extremely inappropriate” to 5= “extremely appropriate” and 6= “don’t know.” A section devoted to trapping consisted of 3 subset questions about respondents’ view on outlawing the use of foothold traps, the level of familiarity with Best Management Practices (BMPs) of trapping, and the overall level of support for trapping BMPs. Skip-and-display logic were used in this section on trapping, which enabled participants to move forward in the survey if they had little knowledge or familiarity with trapping. The first question in the trapping section asked respondents whether the use of foothold traps to trap species classified as a 52 furbearer should be outlawed and was comprised of 3 answer choices: 1= “strongly agree”, 2= “strongly disagree” and 3= “no opinion.” Depending on the level of agreement a respondent answered the previous question with a display logic presented a set of 8 reasons why the foothold trap should be outlawed or should not be outlawed. A text box labeled “other” was included in the list of reasons for each response choice to provide further explanation for their reasoning. A “no opinion” option was available for participants who chose not to answer the question about the use of foothold traps. Participants who chose this option were prompted with a follow up question to ask why they do not have a formulated opinion. Two response choices were provided as a follow up question: “I don’t know enough about the topic” or “I have an opinion, but I don’t care to express it”. The level of familiarity with BMPs for trapping was measured by a 4-point scale ranging from 1= “not at all familiar” to 4= “extremely familiar.” If a respondent chose “not at all familiar” with BMPs the survey automatically skipped to the final section that contained questions about demographics. If participants indicated they were familiar with BMPs, they were asked for their level of support of BMPs on a 6-point scale ranging from 1= “strongly oppose” to 5= “strongly support” and 6= “don’t know.” Depending on the answer chosen, display logic displayed either 6 reasons to support or 6 reasons to oppose BMPs. Participants were provided with 6 listed reasons to choose from, 1 write in text box and a “don’t know” option was included. The final section of the questionnaire comprised 14 questions regarding demographics. Questions included the highest level of education completed, what academic or professional field respondents had earned a degree in, whether they were currently a student, participation in any professional development programs, current employment status, years of employment in the 53 profession, what kind of organization employed in, responsibilities of your job, membership of professional organizations, description of current and childhood residence, current state residing in, year born, and gender. The questionnaire concluded with a text box for additional comments or views participants would like to share. The survey instrument was evaluated and approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (Study number: 00003262). Pilot Survey I conducted a pilot survey to gain feedback and insight into how the questionnaire read, determine if focus questions were understandable, detect any leading questions and elicit overall concerns with the survey. Constructive feedback gained from pilot survey participants identified wording that was misleading and questions that needed clarification. The pilot was conducted 4 November - 01 December 2019. A reminder email was sent out on 14 November 2019 to those who had not responded. The sample population included participants from professional development workshops in 2019 from the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow and Trapping Matters programs. Forty participants were randomly selected from the cumulative list of both programs (n= 131) and sent an anonymous survey link from Qualtrics software to their email addresses. Participant email addresses were provided by administrative support through both programs. A total of 22 respondents (55%) completed the pilot survey. Revisions to the final survey included changing the format of the online questionnaire software, reordering questions, and addressing minor grammatical errors. Nonresponse To obtain the email address list of members of TWS, all communication and access to the email address list was limited to only TWS staff. This did not permit me access records to perform an examination of nonresponse bias using a different method based off known 54 respondents. I examined responses of the last 100 respondents received and participants who submitted a survey during the final reminder compared to earlier respondents. The differences from the early respondents and the last 100 and final wave reminder respondents assumes they might reflect key differences among respondents and non-respondents. Respondents who submit a survey later in the collection period were assumed to be similar to nonrespondents in cases where there are several points of contact (Choi et al. 1992, Coon et al. 2020). Data Collection My approach to administering the questionnaire was an attempted census of the entire TWS membership (N=10,588 at time of survey) for whom email addresses were available. An anonymous survey link was generated through the Qualtrics survey software and included an invitation email sent out by administrative staff at TWS. The survey was implemented following a modified version of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al. 2014). Administration of the survey included 4 waves of emails sent to membership by systematic timing through the months of January and February. An email was sent out on 08 January 2020 to all members of TWS by the current president to announce a questionnaire was forthcoming the following week, describe the purpose, and who was conducting the research. The official email invitation with an active link to Qualtrics was emailed 14 January 2020 and a first reminder email sent on 22 January 2020. A second reminder email was sent to membership on 4 February 2020. On 22 February a third reminder was sent to membership and a last plea was sent on 28 February 2020. Each reminder contained a link to the survey instrument, but respondents were only able to complete the survey one time per computer. Settings in the Qualtrics program helped to safeguard against participants attempting to submit multiple survey responses. 55 Measurement Responses regarding approval of legal hunting and legal trapping were measured with a 5-point scale (1= strongly disapprove to 5= strongly approve). The 17 statements used in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were measured by a 5-point scale of level of agreement or disagreement ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the 2 factors result from the CFA was assessed by using composite reliability of the items representing beliefs about wildlife management and uses of wildlife in each factor. Appropriateness of management activities was measured on a 5-point scale of 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 5 (extremely appropriate). In addition, I examined current views about appropriateness of 26 specific wildlife management activities toward certain species. Management activities included stocking of native game animals to reestablish a viable population, use of traditional archery equipment (e.g., longbow, recurve) to hunt wildlife, trapping by trained wildlife agency personnel to manage wildlife, fur trapping by people who intend to use money from selling pelts and products to support their family, use of "quick kill" traps (e.g., body gripping, or conibear) by fur trappers to harvest pelts and products, trapping by private animal pest control firms to control nuisance wildlife, use of advanced archery equipment (e.g., compound bows, sights, crossbows, etc.) to hunt wildlife, use of cage-type or box traps by trappers to harvest pelts and products, shooting by trained professionals (e.g., sharpshooters) to manage wildlife, fertility control as a method for managing wildlife populations, raising furbearer species in commercial facilities (e.g., mink ranches, fox farms) for eventual sale of the pelts on the commercial fur market, use of foothold traps by fur trappers to harvest pelts and products, use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) raccoons, game ranching, in which big game species are raised behind a fence, use of dogs to hunt (pursue 56 and tree) mountain lions, hunting wildlife for a large set of antlers/horns, or to have the animal mounted by a taxidermist, releasing captive-reared upland game birds to provide hunting opportunities, "varmint" hunting (the shooting of woodchucks, crows, prairie dogs, or other animals not commonly used by humans), and use of bait to hunt black bears. Data Analysis IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 was used for descriptive and ordinal regression analyses (IBM Corp, 2019). JASP and R software were used to fit the 2 separate factor models in the CFA, Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability analysis of each scale and extraction of factor scores to be used in the ordinal regression analysis (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). I performed multiple imputation to handle missing data values in the dataset before performing 2 separate ordinal regressions (McKnight et al. 2007). Multiple imputation is a process to replace missing data by taking random draws from their distribution; replacements are then used to fill in missing data creating multiple data sets then pooling the results into a final dataset (Lang and Little 2018). The procedure of multiple imputation compared to list-wise deletion enabled my results to be more representative of and generalizable to the intended population. Confirmatory factor analysis included 17 belief statements about wildlife management and uses of wildlife that would be used to determine the factors that influence the approval of legal hunting and trapping. Confirmatory factor analysis is a hypothesis-driven type of structural equation modeling used to determine the relationships between observed measures or indicators and latent variables of factors (Brown 2015). Several indices generated by R software provided quantitative assessment of how well the hypothesized model fit the observed covariance data. These indices included chi-square, chi-square/degrees of freedom, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Normed Noncentrality Fit Index (CFI), and Root-Mean-Square- 57 Residual (RMR)2 (Schreiber et al. 2006). Items for each factor were tested for reliability using composite reliability. To address the research question, which asked what the factors are influencing the approval of legal hunting and trapping, I fitted an ordinal regression model for each factor for a total of two factors. Outcome variables of the 2 separate ordinal regression models were the approval of legal hunting and legal trapping. The predictors were factor scores of each factor and the 9 demographic variables on the approval of legal hunting and legal trapping. I estimated factor scores by means of regression. Lastly, means were calculated for the responses reported on the statements regarding the level of appropriateness toward specific management actions as a descriptive analysis. RESULTS Response Rates From 10,588 emailed invitations, 4,844 (45.7%) submissions were obtained. There were 1,276 submissions (26.3%) removed due to incomplete responses to key survey items or the entire survey. Identifiable survey responses of 3,568 (33.7%) members, of whom 3,247 (91.0%) self-identified as being a TWS member when asked in the survey. The other 223 (6.3%) responses identified as non-TWS membership and 98 (2.7%) responded to being a former member. Respondents who identified as non- or no longer members of TWS were excluded from the sample. After excluding all non-TWS members, 3,247 (30.7%) usable responses remained. No statistical differences were detected between the last 100 respondents or respondents from the last reminder when compared to earlier respondents. Mean scores for specific statements were calculated between the 3 groups and little statistical difference was detected. 58 Respondent Characteristics of 2020 The proportion of respondents who identified as male (59.7%) or female (37.7%) closely matched the demographics of the society’s membership (C. Kovach, The Wildlife Society, unpublished data). Mean age was 46.9 yrs. (SD= 16.0, range: 19–91 yrs.). Female participants reported a mean age of 39.7 yrs. (SD= 12.9, range: 19–87 yrs.) and male participants had a mean age of 51.5 yrs. (SD= 16.2, range: 19–91 yrs.). Respondents (96.9%) indicated they completed a college degree and 69.4% had earned a graduate degree. The type of organization in which respondents were employed varied, with state agencies (29.2%) the most frequently reported organization type, followed in frequency by institutions of higher education (22.9%). Participants, who reported having been TWS members employed for > 20 years in their professional field comprised 41.3% of respondents. Respondents were almost evenly divided in their current place of residence along a gradient from rural to large urban. Similar results were reported for place of childhood residence. Respondents were well-represented geographically within all 50 states, 6 Canadian provinces, and 15 other countries (Appendix B). Assessment of Factor Model Fit and Reliability of Factor Scales Factor 1 encompassed statements that focused on diversity (M= 4.26) and restoration (M= 4.16) of ecosystems (Table 4). In addition to an ecosystem focus, the ethics behind the harvest and management of wildlife included belief statements that wildlife have the same rights as humans and the act of killing wildlife is acceptable or moral. However, participants who strongly disagreed with activities such as hunting (M= 1.50) and trapping (M= 1.90) were more likely to believe those activities dehumanize the people who participate in them. Factor 2 included belief statements toward wildlife needing to be managed to limit adverse effects on other species (M= 4.29) and minimizing conflicts with humans (M= 3.61). Members reported 59 humans can harvest surplus production of wildlife populations (M= 4.42) and agree with the belief that hunting and trapping of certain species if necessary (M= 4.17). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed the hypothesized model of basic wildlife beliefs for factor 1 provided a moderate fit to the data as indicated by GFI (0.99) and relative fit indices in the upper 0.80s and 0.90s (NFI= 0.99, CFI= 0.99), an RMR near 0.05 (0.05). The model had a statistically significant chi-square (χ2 =95.60, df= 12, P < .001), but the large sample size (n= 3,247) likely was responsible for the large χ2 value. Standardized factor loadings, standard errors, and t-values indicated that each item loaded on the factors that were predicted. The reliability score for factor 1 scale was 0.76. Confirmatory factor analysis similarly demonstrated that the hypothesized model of basic wildlife beliefs for factor 2 provided a moderate fit to the data as indicated by a GFI (0.99) and relative fit indices in the upper 0.80s and 0.90s (NFI= 0.97, CFI= 0.98), and an RMR near 0.05 (0.07). The model had a significant chi-square (χ2 =158.30, df= 11, P< .001), but again the large sample size (n= 3,247) was primarily responsible for the large χ2 value. The standardized factor loadings, standard errors, and t-values indicated that each item loaded the factor predicted (Table 1). The reliability score for factor 2 scale was 0.77. Influence of Factors and Demographics on the Approval of Legal Hunting Results from the ordinal regression supported the relationships between the legal hunting outcome variable and demographic and factor score predictors [ Model χ2 (df= 38) = 1827.17– 2022.15; Nagelkerke Pseudo R2 range from 0.57 to 0.58]. Factor 1 was a statistically significant predictor in model 1 (β = -1.43, p < .001). In particular, for every 1 unit increase on the factor 1 score, there was a predicted decrease of 0.24 (CI 95% 0.21 to 0.28) odds of being in a higher 60 category on the dependent variable (legal hunting approval). The more a respondent indicated care for animals, the less approval they expressed for legal hunting. Factor 2 was a statistically significant predictor in model 1 (β = 0.86, p < .001). Specifically, for every 1 unit increase on the factor 2 score, there was a predicted increase of 2.34 (CI 95% 2.12 to 2.65) odds of being in a higher level of the dependent variable (legal hunting approval). The more a respondent indicated support for utilitarian management, the more approval they expressed for legal hunting. Education level, type of employment and TWS regions were statistically significant predictors in model 1. Compared with members who earned a professional degree, the odds of respondents having a college education to respond more favorably to legal hunting is 1.92 (CI 95% 1.42 to 2.60) times more likely. For example, an individual with a college degree was more likely to indicate greater approval of hunting than a member having graduate and professional degrees (reference group). Members of TWS working in a higher education institution were 0.51 times (CI 95% 0.35 to 0.73) less likely to be in a higher category on approval of legal hunting (the dependent variable) than members working in non-governmental organizations (reference group). Participants working in an institution of higher education were less likely to approve of legal hunting than those working in a non-governmental organization. Geographical differences were apparent in certain regions of the US. The odds of the Western Section members to respond more favorably to the legal hunting was 0.49 (CI 95% 0.35 to 0.70) times less likely compared to the Southeast Section (reference group). Participants residing in the Western Section were less likely to express a higher approval of legal hunting than that of participants from the Southeast Section. 61 Influence of Factors and Demographics on the Approval of Legal Trapping Results from the ordinal regression supported the relationships between the legal trapping outcome variable and demographic and factor score predictors [Model χ 2 (df= 38) = 1978.62– 2207.10; Nagelkerke Pseudo R2 range from 0.52 to 0.53]. As with the approval of legal hunting, factor 1 was a statistically significant predictor (inverse influence) in model 2 (β= -1.42, P< .001). The more a respondent agreed with statements toward the animal welfare factor, the less they approved of legal trapping. For every unit increase on the factor 1 score, the odds of being in a higher level of approval of legal trapping was 0.24 (CI 95% 0.21 to 0.27) times less likely. Factor 2 beliefs were a statistically significant predictor in the model (β= 0.49, P < .001). The more a respondent agreed with statements comprising factor 2, the more likely they were to have higher approval of legal trapping. For every unit increase on the factor 2 score, the odds of being in a higher level of legal trapping approval was 1.63 (CI 95% 1.49 to 1.77) times more likely. Education level, employment status, gender and TWS sections were statistically significant predictors in model 2 to determine approval of legal trapping. Compared with members who earned a professional degree, the odds of respondents having earned no college education responding more favorably to the approval of legal trapping is 2.48 (CI 95% 1.56 to 3.97) times more likely. Members who identified having no college degree were more likely to approve of legal trapping than participants with a professional degree (reference group). A generational difference in attitudes, as well as a difference in attitude depending on source of employment, was detected in terms of respondents expressing approval of trapping. Odds of expressing greater approval of legal trapping was 2.00 (CI 95% 1.38 to 2.89) times more likely for members not currently employed in a natural resource organization compared to retired members (reference group). 62 As with members’ approval of legal hunting, a geographical difference was detected in terms of approval level toward legal trapping. The Southeast Section exhibited the greatest level of approval of trapping compared to participants from the Western, Northeast and Central Mountains and Plains Sections. Compared to the Southeast Section, the odds of participants from the Western Section were 0.57 (CI 95% 0.44 to 0.73) times less likely to have a higher approval level compared to participants located in the southeastern region (reference group). Appropriateness of Management Activities The magnitude of difference in how members believed different activities to be appropriate was apparent, ranging from activities such as archery, stocking of native game animals to reestablish a viable population, and use of dogs to hunt upland birds, to more intrusive activities such as use of poison for predator control or use of bait to hunt (Figure 7). Use of traditional archery equipment (M= 4.24) and trapping by trained wildlife agency personnel (M=3.91) were among the activities deemed most appropriate. Activities, including high fence- game ranching (M=2.06), use of bait to hunt deer (M=2.09) and lethal poisoning (M=2.24) were viewed as least appropriate among TWS members. The valence of attitudes expressed as appropriateness of specific management activities depended on criteria such as the method of take, whether wild animals had fair chase opportunities and the species involved. Activities with the greatest level of appropriateness involved a control of nuisance or nonnative animals. Methods of take that require a high level of skill including archery and trained professionals are found to be more appropriate management activities among members of TWS. Therefore, the method of take is the referent of the attitude appropriateness. Another element participants reported as appropriate is if animals were to be removed, that the type of trap kill them quickly or contain them in a box type structure. 63 Activities reported as least appropriate involved baiting, lethal poisoning, wildlife behind high fences, or captive in a commercial facility. Table 4: Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis containing 14 statements reflecting beliefs of members of The Wildlife Society, 14 Jan–10 Mar 2020, toward uses of wildlife and wildlife management. Means and SD of each belief statement are displayed based on a scale of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). Factor loadings, standard error and t- value are displayed for each factor. Reliability analysis of each factor was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha. Data were derived from a web-based questionnaire (Qualtrics) sent in 2020 to all known members of The Wildlife Society. M SD Factor Std. t-value Composite loadings error reliability Factor 1 0.76 The focus of wildlife management 4.26 0.81 0.13 0.017 7.62 should be on the biodiversity of the entire ecosystem rather than on individual species. A primary responsibility of 4.16 0.80 0.18 0.015 12.21 managers should be to restore ecosystems that have been damaged. Killing wildlife for management 1.88 0.94 0.58 0.021 27.75 purposes is seldom acceptable I believe wild animals have the 2.38 1.21 0.79 0.021 37.63 same rights as humans. It is morally wrong to kill wildlife 2.13 1.19 0.95 0.020 47.77 for human sport or recreation. Hunting is a cruel activity that 1.50 0.75 0.54 0.020 27.49 dehumanizes the people who participate in it. Trapping is a cruel activity that 1.90 1.08 0.77 0.022 34.70 dehumanizes the people who participate in it. 64 Table 4 (cont’d) M SD Factor Std. t-value Composite loadings error reliability Factor 2 0.77 Some wildlife need to be 4.29 0.70 0.35 0.02 19.91 managed to limit their adverse effects on other species and habitats. The regulated harvest of wild 4.34 0.80 0.57 0.02 28.57 animals by humans is compatible with natural resource conservation. Humans can harvest surplus 4.42 0.85 0.50 0.02 23.21 production of wildlife populations without harming their long-term population viability if done properly. Hunting and trapping of certain 4.17 0.79 0.41 0.02 19.92 species are sometimes necessary to prevent other species from becoming endangered. Wildlife need to be managed to 3.61 1.00 0.52 0.02 24.58 minimize conflicts with humans. Wildlife are resources to be 3.23 1.22 0.80 0.02 36.10 harvested in a sustainable way and used for human benefit. Although biodiversity is 2.36 1.07 0.51 0.02 25.12 important, managers should give priority to harvestable species. 65 Use of traditional archery equipment (e.g., longbow, recurve) to hunt wildlife. Stocking of native game animals to reestablish a viable population. Use of dogs to hunt upland birds. Trapping by trained wildlife agency personnel to manage wildlife. Use of advanced archery equipment (e.g., compound bows, sights, crossbows, etc.)… Use of dogs to hunt nonnative feral pigs. Trapping by private animal pest control firms to control nuisance wildlife. Shooting by trained professionals (e.g., sharpshooters) to manage wildlife. Fur trapping by people who intend to use money from selling pelts and products to… Use of "quick kill" traps (e.g., body gripping, or conibear) by fur trappers to… Use of cage-type or box traps by trappers to harvest pelts and products. Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) raccoons. Fertility control as a method for managing wildlife populations. Use of foothold traps by fur trappers to harvest pelts and products. Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) mountain lions. Releasing captive-reared upland game birds to provide hunting opportunities. Hunting wildlife for a large set of antlers/horns, or to have the animal mounted by… Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) black bears. Raising furbearer species in commercial facilities (e.g., mink ranches, fox farms)… "Varmint" hunting (the shooting of woodchucks, crows, prairie dogs, or other… Use of dogs to hunt deer. Use of bait to hunt black bears. Lethal poisoning as a method of predator control for managing wildlife. Use of bait to hunt deer. Game ranching, in which big game species are raised behind a fence. Use of bait to hunt other ungulates. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 7: Survey responses on the level of appropriateness of statements toward beliefs of specific wildlife activities. Statements were measured on a scale of 1 (“Extremely inappropriate”) to 5 (“ Extremely appropriate”) by members of The Wildlife Society for surveys conducted in 2020. 66 DISCUSSION This study set out to determine factors influencing TWS members’ approval of legal hunting and legal trapping, and their stated level of appropriateness for specific wildlife management activities. Results from ordinal regression models failed to reject my hypothesis that participants associated with beliefs expressed as mutualistic wildlife value orientations would express a lower approval of legal hunting and legal trapping. These findings suggest participants with beliefs similar to those found in mutualistic value orientations expressed lower approval for legal hunting and legal trapping. Both models on the approval of legal hunting and trapping were similar to one another in regard to the influence of factors and demographics on the approval of each activity. Beliefs and attitudes toward wildlife within both factor 1 and factor 2 are consistent with previously reported wildlife value orientations for the public (Manfredo et al. 2009b). These findings are also similar in pattern to value orientations occurring in the lay public throughout the US (Manfredo et al. 2018). Wildlife value orientations are important because they are useful in predicting patterns of attitudes and behaviors across a set of wildlife issues and they may influence other cognitions (Fulton et al. 1996). The beliefs held by TWS members in factor 1 are emblematic and consistent with beliefs of mutualistic value orientations (Manfredo et al. 2018). Mutualism has reported being associated with the support of habitat and wildlife protection as well as with decreased support for lethal management of wildlife (Teel and Manfredo 2010, Dietsch et al. 2011). A 2016 study found actions that restrict human interests to promote biodiversity were negatively associated with domination and positively associated with mutualism (Dietsch et al. 2016). Attitudes and beliefs toward wildlife comprising factor 2 indicate wildlife conservation professionals’ express beliefs that wildlife need to be managed and 67 harvested. Factor 2 beliefs and attitudes convey consistencies with those of utilitarian or traditional value orientations toward wildlife and wildlife management (Manfredo et al. 2018). The terms domination and mutualistic value orientations emerged in 2009 with similar association of beliefs as the wildlife value orientations discussed earlier (Manfredo et al. 2009b, Teel and Manfredo 2010). My results failed to reject my hypothesis indicating participants who agreed more with the belief statements in factor 1 that are emblematic with mutualistic value orientations had a lower approval of hunting and trapping. The two factors I found influencing the approval of hunting and trapping by members of TWS are consistent with those two wildlife value orientations that are prominent within the public throughout the US (Manfredo et al. 2018). Geographic representation of TWS members based on the state of residence within my study is consistent with and representative of those of the public. Models predicting approval by TWS members for both hunting and trapping had similar results to one another in addition to the factors having similar effects on the approval of each activity. Factor 2 had a stronger predictability of approval of both hunting and trapping, which is consistent with beliefs associated with utilitarian and traditional wildlife value orientations. I also found trapping to have a lower approval among TWS members compared to hunting (see Chapter 2). Results from my study indicate there was higher approval for hunting than for trapping, which is consistent with previous studies of professionals and stakeholders (Duda et al. 2010, NSSF 2019). Among wildlife conservation professionals, I believe people are more aware of the benefits that hunting brings to conservation including funding opportunities and the recreational experience. Trapping is an important management tool, as is hunting, but exposure to, awareness, and understanding of the activity may be much less. My findings in 2020 affirm 68 the same trend that occurred in 1998 among all 4 professional organizations sampled (Muth et al. 1998, 2006). Respondents are likely more familiar and knowledgeable about hunting than they are for trapping with perceiving hunting to be more humane and have greater connotations related to fair chase (Geist et al. 2001, Nelson and Millenbah 2009, Boone and Crockett 2013). Trapping has been described as controversial and a conflicted topic within both the public and wildlife professionals (Siemer et al. 2013, Manfredo et al. 1999, Muth et al. 2006, Responsive Management 2016). Household dynamics may play an important part in the makeup of an individual’s wildlife value orientation (Clark et al. 2017). Patterns of wildlife value orientations of hunting families in Pennsylvania and Colorado reported more support of wildlife use and hunting by males than those of females in the household (Zinn et al. 2002). Results suggested a family’s pattern of beliefs toward wildlife are more likely to remain stable if the family is not influenced by education, urbanization, or residential stability. Whether a person comes from a household that has experience with activities such as hunting, and trapping may play a role in how they perceive sustainable uses of wildlife such as hunting and trapping. Conservation professionals may have different experiences and direct knowledge of activities such as hunting and trapping that give them greater insight into and understanding of all aspects of the activity (White et al. 2015). For example, biologists from the Bureau of Land Management placed importance on moral and humane treatment of animals yet used justifications through their ecologistic and scientific orientations when reducing conflicts between human and moral issues (Peyton and Langenau 1985). Conservation professionals could have a better understanding of hunting as a management tool and how it contributes to the overall goal of conservation of wildlife (Mahoney and Jackson 2013). Understanding the 69 importance of sustainable uses will help aid conservation professionals by allowing them to make informed decisions and provide adequate information to the public, thus fulfilling their role as trust managers. My results for the approval of legal hunting and trapping inform the social license of sustainable uses of wildlife by wildlife conservation professionals since social license is dependent on the approval and support of others (Decker et al. 2017). Teel and Manfredo (2010) found an association between wildlife related attitudes, wildlife value orientation, and behaviors which may indicate a shift from traditional views of resources such as wildlife and could result in continued declines in hunting and trapping which may reduce public and professional acceptance of different management actions. The role wildlife conservation professionals fulfill as trust managers has significant consequences in terms of providing opportunities for the public to participate in activities such as hunting and trapping as well as providing educational and training opportunities for professional colleagues. This, in essence, will improve the social license of sustainable uses of wildlife for the future. Geography played a role in the approval of hunting and trapping among TWS members. Southeast Section members were more likely to have a higher approval of activities such as hunting and especially trapping, which is consistent with attitudes toward lethal removal of wildlife held within that region (Agee and Miller 2009, Manfredo et al. 2018). Southern states tend to have more conservative values, strong republican political party affiliations, and religious agrarian-orientated values (Applebome 1996, Layman and Carmines 1997). For example, legislation proposed in the southeast geographic region calls for a push for legalizing baiting opportunity for deer hunting, which may indicate their strong utilitarian value orientations toward wildlife (Adams and Ross 2013). It may also reflect the greater abundance of deer and 70 the difficulties experienced hunting in the dense swamps common to the region. Acceptance of different types of hunting and methods of take would be a manifestation of utilitarian value orientations within the Southern states. Decision makers within Southeast state wildlife agencies reported a decline in agency relevancy, wildlife disease, changing landscape and introduction of invasive species were important challenges they faced as agency leadership (Jewell et al. 2020). The challenges wildlife professionals face within Southeastern state agencies may result in tension of traditional agency decision making and changing values of the public. Professional background, life events, and educational focus of natural resource professionals in the southeastern states can help explain the shaping of their values and beliefs (Clark and Moreno 1998). Educational background and employment type were found to have an influence on the approval of legal hunting and legal trapping. Educational institutions are expanding their curriculum (Muth et al. 2002, Millenbah and Wolter 2009) and wildlife degrees are becoming more specialized with more sub-disciplines to fulfill the growing wildlife and conservation concerns the profession is facing today and for the future (Matter and Steidl 2000, Kroll 2007). Programs involving conservation biology, wildlife ecology, and human dimensions or social sciences are becoming more prominent in the profession along with a concurrent decrease in traditional wildlife management content (Merkle et al. 2019). Sanborn and Schmidt (1995) reported differences among males and females on how TWS members viewed wildlife, wildlife management activities, and funding. Males held more traditional attitudes than females on topics related to wildlife management techniques and issues (Sanborn and Schmidt 1995). Although gender was not a predictor in this chapter, I found younger generations exhibited more mutualistic wildlife value orientations than compared to older generations (Chapter 2). 71 Participants in older age groups responded with similar belief statements as members in younger generations, while older members agreed more with belief statements supporting utilitarian uses and active management. Membership in TWS is shifting with more females than in the past and the age structure increasing (Urbanek et al. 2018). Shifting age structure, such as the loss of the baby boomer generation, will impact professional conservation organizations because of knowledge and experience losses and new values and beliefs entering the workforce (Chapter 2). Conflicts may occur as personal and professional values collide within an agency (Muth et al. 2002). In addition to factors influencing approval, I noticed a pattern in the expressed appropriateness of management activities depending on type of species and the humane treatment in the method of take. Members believed activities involving the most amount of opportunity for wildlife to escape, sometimes referred to as fair chase, and management practices sensitive to welfare of wildlife, to be most appropriate management activities. Action severity, species hazard, and wildlife viewing opportunity may be reasons people find some management actions more appropriate than others. Other reasons may reflect differences based on the animal species involved (Zinn et al. 1998). People may view certain species as charismatic, majestic or symbolic (Sponarksi et al. 2015). Acceptability of lethal management actions toward coyotes, mountain lions, wolves and wild ungulates were found more acceptable if they prevent severe consequences to humans, personal property or the natural environment (Manfredo et al. 1998, Fulton et al. 2004, Vaske and Needham 2007, Bruskotter et al. 2009). Acceptability of harvesting or lethally removing wildlife has been found to be more value-based for certain management actions (Whittaker et al. 2006). Determinants influencing stakeholder acceptance were internal, psychological variables such as beliefs and value orientations, behavioral variables 72 and situational specifics including wildlife species and frequency of encounters (Zinn et al. 2009). An example of contrasting views may be opposing attitudes toward commercial aspects of harvest management (Chitwood et al. 2015). Agency professionals and the public have been supportive of lethal control of wildlife under certain circumstances such as controlling wildlife diseases, survival of species, preservation of habitats, wildlife damage, human safety, population management and food (Koval and Mertig 2004). My findings suggest that a range of attitudes exists among professionals as well. Reasons found for approval of lethal management of carnivores by the public include threats to human safety, economic interests, or protection of preferred game species (Manfredo et al. 1998, Decker et al. 2006). Approval of lethal removal for protection of game species was positively correlated with a domination value orientation (Teel and Manfredo 2010, Jacobs et al. 2014, Dietsch et al. 2016). People who expressed domination value orientations represented a majority of the variance in acceptability of hunting deer when deer posed threats to humans, such as damage to property and transmission of disease (Jacobs et al. 2014). My data show similar trends in terms of why people think management of wildlife is needed. Similar trends can be found among the public as well (Teel et al. 2005). For example, Teel et al. (2005) found situational context of acceptability, where the acceptability of hunting depended upon the situation. Beliefs of TWS members are also situational in that they are supportive of maintaining wildlife as a natural resource and supportive of sustainable uses so long as those actions benefit conservation goals and healthy wildlife populations. A study of TWS members in 1994 reported moderate to strong positive utilitarian attitudes toward wildlife, moderate concerns about pain and suffering of individual animals, and moderate to strong beliefs that management should emphasize wildlife populations and habitats 73 rather than the well-being of individual animals (Brown et al. 1994). Although there were differences among the 4 professional organizations, the patterns were the same in 1998 (Muth et al. 1998). Urbanek et al. (2018) reported results on mean age, gender proportions and professional affiliations consistent with findings from my study affirming demographic shift of TWS members. Decision-making by wildlife conservation professionals may or may not reflect traditional emphases depending on the geographic region they reside in, the educational institution they studied in, and the agency they work for (Sanborn and Schmidt 1995, Schmutz 2002). Organizational culture of agencies impacts attitudes and beliefs of wildlife professionals (Lauber et al. 2009). Ensuring professional societies reflect beliefs of their members is essential in maintaining their membership (Bal and Sharik 2019). Results of my study will help wildlife agencies anticipate cultural changes forthcoming within their ranks. This can help identify and prioritize in-service training needs. As societal attitudes and beliefs shift, a concurrent, yet somewhat lagged shift will occur within the ranks of wildlife professionals. Current agency leaders cannot assume that new recruits will embrace traditional management paradigms. It is imperative that all professionals, ranging from baby boomers to millennials, understand and appreciate the diversity within our ranks. It is equally important to provide experiential and educational opportunities for young professionals to gain firsthand insights into traditional wildlife harvest methods – not for purposes of indoctrination, but so direct knowledge can be a basis for future decision-making that no doubt will be key to ensuring the future of the wildlife conservation enterprise. Limitations My data are exclusively from a portion of TWS members whose total membership exceeds 10,500 members employed at various levels in all types of jobs within diverse 74 organizations and are distributed widely throughout North America. My respondents geographically represent 50 states and 15 other countries, yet this population likely does not represent the full spectrum of people who consider themselves wildlife conservation professionals. Implications Programs such as Trapping Matters, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow, and others could be helpful for wildlife conservation professionals gaining experience and knowledge on topics for which they are not informed yet are important for their role as wildlife trust managers. Providing wildlife agencies with feedback of what beliefs and factors influence wildlife conservation professionals will better prepare agency personnel to align their values with society. The results from this assessment can provide the missing information agencies are needing to supplement their educational programs for their employees. Educational programming will have better insight into what is missing in the information provided to professionals. 75 CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project aimed to identify and understand the change in beliefs, value orientations, and attitudes of wildlife conservation professionals by comparing results of an updated questionnaire in 2020 to a similar questionnaire conducted in 1998 with members of The Wildlife Society (TWS). Results from the 2020 questionnaire revealed factors influencing the approval of legal hunting and legal trapping by members of the professional organization. I used members of TWS as a proxy for practicing wildlife professionals. Inferences about wildlife conservation professionals are based this study of TWS membership. Potential conflict could arise from between traditional agency culture and stakeholders, creating tension between professionals and the public they serve as wildlife conservation professionals continue leaning toward mutualistic beliefs about wildlife and wildlife management. Results of my research support the idea that value changes in a professional society do not occur rapidly. Beliefs, value orientations, and attitudinal changes within TWS did not change dramatically between the 2 periods measured, but appear consistent with the gradual changes reported for the general public (Manfredo et al. 2009, Manfredo et al. 2018). My findings of the 2 factors influencing legal hunting and trapping approval by members were consistent with beliefs associated with current mutualistic and utilitarian wildlife value orientations occurring within the public. Little research-based information regarding the attitudes, values, and preferences of conservation professionals has been explored. My findings contribute to understanding what is occurring in practicing professionals in comparison to the public. A few organizations with self- 76 examination include The Wildlife Society, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, to name a few (Peyton and Langenau 1985, Muth et al. 1998, Brown et al. 1994, Schumtz 2002, Urbanek 2018). Continued evaluation of practicing professionals in the conservation field will help the profession remain relevant to society, understand themselves better, and potentially provide leadership in future conservation issues (Muth et al. 2006). Members from TWS in my study broadly approved of legal hunting and trapping, but wildlife management directed at hunting of captive wildlife, such as those within high fence facilities was not acceptable by the majority and can be expected to meet resistance among wildlife conservation professionals. Activities perceived to diminish fair chase or humane treatment of wildlife included game ranching, wildlife hunted behind high fences, furbearer species in a commercial facility for eventual sale, and lethal poisoning were reported among the least appropriate the outcome of meeting resistance. For example, states such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas allow for high fence hunting opportunities, but overall, members do not find the activity appropriate for wildlife management (S. Demarais, The Wildlife Society, unpublished report). For agencies, staff, and professional societies to maintain support and relevancy of the public, acknowledgment, and understanding of the increased agreement toward the humane treatment of wildlife by practicing professionals is valuable. A consideration moving forward with training and education could be that agencies, administrations, or stakeholders who are aware that hunting programs may not be consistent with value orientations within professionals will be better able to make decisions about personnel management within their agencies. Regardless of demographics and professional backgrounds, TWS members expressed that the humane treatment of animals is an essential consideration across wildlife management. The 77 reported mean level of stated appropriateness toward specific management activities indicated the method of management used was more acceptable if it involved practices considered to be described as the fair chase of wildlife. It should be noted, however, the expressed appropriateness of specific management activities, such as shooting or trapping by trained professionals to manage wildlife, is not necessarily the same as the level of support toward the activity. A continued focus on the humane treatment of animals will help sustain the support of professionals as the shift of wildlife value orientations continues from utilitarian to mutualistic. More respondents in 2020 than 1998 indicated not having an opinion on whether or not foothold or leghold traps should be outlawed. One explanation of why this is could be fewer members enter the profession with experience in hunting or trapping, or their job does not pertain enough to trapping such that they would express an informed opinion. This may be related to their age, geography, and experiences from their upbringing (Muth et al. 2006). Of members who expressed an opinion, they reported high approval toward legal hunting and trapping but approval toward trapping was less. This is consistent with the general public’s beliefs about trapping being among the most controversial of wildlife uses and gains less support than other uses of wildlife (White et al. 2015, NSSF 2019). Issues that arise include potential public confusion over trapping that may arise from the lack of consensus by professionals on the topic. Additionally, trust and credibility within agencies could be compromised when practicing professionals have different perspectives on topics such as trapping (Muth et al. 2006). For wildlife conservation professionals, who operate within diverse job types, an understanding of how trapping plays a role in wildlife conservation and research could be an important consideration for continued professional development training. 78 There are geographical differences apparent among professionals in their state, province or TWS Section of residence, which are reflected in the different positions held and responsibilities in meeting the needs of stakeholders and associated wildlife management activities. This finding warrants further investigation of how training, education, and services provided to TWS membership and other wildlife professionals can be tailored to the needs of personnel within those areas. For example, leadership in wildlife agencies in the Southeastern US has faced challenges associated with the introduction and spreading of invasive species, changing landscapes, and agency relevancy (Jewell et al. 2020). Professionals are working within different management activities and serving diverse stakeholders, so understanding the positions they hold and the duties they are tasked with will be important because different regions are working on specific challenges that are reflected in their populations. If maintaining support for various wildlife management methods among wildlife professionals is a goal, then providing experiential and educational opportunities for young professionals to gain firsthand insights into traditional wildlife harvest methods seems important. The purpose is not aimed at indoctrination, but rather directed at increased knowledge and understanding that can be a basis for future decision-making. One of the issues revealed by my findings is that diversifying academic programs, fields of expertise, and a decrease in knowledge and experience in traditional wildlife activities will play a role in the changing dynamics within the work culture. For example, younger generations agreed more with beliefs associated with a mutualistic value orientation. More older generations of TWS members agreed with statements of active management and “wildlife are resources to be used for human benefit.” My results will help wildlife agencies anticipate likely cultural changes forthcoming within their ranks. When older age members within TWS retire they age out of active participation, as younger 79 generations enter the workforce. The aging demographics of the membership, consistent with the baby boomer generation moving through the profession, suggests there will be considerable turnover in personnel in the wildlife profession. More mutualistic value orientations will likely dominate traditional or utilitarian values within the professional culture. Based on the results presented in the previous 2 chapters, the following recommendations are offered to consider developing future action and research by those in agency staff, professional organizations, and educational institutions. Research from this study provides insights into potential areas of training or education to focus on within the profession. If support among wildlife professionals for various uses of wildlife such as trapping and hunting is desirable to sustain, an investment in continual education about their roles in wildlife management is likely to be helpful. In addition to techniques that address concerns about humane treatment, such as Best Management Practices of trapping, further investigation and description into what constitutes fair chase could facilitate deliberation and awareness among professionals. TWS members, especially those in younger age groups, are less supportive of lethal means of management unless the purpose is motivated by acquisition of food; that belief has become more prevalent over time and reflects similar belief orientations as in the general public. It likely will take more than written material and typical channels of communication to affect a measurable change in acceptance or behavior. The importance of extension-type programming suggests continual workshops, supported by evidence from professional research and practice, likely will be most effective in providing knowledge of trapping and the Best Management Practices associated with it. Programs such as Trapping Matters, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow, and others may be helpful for wildlife conservation professionals gaining 80 experience and knowledge in the areas of expertise they are not educated in but are important for their role as trust managers in wildlife management. Limitations My data are from only a portion of TWS members whose total membership exceeds 10,500 members employed at various levels in all types of jobs within diverse organizations and are distributed widely throughout North America. My respondents geographically represented 50 states and 15 other countries, yet this population likely does not represent the full spectrum of people who consider themselves wildlife conservation professionals. Although the 2020 survey instrument attempted to be as similar to the 1998 instrument as possible, some sampling differences occurred. For instance, the 1998 sampling scheme attempted to attain an equal sex ratio of respondents. My 2020 sample, however, attempted to mirror the current demographics of TWS membership closely. This difference in sampling schemes may have some effect on estimates. 81 APPENDICES 82 APPENDIX A Survey Email Invitation and Reminders 83 January 14, 2020 Dear TWS membership, I need your help to gain meaningful insights into how the beliefs and attitudes of wildlife conservation professionals are changing. Please click on the link below, which leads to a questionnaire titled, “Changing Values: A Survey of Wildlife Conservation Professionals in the 21st Century.” Results from this questionnaire will be compared to data from a similar survey conducted about TWS membership in 1998. Results from that previous survey were published in a Wildlife Society Bulletin article; plans are to do the same with the data collected in this current questionnaire. In this day and age of robocalls and social media, I know you get surveyed on everything from political views to your favorite flavor of ice cream. Mine is a different type of request – this is not a poll and the data collected will help your professional society better meet the needs of its members and other wildlife conservation professionals. A high response rate is vitally needed to make accurate comparisons. The questionnaire is being administered by Dr. Shawn Riley at Michigan State University. Shawn has been an active TWS member for nearly 40 years. The questionnaire is anonymous. Your name cannot be associated with your response, and the data will be safeguarded in accordance with the rules and regulations of Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program. Anonymous link to questionnaire: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XKKvM8k7vsd12t Should you have any questions, please contact Dr. Shawn Riley at rileysh2@msu.edu or his research assistant on the project, Ms. Rachel Menale at menalera@msu.edu. Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire in a timely manner. Your input is important to The Wildlife Society. Sincerely, Gary C. White, President, CWB® The Wildlife Society 84 January 22, 2020 Dear fellow TWS members, Last week TWS President Gary White asked you to participate in a questionnaire designed to assess change-over-time in beliefs and attitudes of TWS members toward uses of wildlife. Data from this assessment will be compared directly to a 1998 survey, which will among other outcomes provide insights about contemporary values of wildlife conservation professionals. We received a tremendous initial response to the questionnaire, but that response rate has diminished the past few days. We need your input to gain reliable inferences! If you have not already done so, please take a little time to complete the questionnaire as soon as you are able. The questionnaire thus far is completed in an average of 23 minutes (n=1,532). Anonymous link to questionnaire: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XKKvM8k7vsd12t Thank you, if you already pitched in and responded–your participation in improving the society is appreciated. With all the possible combinations of servers, software and hardware configurations out there, we experienced a few technical hiccups related to compatibility with Qualtrics. Most those issues are resolved. The one issue we haven’t resolved is that federal employee, who attempt the questionnaire from their official workstations, frequently get an error message. Those who try from their personal computers seem not to have an issue. Your response is important wherever you live and whatever your current employment status, whether you work with game, non-game, populations, habitat, humans or any other aspect of wildlife conservation. The questionnaire is focused on uses of wildlife – utilitarian for the most part – to closely compare with the 1998 data. Nonetheless, results will enable better alignment of TWS programming and services for members. An increased number of responses will increase accuracy of the results. To maintain anonymity, we are surveying everyone with an anonymous link. Anonymous link to questionnaire: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XKKvM8k7vsd12t The software will not, however, allow an individual to take the questionnaire more than once. Your name cannot be associated with your response, and the data will be safeguarded in accordance with the rules and regulations of Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program. Should you have any questions, please contact me at rileysh2@msu.edu or my research assistant, Rachel Menale at menalera@msu.edu. Thank you for completing this questionnaire in a timely manner. Your input enables continual improvement of The Wildlife Society and other wildlife conservation professionals. Sincerely, 85 Shawn J Riley, Parish Storrs Lovejoy Professor of Wildlife Management Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, 48864 USA 86 February 4, 2020 Greetings, A few weeks ago, I asked that you participate in a survey of TWS membership on changing values toward uses of wildlife. Results from this current questionnaire will be compared to date from a nearly identical questionnaire from 1998 and be used to help guide professional programming aligned with the needs of members. While this is going on with TWS, the same questionnaire is being completed by members of the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association, who also participated back in 1998. If you have completed the questionnaire, as nearly 3,000 TWS members have done, thank you. If you have not completed the questionnaire, please take a little time now to do so. The greater the response rate, the stronger the inferences. Anonymous link to questionnaire: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XKKvM8k7vsd12t The questionnaire only takes about 20 minutes to complete. Your response cannot be tied to your identity in any way. The study is being facilitated by Dr. Shawn Riley at Michigan State; all investigators involved are all serving TWS members including Past President John Organ, who was instrumental in the 1998 effort. Thank you, Gary C. White, President, CWB® The Wildlife Society 87 February 18, 2020 I’m not the sort of person who likes to hound people, but inclusion is important to creating meaningful decisions. And, when it comes to wildlife management, I take that charge seriously. We’ve heard from only about one-third of TWS members. Thank you if you have already completed the survey! If you have not already done so, please take just a bit of time (average is 21 minutes) to complete the simple online questionnaire. Link to questionnaire: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1XKKvM8k7vsd12t Data from this questionnaire will be compared to 1998 survey results to assess how beliefs about uses of wildlife are changing among wildlife professionals. The data will help guide education and communication for professional development and provide Council a better sense of its constituents. I don’t have to tell you how important sample size is when making such comparisons – your response is needed for accurate inferences. This survey is sponsored by The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in cooperation with The Wildlife Society and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. Please do not pass this link along to anyone else. We made it anonymous to assure your response cannot be associated in any way with your identify. The survey is voluntary and there are no risks associated with your participation. Be assured any data you provide will be safeguarded in accordance with the rules and regulations of Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns: Shawn Riley: rileysh2@msu.edu Or my research assistant: Rachel Menale: menalera@msu.edu Your input is needed for valid conclusions and recommendations. Thank you for your participation! Sincerely, Shawn J. Riley, Professor of Wildlife Management Michigan State University 88 APPENDIX B Survey Instrument, Consent Form and Percent Responses 89 Changing Values: A Survey of Wildlife Conservation Professionals in the 21st Century 90 Consent Form Changing Values: A Survey of Wildlife Conservation Professionals in the 21st Century Purpose of the study: Understand the beliefs and attitudes of wildlife conservation professionals towards uses of wildlife and the implications of these attributes for future conservation, education, communication, and programming by state wildlife agencies. Principal Researchers: Dr. Shawn Riley- Professor of Wildlife Management, Michigan State University Rachel Menale – Graduate Research Assistant, Michigan State University Background You are being asked to participate in a research study of how wildlife conservation professionals view various uses of wildlife. You will need to complete an online survey. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this research. Risks and benefits There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. You will not receive compensation for participating. We will provide a final report from this survey upon request. All data will be reported only in the aggregate – no individual identifiers of any kind will be reported. Your participation is completely voluntary and confidential Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say, “no thank you” and not participate. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You also may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Only researchers associated with this project and MSU’s Human Research Protection Program may have access to information you provide. The responses to this survey will be confidential and no identifying information will be linked to your survey responses after you complete the survey. Contact information for questions or concerns If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher (Rachel Menale: menalera@msu.edu) If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517- 91 432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Consent By clicking on the button below, you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this online survey. o I consent o I do not consent This questionnaire includes questions about hunting and trapping throughout. You should assume that what is meant by this is legal, regulated hunting and trapping authorized in accordance to the rules and regulations appropriate to the states in where they occur. Your response will be kept confidential to greatest extent possible. Table of Contents I. Sources of Information II. Outdoor activity III. Views about Management IV. Management activities V. Trapping VI. Demographics Thank you for your time – your participation is greatly appreciated and will help provide insights into conservation programming. 92 I. Sources of Information 1. The sources of information that wildlife conservation professionals use to inform themselves about wildlife issues are important for a variety of reasons. When you think about all the wildlife issues of interest and importance to you, (e.g., technical biology, management, social values, resource conflicts, etc.), please tell us how important each source is in providing you with information. EI= Extremely Important, MI= Moderately Important, SI= Somewhat Important, SI= Slightly Important, NI= Not at all important n EI MI SI SI NI Newspaper/ News magazines 3,204 7.0% 21.3% 28.5% 30.9% 11.0% Sporting magazines 3,190 1.5% 7.8% 18.0% 29.9% 41.0% On-line resources (e.g., social media, 3,209 18.0% 24.3% 23.3% 24.8% 8.5% blogs, internet, etc.) Radio 3,196 2.8% 12.3% 20.9% 32.3% 30.2% Television 3,194 3.3% 11.7% 20.8% 32.7% 29.9% Movies 3,182 1.4% 4.3% 7.0% 23.0% 61.7% Conservation Organizations (e.g., DU, NWTF, RMEF, NTA, QDMA, 3,223 33.4% 39.2% 18.2% 6.8% 1.6% etc.) Professional Associations (e.g., The Wildlife Society, Society for 3,235 74.9% 19.6% 3.8% 1.1% 0.2% Conservation Biology, etc.) Environmental Organizations (e.g., National Audubon Society, Sierra 3,229 27.5% 39.8% 20.2% 9.6% 2.2% Club, etc.) Animal Protection Organizations 3,214 2.6% 5.7% 13.0% 32.4% 45.4% (e.g., PETA, HSUS, etc.) Internet, listservers, web browsing 3,213 16.4% 27.5% 28.1% 20.2% 6.8% Friends and relatives or 3,210 3.8% 13.2% 29.0% 38.9% 13.9% acquaintances Professional colleagues and peers 3,231 66.0% 26.6% 5.8% 1.0% 0.2% Personal experiences in the field 3,235 71.9% 21.9% 4.8% 0.9% 0.2% College classes 3,205 33.6% 35.8% 16.5% 7.2% 5.6% Professional workshops and short 3,217 46.4% 32.9% 11.6% 5.2% 3.0% courses Wildlife extension programs 3,180 24.5% 31.0% 19.7% 12.8% 10.0% Professional meetings and 3,210 59.5% 26.9% 8.8% 2.8% 1.0% conferences Scientific journals (e.g., Journal of Wildlife Management, Conservation 3,229 75.9% 17.0% 4.7% 1.4% 0.5% Biology, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, etc.) 93 II. Outdoor activity 2. The following questions are intended to assess the regularity with which you participate in various activities. Within the last five years, how frequently have you participated in the following activities? ( 0– Not at all, 1– Less than 5 times, 2– 5-20 times, 3– More than 20 times) n Not at Less than 5-20 More than all 5 times times 20 times a. Bird watching 2,566 3.0% 9.0% 18.1% 48.9% b. Other wildlife viewing 2,566 0.7% 3.8% 14.7% 59.8% c. Wildlife photography 2,559 11.3% 16.2% 23.5% 27.8% d. Citizen science and/or 2,558 11.9% 22.7% 24.2% 20.0% other volunteer conservation activities e. Gather wild edibles or 2,555 25.7% 22.2% 18.8% 11.9% foraging f. Canoeing or boating 2,557 9.0% 18.9% 24.8% 26.1% g. Sportfishing 2,556 21.7% 14.6% 18.1% 24.4% h. Commercial fishing 2,548 70.5% 6.5% 1.0% 0.5% i. Big game hunting 2,556 35.0% 10.2% 10.6% 22.9% j. Upland bird hunting 2,552 39.6% 13.4% 11.4% 14.2% k. Waterfowl hunting 2,554 49.8% 10.8% 7.8% 10.3% l. Other small game hunting 2,550 46.4% 13.7% 9.9% 8.5% m. Regulated fur trapping 2,545 65.7% 7.0% 2.4% 3.3% n. Target shooting 2,554 25.3% 18.6% 18.6% 16.2% o. Geo-caching 2,548 62.7% 12.0% 2.4% 1.3% p. Camping 2,561 9.6% 17.0% 21.6% 30.6% q. Hiking 2,569 1.8% 5.2% 14.6% 57.5% r. Mountain biking or trail 2,546 44.5% 14.1% 8.3% 11.3% riding s. Other 361 1.2% 0.9% 1.5% 7.5% 94 III. Views about Management To better serve you through educational and communication programs, it is important for us to understand your views on wildlife management and the use of wildlife. 3. For each of the following statements, please click the answer from the drop-down list that most closely represents the extent to which you approve or disapprove with each statement. SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK Legal hunting 3,246 72.6% 20.8% 3.6% 1.7% 1.2% 0.2% Legal Trapping 3,245 44.2% 27.5% 10.8% 9.7% 6.9% 0.9% Other people legally hunting, regardless 3,243 72.3% 22.7% 2.7% 1.3% 0.6% 0.3% of your opinion on hunting Other people legally trapping, regardless 3,241 49.4% 26.5% 9.2% 8.2% 5.5% 1.0% of your opinion on trapping. 95 4. The following questions are intended to ascertain beliefs about management held by wildlife conservation professionals. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following questions? Remember, your responses are confidential and will only be reported in the aggregate with other wildlife conservation professionals across North America. please click the answer from the drop-down list that most closely represents the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK a. Wildlife species have value in and of themselves 3,245 89.2% 9.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% above and beyond use by humans. b. The focus of wildlife management should be on the biodiversity of the 3,244 44.8% 40.1% 10.6% 3.8% 0.2% 0.4% entire ecosystem rather than on individual species. c. A primary responsibility of managers should be to 3,246 36.0% 48.0% 11.4% 4.0% 0.3% 0.3% restore ecosystems that have been damaged. d. Although biodiversity is important, managers 3,244 3.0% 13.9% 21.7% 38.5% 22.3% 0.6% should give priority to harvestable species. e. Humans can harvest surplus production of wildlife populations 3,238 57.6% 32.1% 4.1% 3.5% 1.5% 0.9% without harming their long- term population viability if done properly. f. Wildlife should not be managed because management often leave 3,240 0.6% 0.9% 5.8% 34.3% 57.5% 0.7% wildlife in a worse condition. g. Wildlife are resources to be harvested in a 3,239 15.4% 30.8% 25.0% 17.5% 10.7% 0.2% sustainable way and used for human benefit. 96 n SA A N D SD DK h. The regulated harvest of wild animals by humans is 3,244 48.1% 41.6% 5.9% 2.3% 1.3% 0.7% compatible with natural resource conservation. i. Killing wildlife for management purposes is 3,243 1.9% 6.4% 8.1% 44.4% 38.5% 0.6% seldom acceptable. j. It is preferable that 3,236 3.7% 15.1% 46.1% 21.5% 11.5% 1.8% wildlife die a natural death. k. Wildlife need to be managed to minimize 3,239 15.2% 48.8% 18.8% 13.1% 3.1% 0.8% conflicts with humans. l. Some wildlife needs to be managed to limit their 3,244 39.1% 53.5% 4.4% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4% adverse effects on other species and habitats. m. Hunting and trapping of certain species are sometimes necessary to 3,244 34.3% 52.2% 7.8% 3.2% 1.0% 1.4% prevent other species from becoming endangered. n. The current public user- pay model of funding will 3,239 5.7% 20.8% 9.4% 34.7% 18.0% 11.1% continue to support wildlife conservation in the future. 97 5. There are ethical issues to consider with all wildlife management activities. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK a. I believe wild animals have the same rights as 3,245 6.5% 13.9% 16.6% 35.1% 26.5% 1.3% humans. b. It is morally wrong to kill wildlife for human 3,242 5.9% 10.8% 10.2% 35.9% 36.3% 0.7% sport or recreation. c. Hunting is a cruel activity that 3,244 1.2% 1.4% 4.6% 31.5% 61.1% 0.2% dehumanizes the people who participate in it. d. Trapping is a cruel activity that 3,245 3.5% 7.3% 10.1% 32.6% 45.2% 1.2% dehumanizes the people who participate in it. e. Minimizing the pain and suffering of individual animals 3,244 42.7% 41.1% 9.0% 4.5% 2.1% 0.5% should be important criteria in wildlife management. f. Hunting on property where wildlife are 3,244 34.4% 33.7% 20.2% 7.7% 1.7% 2.2% confined by high fences is unethical. 98 6. Harvest of wildlife is more ethically acceptable to me the more: SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK a. it reduces the period of time that a harvested animal 3,207 45.9% 43.9% 7.%3 1.2% 0.4% may potentially suffer. b. it involves fair chase and 3,229 60.1% 31.6% 4.5% 1.9% 1.3% sportsmanship. c. it utilizes the harvested 3,241 76.6% 21.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.2% animal. d. it benefits the long-term health and viability of the 3,233 65.9% 28.6% 3.9% 0.7% 0.3% species being harvested. e. it reduces nonagricultural 3,212 27.7% 47.6% 16.3% 6.2% 1.2% land damage. f. it reduces agricultural 3,226 17.1% 47.5% 21.3% 11.3% 2.2% damage. g. it reduces potential 3,202 18.8% 53.4% 16.3% 8.4% 1.7% animal damage conflicts. h. it reduces risk to human 3,224 26.5% 52.7% 13.1% 5.8% 1.2% health and safety problems. 99 7. Opportunities to participate in regulated hunting should be maintained because: SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK a. Hunting creates revenue to sustain the current user- 3,213 39.5% 43.8% 8.3% 5.4% 2.0% pay model for state wildlife conservation. b. Hunting provides participants with 3,094 25.1% 37.0% 20.6% 8.0% 4.5% opportunities for spiritual growth. c. Hunting provides 3,235 32.2% 47.1 10.7% 6.2% 3.5% recreational opportunity. d. Hunting provides participants with 3,151 29.2% 42.4% 15.7% 6.8% 3.0% opportunities for personal ethical development. e. Hunting is an important way of life for some 3,237 52.2% 39.9% 4.8% 1.7% 1.0% people. f. Hunting provides wild- 3,239 61.2% 34.4% 2.6% 0.8% 0.7% harvested food. g. Hunting manages wildlife populations to 3,210 20.4% 46.0% 19.0% 11.0% 2.5% protect property. h. Hunting provides an opportunity to obtain a 3,235 3.7% 15.6% 25.5% 21.3% 33.5% trophy. 100 8. Opportunities to participate in regulated trapping should be maintained because: SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, N= Neither, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree, DK= Don’t know n SA A N D SD DK a. Trapping creates revenue to sustain the current user-pay 3,233 22.0% 38.3% 14.8% 12.6% 7.7% 4.2% model for state wildlife conservation. b. Trapping provides participants with 3,234 14.2% 28.2% 25.5% 13.0% 10.9% 7.8% opportunities for spiritual growth. c. Trapping it provides recreational 3,232 19.9% 43.1% 13.3% 10.9% 10.7% 1.7% opportunity. d. Trapping provides participants with opportunities for 3,234 18.1% 33.9% 19.9% 11.4% 10.3% 6.0% personal ethical development. e. Trapping is an important way of life 3,234 36.6% 44.1% 7.8% 4.5% 4.4% 2.2% for some people. f. Trapping provides 3,228 19.7% 35.7% 17.1% 16.9% 7.1% 3.0% wild-harvested food. g. Trapping manages wildlife populations to 3,234 21.4% 43.0% 14.7% 11.4% 6.8% 2.2% protect property. h. Trapping provides an opportunity to 3,230 2.7% 10.6% 21.8% 23.4% 38.6% 2.4% obtain a trophy. 101 IV. Management activities The following questions are intended to clarify the extent to which you believe that the following specific management activities and uses are appropriate or inappropriate in contemporary North America. In responding to each statement, assume that the activity is taking place in a legal, regulated, and sustainable way. For each statement, please select the answer that most closely represents your personal views. 9. Management Activities EA= Extremely Appropriate, A= Appropriate, N= Neither, IA= Inappropriate, EI= Extremely Inappropriate, DK= Don’t Know n EA A NA I EI DK a. Fertility control as a method for managing 3,241 12.1% 46.5% 13.3% 16.8% 7.9% 3.2% wildlife populations. b. Stocking of native game animals to 3,242 34.9% 55.3% 5.9% 2.5% 0.4% 0.8% reestablish a viable population. c. Shooting by trained professionals (e.g., 3,240 20.4% 58.2% 11.5% 6.7% 2.0% 0.9% sharpshooters) to manage wildlife. d. Lethal poisoning as a method of predator 3,240 2.2% 16.3% 15.2% 33.0% 31.0% 2.1% control for managing wildlife. e. Use of traditional archery equipment (e.g., longbow, 3,238 40.3% 48.0% 5.8% 2.8% 1.7% 1.1% recurve) to hunt wildlife. f. Use of advanced archery equipment (e.g., compound bows, 3,241 32.0% 51.3% 8.5% 4.7% 1.8% 1.6% sights, crossbows, etc.) to hunt wildlife. 102 n EA A NA I EI DK g. Use of dogs to hunt 3,239 43.6% 41.9% 5.8% 4.1% 2.3% 1.9% upland birds. h. Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) 3,238 21.8% 34.6% 15.3% 16.2% 7.1% 4.6% raccoons. i. Use of dogs to hunt 3,238 4.5% 17.6% 17.9% 36.0% 18.4% 5.4% deer. j. Use of dogs to hunt 3,237 39.9% 39.1% 7.6% 6.4% 3.5% 3.2% nonnative feral pigs. k. Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) 3,238 12.1% 29.6% 14.5% 21.8% 16.8% 4.8% mountain lions. l. Use of dogs to hunt (pursue and tree) black 3,241 10.3% 25.3% 15.5% 25.9% 17.9% 5.0% bears. m. Use of bait to hunt 3,240 2.2% 11.7% 12.8% 38.4% 33.8% 0.9% deer. n. Use of bait to hunt 3,238 1.7% 9.6% 13.6% 39.4% 33.3% 2.2% other ungulates. o. Use of bait to hunt 3,236 3.3% 17.6% 13.7% 32.2% 30.6% 2.2% black bears. p. Releasing captive- reared upland game 3,238 4.6% 30.2% 25.4% 26.7% 10.6% 2.2% birds to provide hunting opportunities. q. "Varmint" hunting (the shooting of woodchucks, crows, 3,237 4.6% 21.2% 20.1% 29.7% 22.2% 2.0% prairie dogs, or other animals not commonly used by humans). r. Raising furbearer species in commercial facilities (e.g., mink ranches, fox farms) for 3,239 3.9% 27.1% 22.9% 22.4% 18.7% 4.7% eventual sale of the pelts on the commercial fur market. s. Hunting wildlife for a large set of antlers/horns, or to have 3,237 5.9% 27.7% 26.0% 22.7% 16.6% 0.7% the animal mounted by a taxidermist. 103 n EA A NA I EI DK t. Game ranching, in which big game species 3,239 1.0% 9.7% 18.4% 34.1% 34.6% 1.9% are raised behind a fence. u. Trapping by trained wildlife agency 3,235 37.6% 50.5% 6.5% 2.2% 2.0% 0.8% personnel to manage wildlife. v. Trapping by private animal pest control 3,237 23.4% 54.1% 12.3% 5.6% 2.8% 1.6% firms to control nuisance wildlife. w. Fur trapping by people who intend to use money from selling 3,238 29.8% 44.1% 11.7% 6.8% 5.5% 1.8% pelts and products to support their family. x. Use of foothold traps by fur trappers to 3,236 18.3% 31.6% 12.2% 18.4% 14.6% 4.6% harvest pelts and products. 104 V. Trapping In this section, we are interested in your view about trapping as a wildlife harvest activity. Please select the answer that best represents your view. 10. Use of foothold traps to trap species classified as a furbearer should be outlawed. (Select one) n Strongly Strongly No opinion agree disagree TWS 3,232 33.0% 45.0% 21.6% a. Please tell us why you think the use of foothold traps to trap furbearers should be outlawed. (Select all that apply) TWS n= 1,071 Trapping is unethical. 29.8% Trapping is not a necessary management tool. 27.2% Trapping is unsporting. 29.2% Trapping inflicts unnecessary pain/stress on furbearers that 85.3% are trapped. Trapping is in conflict with public values 27.4% Trapping is inappropriate for humans to derive pleasure 34.7% from. Trapping is a wasteful use of wildlife. 23.2% Trapping poses the possibility of harming or killing non- 84.6% target species. Other 10.5% b. Please tell us why you think the use of foothold traps to trap furbearers should not be outlawed. (Select all that apply) TWS n= 1,460 Trapping is ethical. 71.2% Trapping is an important tool for managing furbearer 84.0% populations. Trapping is an efficient method to harvest furbearers. 83.0% Trapping does not adversely affect furbearer populations. 61.6% Trapping can be an important part of some people's lifestyle. 76.6% Trapping provides important benefits and satisfactions to 66.4% participating trappers. Trapping is not a wasteful use of wildlife. 66.6% Trapping allows the possibility of releasing non-target species. 74.5% Other 11.0% 105 C. Please tell us why you do not have a formulated opinion? TWS n= 673 I don’t know enough about the topic. 75.5% I have an opinion, but I don’t care to 44.6% express it. Best Management Practices of Trapping We are interested in your level of familiarity and view of best management practices of trapping. Please check the space that best represents your familiarity and view. 11. How much would you say you know about trapping best management practices? n EF MF VF NF TWS 3,233 15.7% 43.7% 31.1% 9.0% 12. Overall, do you support or oppose best management practices? n SS S N MO SO DK TWS 2,813 50.5% 27.7% 6.7% 1.1% 0.5% 106 a. What are the main reasons you support best management practices? TWS n= 2,541 Humane/ ethical/ animal welfare 85.0% Good for future of trapping/ preserve the 56.0% heritage Provide guideline for proper use of traps 84.0% Good for non-target animals 70.0% Provide good research/ scientific analysis 67.0% Better traps/ equipment 61.0% Other 3.4% Don't know 0.8% b. What are the main reasons you oppose best management practices? TWS n= 53 Too much regulation / too universalized 4.0% Regulations come from uninformed people 19.0% Too much politics 32.0% They will be used to stop or hinder trapping 0.0% in the long run Disagree with testing methods 28.0% They are unnecessary 15.0% Other 57.0% Don't know 9.0% 107 VI. Demographics In the final section of the questionnaire provides an opportunity to share a little about your background, education, and training. 13. What is your highest level of education completed? (Select one) TWS n= 3,244 Graduate of technical/ trade school beyond high school 0.7% Completed some college courses but did not graduate 1.8% Two-year community college degree (Associate's 0.6% degree) College/University degree (Bachelor's degree) 27.5% Master's degree 42.6% Professional school degree (e.g., Law, Veterinary 1.2% Medicine) Doctorate (Ph.D. or equivalent) 25.6% 14. In what academic or professional fields did you earn your college level degree? (e.g., wildlife biology, law, fisheries science, zoology, political science, public administration, other, etc.) Technical/trade degree Associate (2 yr.) Bachelors Masters Doctorate Professional Degree 15. Are you currently a student? TWS n= 3,235 Yes 14.0% No 85.6% 108 16. Please check any of the following professional development programs you have attended: TWS n= 544 Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow Program (CLfT) 32.0% Trapping Matters 37.3% National Conservation Leadership Institute (NCLI) 13.6% Other- text box 1 63.2% Other- text box 2 18.4% 17. Which of the following best describes you currently? TWS n= 3,234 Currently employed in a natural resource 64.9% organization Currently employed not in a natural resource 8.2% organization Previously employed in the natural resource field 9.2% Never employed in the natural resource field 3.7% Retired 14.0% 18. How long have you been or were you employed in your professional field? (Select one) TWS n= 3,212 Less than 5 years 21.1% 5–10 years 17.9% 11–20 years 19.7% More than 20 years 41.3% 19. With what kind of organization are you employed? TWS n= 3,139 Federal agency 19.9% State agency 29.2% Local government agency 3.4% Private sector corporation or business 14.2% Institution of higher education (college, university, etc.) 22.9% Non-profit/ non-governmental organization (NGO) 10.3% 109 20. What are the primary responsibilities of your job(s)? (Select all that apply) TWS n= 3,130 Non-Game Species Management (including 40.2% Rare/Endangered) Biodiversity/ Landscape Biology 34.5% Administration (personnel, budget, etc.) 23.3% Planning/ Regulations/ Permitting 26.6% Clerical/ Support Staff 1.4% Game Species Management 32.0% Education/ Teaching 24.8% Real Estate/ Land Appraisal/ Land Acquisition 3.8% Political Activity/Activism 2.8% Land Management 33.4% Policy Formulation 10.5% Public Information/ Outreach Activities/ Interpretation 19.7% Law Enforcement 3.4% Research 53.1% Monitoring 42.6% Other 11.0% 110 21. With which of the following organizations, societies or associations are you affiliated? (Yes, No, I was formerly but no longer) I was formerly, but am n Yes No no longer An environmental/conservation organization (e.g., TNC, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain 3,127 56.8% 20.4% 20.0% Elk Foundation, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, etc.) An animal rights/ animal protection organization (e.g., PETA, Humane Society, 3,057 3.1% 88.4% 2.7% Fund for Animals, etc.) A sportsman's organization (hunting/fishing/trapping organization, rod & 3,078 26.3% 57.0% 11.5% gun club, etc.) Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2,942 12.7% 72.8% 5.1% Society for Conservation Biology 2,929 9.6% 65.9% 14.7% Ecological Society of America 2,912 10.4% 69.7% 9.6% Society for Range Conservation 2,756 2.3% 77.9% 4.6% 22. How would you describe the place where you currently live? (Select one) TWS n= 3,237 Rural Area (less than 2,500 people) 21.2% Town (2,500 and 10,000 people) 17.8% Small City (10,001 and 50,000 people) 23.1% Medium City (50,001 and 250,000 people) 22.0% Large City (more than 250,000 people) 15.8% 23. How would you describe the area where you lived most of your childhood? (Select one) TWS n= 3,231 Rural Area (less than 2,500 people) 26.5% Town (2,500 and 10,000 people) 20.1% Small City (10,001 and 50,000 people) 19.9% Medium City (50,001 and 250,000 people) 18.1% Large City (more than 250,000 people) 15.4% 111 24. In which state do you currently reside? TWS n= 3,203 % Alabama 34 1.0 Alaska 89 2.7 Arizona 70 2.2 Arkansas 53 1.6 California 253 7.8 Colorado 145 4.5 Connecticut 10 0.3 Delaware 11 0.3 District of Columbia 8 0.2 Florida 86 2.6 Georgia 58 1.8 Hawaii 11 0.3 Idaho 94 2.9 Illinois 50 1.5 Indiana 36 1.1 Iowa 29 0.9 Kansas 40 1.2 Kentucky 33 1.0 Louisiana 27 0.8 Maine 40 1.2 Maryland 40 1.2 Massachusetts 31 1.0 Michigan 73 2.2 Minnesota 75 2.3 Mississippi 47 1.4 Missouri 51 1.6 Montana 110 3.4 Nebraska 46 1.4 Nevada 48 1.5 New Hampshire 21 0.6 New Jersey 25 0.8 New Mexico 49 1.5 New York 90 2.8 North Carolina 67 2.1 North Dakota 40 1.2 112 Ohio 44 1.4 Oklahoma 25 0.8 Oregon 108 3.3 Pennsylvania 74 2.3 Rhode Island 9 0.3 South Carolina 47 1.4 South Dakota 25 0.8 Tennessee 56 1.7 Texas 176 5.4 Utah 49 1.5 Vermont 27 0.8 Virginia 79 2.4 Washington 112 3.4 West Virginia 30 0.9 Wisconsin 119 3.7 Wyoming 69 2.1 I do not reside in the 164 5.1 U.S. 25. Reside out of the U.S. TWS n= 164 Canada 95 Alberta 1 British Columbia 1 Manitoba 1 New Brunswick - Newfoundland and - Labrador Ontario 1 Saskatchewan 1 Quebec 1 Argentina 1 Australia 3 Belize 1 Brazil 1 Gabon 1 Germany 2 Mexico 1 Myanmar 1 113 Norway 2 South Africa 1 Sweden 2 United Kingdom 4 US Virgin Islands 1 Guam 1 26. In what year were you born? TWS n= 3,145 Average 46 19 and under 3 20-29 504 30-39 726 40-49 606 50-59 483 60-69 516 70 and beyond 306 27. What is you gender? (Select one) TWS n= 3,229 Male 59.7% Female 37.7% Non-binary 0.4% Prefer not to answer 2.2% 114 If you have any additional comments or views that you would like to share with us, please feel free to type them in the space below. ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 115 LITERATURE CITED 116 LITERATURE CITED Adams, K., and M. Ross. 2013. QDMA whitetail report 2013. Quality Deer Management Association. http://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/WR2013.pdf. Agee, J. D., and C. A. Miller. 2009. Factors contributing toward acceptance of lethal control of black bears in central Georgia, USA. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:198–205. Applebome, P. 1996. The southernization of America. Pages 4–22 in P. Applebome, editor. Dixie rising: how the south is shaping American values, politics, and culture. Times Books, New York, USA. Armstrong, J. B., and A. N. Rossi. 2000. Status of avocational trapping based on the perspectives of state furbearer biologists. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:825–832. Bal, T. L., and T. L. Sharik. 2019. Image content analysis of US natural resources-related professional society websites with respect to gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Journal of Forestry 117:360–364. Batavia, C, J. T. Bruskotter, J. A. Jones, J. A. Vucetich, H. Gosnell, and M. P. Nelson. 2018. Nature for whom? How type of beneficiary influences the effectiveness of conservation outreach messages. Biological Conservation 228:158–166. Batavia, C., M. P. Nelson, C. T. Darimont, P. C. Paquet, W. J. Ripple, and A. D. Wallach. 2019. The elephant (head) in the room: A critical look at trophy hunting. Conservation Letters 12(1):e12565. Bell, D. 1973. The coming of post-industrial society. Basic Books, New York, USA. Boone and Crockett Club. 2013. Fair chase statement. http://www.boone- crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics. Accessed 19 May 2021. Bright, A. D., M. J. Manfredo, and D. C. Fulton. 2000. Segmenting the public: an application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:218– 226. Brown, T. A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Second edition. The Guilford Press, New York, USA. Brown, T.L., J. W. Enck, D. J. Decker, and T. M. Franklin. 1994. The wildlife society: its members evaluate its services. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:503–510. Bruskotter, J. T., J. A. Vucetich, and M. P. Nelson. 2017. Animal rights and wildlife conservation: Conflicting or compatible. The Wildlife Professional 11:40–43. 117 Bruskotter, J. T., J. J. Vaske, and R. H. Schmidt. 2009. Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimension of Wildlife 14: 119–132. Bruskotter, J. T., Way, and J. G. Bruskotter. 2012. Additional considerations for gray wolf management after their removal from endangered species act protections. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:457–461. Byrd, E., J. G. Lee, and N. J. Olynk Widmar. 2017. Perceptions of hunting and hunters by U.S. respondents. Animals 7:83. Callicott, J. B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conservation Biology 4:15–20. Chitwood, M. C., M. N. Peterson, H. D. Bondell, M. A. Lashley, R. D. Brown, and C. S. DePerno. 2015. Perspectives of wildlife conservation professionals on intensive deer management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:751–756. Choi, S., R. B. Ditton, and G. C. Matlock. 1992. Homogeneity across mail survey waves: a replicated study. Journal of Leisure Research 24:79–85. Clark, E. A., and M. Moreno. 1998. A comparative study of natural resource professionals in minority and majority groups in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:971–981. Clark, K. E., K. Cupp, C. L. Phelps, M. N. Peterson, K. T. Stevenson, and C. Serenari. 2017. Household dynamics of wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22:483–491. Clark, T. W. 1988. The identity and images of wildlife professionals. Renewable Resources Journal 6:12–16. Coon, J. J., C. J. Van Riper, L. W. Morton, and J. R. Miller. 2020. Evaluating nonresponse bias in survey research conducted in rural Midwest. Society and Natural Resources 33:968– 986. Daigle, J. J., R. M. Muth, R. R. Zwick, and R. J. Glass. 1998. Sociocultural dimensions of trapping: a factor analytic study of trappers in six northeastern states. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:614–625. Darimont, C. T., B. F. Codding, and K. Hawkes. 2017. Why men trophy hunt. Biology Letters 13(3):20160909. Darimont, C. T., H. Hall, L. Eckert, L. Mihalik, K. Artelle, A. Treves, and P. C. Paquet. 2020. Larger carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt. Conservation Biology 0:1–9. Decker, D. J, C. A. Jacobson, and T. L. Brown. 2006. Situation-specific “impact dependency” as a determinant of management acceptability: insights from world and grizzly bear management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:426–432. 118 Decker, D. J., J. F. Organ, A. B. Forstchen, C. A. Jacobson, W. F. Siemer, C. A. Smith, P. A. Lederle, and M. A. Schiavone. 2017. Wildlife governance in the 21st century – will sustainable use endure? Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:821–826. Decker, D. J., S. J. Riley, and W. F. Siemer. 2012. Human dimensions of wildlife management. Second edition. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Demarais, S., R. W. DeYoung, L. J. Lyon, E. S. Williams, S. J Williamson, and G. J. Wolfe. 2002. Biological and social issues related to confinement of wild ungulates. Wildlife Society Technical Review. 02–3, 29 pp. Deruiter, D. S., and M. P. Donnelly. 2002. A qualitative approach to measuring determinants of wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:251–271. Dietsch, A. M., T. L. Teel , and M. J. Manfredo. 2016. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conservation Biology 30:1212–1221. Dietsch, A. M., T. L. Teel, M. J. Manfredo, S. A. Jonker, and S. Pozzanghera. 2011. State report for Washington from the research project entitled “Understanding People in Places.” Project Report for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO: CSU, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Fourth Edition. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. Duda, M. K., M. K. Jones, and A. Criscione. 2010. The sportsman’s voice: hunting and fishing in America. Venture State college, Pennsylvania, USA. Ford, J. K., S. J. Riley, J. Van Fossen, and E. Pomeranz. 2021. submitted. Exploring a paradox of change in a state wildlife agency. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. Fulton, D. C., K. Skerl, E. M. Shank, and D. W. Lime. 2004. Beliefs and attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1166–1176. Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:24–27. Geist, V., S. P. Mahoney, and J. F. Organ. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 66:175–185. George, K. A., K. M. Slagle, R. S. Wilson, S. J. Moeller, and J. T. Bruskotter. 2016. Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation 201:237–242. 119 Gigliotti, L. M., L. A. Sweikert, L. Cornicelli, and D. C. Fulton. 2020. Minnesota landowners’ trust in their department of natural resources, salient values similarity and wildlife value orientations. Environment Systems and Decisions 40:577–578. Hamilton, D. A., B. Roberts, G. Linscombe, N. R. Jotham, H. Noseworthy, and J. L. Stone. 1998. The European Union’s wild fur regulation: a battle of politics, cultures, animal rights, international trade and North America’s wildlife policy. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:572–588. Hampton, J. O., and K. Teh-white. 2019. Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries. Journal of Wildlife Management 83:12–21. Heberlein, T. A. 2012. Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. Hutchins, M., and C. Wemmer. 1986. Wildlife conservation and animal rights: are they compatible?. In Advances in Animal Welfare Science 0:111–137 Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. Jacobs, M. H., J. J. Vaske, and M. T. J. Sijtsma. 2014. Predictive potential of wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. Journal for Nature Conservation 22:377–383. Jacobson, C. A., and D. J. Decker. 2008. Governance of state wildlife management: reform and revive or resist and retrench?. Society and Natural Resources 21:441–448. Jacobson, C. A., J. F. Organ, D. J. Decker, G. R. Batcheller, and L. Carpenter. 2010. A conservation institution for the 21st century: implications for state wildlife agencies. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:203–209. Jewell, K., M. N. Peterson, M. Martin, K. T. Stevenson, A. Terando, and R. Teseneer. 2020. How decision makers view wildlife conservation challenges in the Southeast United States. Journal of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 8:108–116. Jonker, S. A., R. M. Muth, J. F. Organ, R. R. Zwick and W. F. Siemer. 2006. Experiences with beaver damage and attitudes of Massachusetts residents toward beaver. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1009–1021. Karns, G. R., J. T. Bruskotter, and R. J. Gates. 2015. Explaining hunting participation in Ohio: a story of changing land use and new technology. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20:484– 500. Kellert, S. R. 1976. Perceptions of animals in American society. Transactions of the 41st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 41:533–546. 120 Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, D. C. USA. Kendal, D., and R. M. Ford. 2017. The role of social license in conservation. Conservation Biology 32:493–495. Kessler, W., and S. Glasscock. 2020. The hidden heroes of North American Conservation. Wildlife Professional. August-September. 14(4):33–37. Koval, M. H., and A. G. Mertig. 2004. Attitudes of the Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:232–243. Kroll, A. J. 2007. Integrating professional skills in wildlife student education. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:226–230. Lang, K. M., and T. D. Little. 2018. Principled missing data treatments. Prevention Science 19:284–294. Lauber, B. T., E. J. Taylor, and D. J. Decker. 2009. Factors influencing membership of federal wildlife biologists in the wildlife society. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 73:980–988. Layman, G. C., and E. G. Carmines. 1997. Cultural conflict in American politics: Religious traditionalism, postmaterialism and U.S. political behavior. The Journal of Politics 59:751–777. Learn, J. R. 2019. Study finds traditional attitudes toward wildlife fading. The Wildlife Society. https://wildlife.org/study-finds-traditional-attitudes-toward-wildlife-fading/. Accessed 20 May 2019. Leopold, A. 1930. Report to the American game conference on an American game policy. Transactions of the American Game Conference 17:281–283. Lopez, R. R., A. Lopez, R. N. Wilkins, C. C. Torres, R. Valdez, J. G. Teer, and G. Bowser. 2005. Changing Hispanic demographics: challenges in natural resource management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:553–564. Louv, R. 2008. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. Lunney, D. 2012. Wildlife management and the debate on the ethics of animal use. II. A decisions within a state wildlife agency. Pacific Conservation Biology 18:5–21. Lute, M. L., N. H. Carter, J. V. Lopez-Boa, and J. D. C. Linnel. 2018. Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological Conservation 218:223–232. 121 Lyons, S., and L. Kuron. 2014. Generational differences in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35:139–157. Mahoney, S. P., and J. J. Jackson III. 2013. Enshrining hunting as a foundation for conservation- The North American Model. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70:448–459. Manfredo, M., T. Teel, and A. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:287–306. Manfredo, M. J., C. L. Pierce, D. Fulton, J. Pate, and B. R. Gill. 1999. Public acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:499–508. Manfredo, M. J., E. G. Urquiza-Haas, A. W. Don Carlos, J. T. Bruskotter, and A. M. Dietsch. 2020b. How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation 241:108297 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108297 Manfredo, M. J., L. Sullivan, A. W. Don Carlos, A. M. Dietsch, T. L. Teel, A. D. Bright, and J. Bruskotter. 2018. America’s Wildlife Values: The social context of wildlife management in the U.S. National. report from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values”. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources. Manfredo, M. J, T. L. Teel, and H. Zinn. 2009a. Understanding global values toward wildlife. Pages 31–43 in M.J. Manfredo, editor. Wildlife and Society. Island Press, Washington D. C., USA. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and K. L. Henry. 2009b. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly 90:407–427. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, A. W. Don Carlos, L. Sullivan, A. D. Bright, A. M. Dietsch, J. Bruskotter, and D. Fulton. 2020a. The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology 0:1–11. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, L. Sullivan, and A. M. Dietsch. 2017. Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: the case of wildlife management in the United States. Biological Conservation 214:303–311. Matter, W. J., and R. J. Steidl. 2000. University undergraduate curricula in wildlife: beyond 2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:503–507. McKnight, P. E., K. M. McKnight, S. Sidani, and A. J. Figueredo. 2007. Missing data: A gentle introduction. Guilford Press New York, New York, USA. 122 Merkle, J. A., N. J. Anderson, D. L. Baxley, M. Chopp, L. C. Gigliotti, J. A. Gude, T. M. Harms, H. A. Johnson, E. H. Merrill, M. S. Mitchell, T. W. Mong, J. Nelson, A. S. Norton, M. J. Sheriff, E. Tomasik, and K. R. Vanbeek. 2019. A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers. Journal of Wildlife Management 83:1644–1651. Mertig, A. G., R. E. Dunlap, and D. E. Morrison. 2002. The Environmental Movement in the United States. Pages 448–481 in R. E. Dunlap and W. Michelson, editor. Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, USA. Millenbah, K. F., and B. H. K. Wolter. 2009. The changing face of natural resources students, education, and the profession. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:573–579. Muth, R. M. 1991. Wildlife and fisheries policy at the crossroads. Transactions of the Northeast Section of The Wildlife Society 48:170–174. Muth, R. M. 2000. On the destiny of deer camps and duck blinds: he rise of the animal rights movement and the future of wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 841–851. Muth, R. M., D. A. Hamilton, J. F. Organ, D. J. Witter, M. E. Mather, and J. J. Daigle. 1998. The future of wildlife and fisheries policy and management: Assessing the attitudes and values of wildlife and fisheries professionals. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natures Resources Conference 63:604–627. Muth, R. M., R. R. Zwick, M. E. Mather, and J. F. Organ. 2002. Passing the torch of wildlife and fisheries management: comparing the attitudes and values of younger and older conservation professionals. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 67:178–193. Muth, R. M., R. R. Zwick, M. E. Mather, J. F. Organ, and J. J. Daigle. 2006. Unnecessary source of pain and suffering or necessary management tool: attitudes of conservation professionals toward outlawing leghold traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:706–715. National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2019. America attitudes toward hunting, fishing, shooting. Nelson, M. P., and K. F. Millenbah. 2009. The ethics of hunting: Can we have our animal ethics and eat them too? The Wildlife Professional 3:33–34. Nelson, M. P., J. T. Bruskotter, J. A. Vucetich, and G. Chapron. 2016. Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conservation Letters 9:302–306. Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. Oommen, M. A., R. Cooney, M. Ramesh, M. Archer, D. Brockington, B. Buscher, R. Fletcher, D. J. Natusch, A. T. Vanak, G. Webb, and K. Shanker. 2019. The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation. Conservation Biology 33:784–787. 123 Organ, J. F., and E. K. Fritzell. 2000. Trends in consumptive recreation and the wildlife profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:780–787. Peyton, R. B., and E. E. Langenau Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general public toward animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:117–120. Rasch, R. 2018. An exploration of intergenerational differences in wilderness values. Population Environment 40:1–20. Reiger, J. F. 1975. American sportsmen and the origins of conservation. Winchester Press, New York, USA. Responsive Management. 2015. Trap use, furbearers trapped, and trapper characteristics in the United States in 2015. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Responsive Management. 2016. Awareness of and attitudes toward trapping issues in Connecticut, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Riley, S. J., J. K. Ford, H. A. Triezenberg, and P. E. Lederle. 2018. Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1528–1535. Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. Free Press, New York, New York, USA. Sanborn, W. A., and R. H. Schmidt. 1995. Gender effects on views of wildlife professionals about wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:583–587. Schmutz, J. A. 2002. Educational background and professional participation by federal wildlife biologists: implications for science, management, and The Wildlife Society. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:594–598. Schreiber, J. B., A. Nora, F. K. Stage, E. A. Barlow, and J. King. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. The Journal of Educational Research 99:323–337. Siemer, W. F., S. A. Jonker, D. J. Decker, and J. F. Organ. 2013. Toward an understanding of beaver management as human and beaver densities increase. Human-Wildlife Interactions 7:114–131. Smith, C. A. 2011. The role of state wildlife professionals under the public trust doctrine. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1539–1543. Sponarski, C. C., J. J. Vaske, and J. B. Alistair. 2015. The role of cognitions and emotions in human-coyote interactions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20:238–254. Teel, T. L., A. A. Dayer, M. J. Manfredo, and A. D. Bright. 2005. Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” (Project Rep. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. 124 Teel, T. L., and M. J. Manfredo. 2010. Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Society for Conservation Biology 24:128–139. The Wildlife Society. 2020. History and mission of The Wildlife Society. https://wildlife.org/history-and-mission/. Accessed 10 Feb 2020. Trefethen, J. B. 1975. An American crusade for wildlife. 2011, Reprint. Publishers-Graphics, Carol Stream, Illinois, USA. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Urbanek, R. E., A. L. Carrozzino-lyon, and G. E. Potts. 2018. Shifting demographic and attitudinal changes of TWS members (1991–2014). Wildlife Society Bulletin 42:4–12. Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey research and analysis: Application in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture Publication, State College, Pennsylvania, USA. Vaske, J. J., and M. D. Needham. 2007. Segmenting public beliefs about conflict with coyotes in an urban recreation setting. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 25:79–98. Vucetich, J. A., J. T. Bruskotter, L. M. van Eeden, and E. A. Macdonald. 2021. How scholars prioritize the competing values of conservation and sustainability. Biological Conservation 257:e109126. Wallach, A. D., M. Bekoff, C. Batavia, M. P. Nelson, and D. Ramp. 2018. Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conservation Biology 32:1255– 1265. Wanger, T. C., L. W. Traill, R. Cooney, J. R. Rhodes, and T. Tscharntke. 2017. Trophy hunting certification. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1:1791–1793. White, B., C. Brown, and T. Decker. 2010. New guidelines for furbearer trapping. Wildlife Professional 4(3):66–71. White, H. B., G. R. Batcheller, E. K. Boggess, C. L. Brown, J. W. Butfiloski, T. A. Decker, J. D. Erb, M. W. Fall, D. A. Hamilton, T. L. Hiller, G. F. Hubert Jr., M. J. Lovallo, J. F. Olsen, and N. M. Roberts. 2021. Best management practices for trapping furbearers in the United States. Wildlife Monographs 207:3–59. White, H. B., T. Decker, M. J. O’Brien, J. F. Organ, and N. M. Roberts. 2015a. Trapping and furbearer management in North American wildlife conservation. International Journal of Environmental Studies 72:756–769. White, H. B., Z. Lowe, and S. Trusso. 2015b. Trapping in wildlife conservation, how ready are wildlife professionals for conversations with the public. Wildlife Professional 9(3):52– 55. 125 Whittaker, D., J. J. Vaske, and M. J. Manfredo. 2006. Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 19:515–530. Winkler, R., and K. Warnke. 2013. The future of hunting: an age-period-cohort analysis of deer hunter decline. Population and Environment 34:460–480. Wuthnow, R. 2008. The sociological study of values. Sociological Forum 23:333–343. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Vaske. 2009. Social psychological bases for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:20–33. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, and S. C. Barro. 2002. Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters’ families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:147–162. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and K. Wittman. 1998. Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 11:649–662. 126