the animal welfare challenge to hunting at cape cod national seashore: social psychology and...

The Animal Welfare Challenge to Hunting At Cape Cod National Seashore:

Social Psychology and Resource Management

Walter F. KuentzelRubenstein School of Environment and

Natural ResourcesUniversity of Vermont

Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting Controversy

What’s All the Fuss?

• 1961 Enabling Legislation Permitted Hunting

• Not Many Hunters (~2000)

• Perhaps 100-200

• Low Profile

• Poor Habitat

Poor Habitat

The Legal Challenge

http://dep.state.ct.us/burnatr/wildlife/factshts/pheasant.htm

2002 - Fund for Animals

2003 - Fund for Animals, Humane Society of US, Area Residents

Stopped the Pheasant HuntConditions Have Changed

Ordered an EIS - All Hunting Programs

How Does Social Psychology Help?

• Attitude Theory

• Social Cognition– Social Identity Theory

Attitudes, Behavior, and the “Educate-the-Public” Myth

White Pine

Birch

Educate the Public?• Attitude Structure

• Attitude Strength

• Salience

• Polarization

Polling Culture?

• Justify Decisions– Opposition/Support– Avoid Lawsuits– Social Acceptability

•Participatory Democracy– Identify Stakeholders

– Facilitate Discourse

– Consensus Building

Recreation Conflict

Goal Interference• Activity Style• Resource Specificity• Mode of Experience• Tolerance for Lifestyle

Diversity

Social Values Conflict

Face-to-Face contact not necessary for perceived conflict

How do we know when people are different?and

How do we know when those differences matter?

Social Identity Theory1) Positive In-Group; Negative Out-Group Attributions

2) Variation in Willingness to Attribute Differences

3) Self-Identity and Group Membership

Hunting Attitudes Group Identification

Onsite Conflict

• Hunter Survey– Field

– License

– Volunteer

• Resident Survey– 6 Cape Towns

– Seashore Property

Mailed Questionnaire

August – Sept., 2005

5-Contact Protocol

Hunter – 60.4% (n=413)Resident – 57.9% (n=754)

Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting Scale

8 Pro-Hunting Statements – 8 Anti-Hunting Statements(Adapted from Wood, 1997)

Examples: Pro-Hunting

• Hunting is an important wildlife management tool• Hunting should be supported, because it is an important tradition in American culture

Examples: Anti-Hunting

• Hunting encourages a culture of violence in today’s society• Hunting is cruel, because hunters wound and cripple too many animals

Additive Index from -32 to +32

Hunters

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-32 -27 -20 -14 -8 -2 4 10 16 22 28

Mean = 21.02

# of

Peo

ple

Residents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-32 -27 -20 -14 -8 -2 4 10 16 22 28

Mean = -1.09

# of

Peo

ple

Attitudes About Hunting

Social Identity Scale5 Semantic Differential Scales

Quiet-LoudSafe-Unsafe

Humble-ArrogantCourteous-Discourteous

Friendly-Unfriendly

Sum the Differences – Average – 0 to 96

Hunters

0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80

Mean = 38.3

# of

Peo

ple

Residents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80

Mean = 39.1

# of

Peo

ple

Importance of Group Differences

Onsite ConflictHunters:

I have been harassed by people who were not hunting at the Seashore.

Residents:I have felt unsafe seeing people hunting in the Seashore.

I have felt unsafe hearing shots from people hunting at the Seashore.

4-Point Scale:1) No, not at all2) No, not much3) Yes, somewhat4) Yes, definitely

Hunter Harassment

How were you harassed? (n=323, 46.5%)94 – Verbal abuse15 – Noise (car horns, whistles, loud music42 – Field protests5 – Obscene gestures6 – Called the authorities7 – other (frightening dogs, scratching vehicles

Hunter Harassment

What did you do about it?44 – Ignored them, went about my business61 – Moved away, continued my hunt14 – Talked with the people7 – Contacted Seashore officials14 – Left the Seashore6 - Other

Hunter Arguments

What was the argument about? (n=47, 13.4%)16 – Anti-hunting2 – Pheasants7 – Hunters and safety2 – Conflicting activities15 – Miscellaneous hunting issues5 – Not specified

Residents Who Felt UnsafeAround Hunters

What did you do about it? (n=232, 33.6%)60 – I did nothing16 – Contacted Seashore officials14 – Wore blaze orange49 – Moved away from hunters56 – Left the Seashore5 – Asked hunters to move23 - Other

Residents Who Felt UnsafeHearing Shots

What did you do about it? (n=236, 35.6%)78 – I did nothing12 – Contacted Seashore officials7 – Wore blaze orange42 – Moved away from hunters54 – Left the Seashore5 – Asked hunter to move28 - Other

Onsite Conflict Model

Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting(Attitudes)

Group Formation(Social Identity)

Onsite Conflict

Siege Mentality vs. the Dirty Bastard Spiral

Hunters - Siege Mentality

Social Identity – Harassment – Polarization

Hunters

0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80

Mean = 38.3

# of

Peo

ple

Importance of Group Differences

Hunters

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-32 -27 -20 -14 -8 -2 4 10 16 22 28

Mean = 21.02

# of

Peo

ple

Siege Mentality vs. the Dirty Bastard Spiral

Residents – Dirty Bastard Spiral

Anti-Hunting Attitudes – Fear – Social Identity

Residents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-32 -27 -20 -14 -8 -2 4 10 16 22 28

Mean = -1.09

# of

Peo

ple

Attitudes About Hunting

Residents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80

Mean = 39.1

# of

Peo

ple

Norms and Onsite Conflict

Norms and Cape Cod Hunting

-2

0

2

1 3 5 7 9 11 15 25 35

Number of Hunters Seen

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Hunters Residents Visitors

Very Acceptable

Very Unacceptable

Norms and Cape Cod Hunting

-2

0

2

1 3 6 10 15 21 30 45 60

Number of Shots Heard

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Hunters Residents Visitors

Very Acceptable

Very Unacceptable

Predicting Behavior?