the animal welfare challenge to hunting at cape cod national seashore: social psychology and...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
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?