1

WhatComesWiththeTerritory:PredatorsandTheirPlaceinNortheasternNorthCarolina

OuterBanksFieldSite2016

December15,2016

2

Authors

AaronWhittemoreJuniorB.S.EnvironmentalScienceMarion,NCAlexanderSmithJuniorB.S.EnvironmentalScienceMoorseville,NCErikaMunshiJuniorB.A.GlobalStudiesandB.A.EnvironmentalStudiesDurham,NCKristinGibsonSeniorB.A.EnvironmentalStudiesSwansboro,NCJackWalshSophomoreB.S.EnvironmentalScienceandB.A.HistoryWilmington,NCJuliaMaronSophomoreB.A.EnvironmentalStudiesRaleigh,NC

TamaraJacksonSeniorB.S.EnvironmentalScienceColoradoSprings,COThomasHennesseySeniorB.A.HistoryandB.S.EnvironmentalScienceCary,NCVictoriaMirianJuniorB.A.EnvironmentalStudiesPinehurst,NCPrestonButlerSeniorB.A.EnvironmentalStudiesRaleigh,NCViktorAgabekovJuniorB.A.EconomicsCharlotte,NC

3

AcknowledgementsWewouldliketothankthefollowingfortheircontributiontoourproject.

Advisors

LindsayDubbs,AndyKeeler,LindaD’Anna,LeeLeidy,JakeHochard,CoreyAdams

CommunityAdvisoryBoard

BethP.Storie,RobertPerry,WilliamSmyth,LaddBayliss,PeggyBirkemeier,AlbertandCarolynGard,ThomasL.WhiteJr.,KathyMcMahanInternshipMentors

AndyKeeler,LindsayDubbs,HollyWhite,AaronMcCall,KarenClark,AnnDaisey,SaraMirabilio,ErinBurke,ReideCorbett,LaddBaylissCommunityMembersandGuestSpeakers

DaretoHyde,MattamuskeetVentures,KenCherry,PocosinArts,DavidClegg,RobertL.Outten,ClaireJohnson,JayeMassecar,MichalleRevels,JaminSimmons,TheHonorableJudgeBoyle,SierraWeaver,RamonaMcGee,ReneeCahoon,JanDeblieu,ChristinBrown,MikeRemige,RickProbst,KenPartlow,BillBerkemier,AltonBallance,JenniferPierce,JaykeWoods,CoryKeeler,JoeyDaniels,theNCCoastalFederation,AaronMcCall,RobertMcClendon,KimArmstrong,MarieMagee,JohnMcCord,andtheUNCCoastalStudiesInstitute.Interviewees

Aspecialthankstotheintervieweeswhovolunteeredtheirtimeandthoughtsforourproject.

4

Abbreviations

APP-Albemarle-PamlicoPeninsula

ARNWR-AlligatorRiverNationalWildlifeRefuge

CAB-CommunityAdvisoryBoard

CVS-CarolinaVegetationSurvey

ESA-EndangeredSpeciesAct

GIS-GeographicalInformationSystems

HSI-HabitatSuitabilityIndex

LRV-LifeRequisiteValue

NEP-Non-essentialExperimentalPopulation

RSF-ResourceSelectionFunction

USFWSorFWS-UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService

Studyarea-Beaufort,Dare,Hyde,Tyrrell,WashingtoncountiesonAPP

5

Abstract

Thelandscapefortop-levelpredatorsintheAlbemarle-PamlicoPeninsula(APP)of

NorthCarolinahasundergonedramaticchangesinrecentyears.Ourresearchexamined

howthreelargepredators,redwolves(Canisrufus),coyotes,Canislatrans),andblackbears

(Ursusamericanus),fitintothelandscapeoftheAPPbytakingintoaccountbothecological

andanthropogenicconsiderations.Toaccomplishthis,weconductedspatialanalysesof

landcoverandresourcesandconductedqualitativeinterviewswithmembersofthe

community.Usingexistingdatasets,weinvestigatedthesuitabilityofandchangeinhabitat

forblackbearsandassessedtheavailabilityanddistributionofresourcesforredwolvesin

theAPP.Theseanalysesfoundthattherewasextensive,stablehabitatthatwassuitablefor

blackbearswithintheregion,andoptimallandresourcesforredwolveswasfoundlargely

onprivatelyownedlandsintheAPP.

Semi-structuredinterviewsrevealedthatinterviewees’perceptionsofpredators

wereshapedbytheirsenseofplace,attitudesaboutthegovernment,andexperienceswith

theanimals.Thesefactorshadvariableinfluencesonhowpeopleviewedthepredators:

bearswerepositivelyviewedamongsttheinterviewees,whilewolvesandcoyoteswere

generallyviewednegatively.Ourcomparativeapproachallowedustobetterunderstand

howthefactorsinfluencingpeople’sattitudesandviewsofpredatorscanvaryacross

differentpredators.

6

TableofContentsAuthors................................................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................3

Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................4

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................5

TableofContents................................................................................................................................................6

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................8

Background.......................................................................................................................................................10Predators.......................................................................................................................................................10

RedWolf....................................................................................................................................................10Coyote........................................................................................................................................................12

Blackbear..................................................................................................................................................14

Landscape......................................................................................................................................................15Approach.......................................................................................................................................................16

SpatialHabitat...........................................................................................................................................16HumanDimensions...................................................................................................................................18

SpatialHabitat...................................................................................................................................................20

Methods.........................................................................................................................................................20

ResourceSelectionFunction....................................................................................................................20

HabitatSuitabilityIndex.............................................................................................................................23LandUseChangeandBlackBearHabitatReplacementCostinNortheasternNorthCarolina..................41

ResultsandDiscussion...................................................................................................................................45RedWolfHabitatSuitabilityontheAPP....................................................................................................45

BlackBearHabitatSuitabilityIndex...........................................................................................................48

BearHabitatChangeModel.......................................................................................................................51

HumanDimensions............................................................................................................................................62

Methods.........................................................................................................................................................62

Sampling....................................................................................................................................................62

Analysis......................................................................................................................................................63

Samplesizeandlimitations......................................................................................................................64

ResultsandDiscussion...................................................................................................................................65

LandscapePerceptionsandValues..........................................................................................................65

CharacterizationsofLargePredators......................................................................................................68

7

AttitudesabouttheManagementofLargePredators...............................................................................77

Synthesis....................................................................................................................................................85

Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................88

References..........................................................................................................................................................91

Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................95

Tables.............................................................................................................................................................95

InterviewGuide..............................................................................................................................................99

8

Introduction

Largepredatorshavelongbeenapartoftheheritageandlandscapeofthe

Albemarle-PamlicoPeninsula(APP)—specificallyHyde,Tyrrell,Dare,Beaufortand

Washingtoncounties.Majorchangesinthecomposition,population,andmanagementof

largepredators,togetherwithsignificantlandusechanges,haveraisedquestionsabout

howredwolves(Canisrufus),coyotes(Canislatrans),andblackbears(Ursusamericanus)fit

intotheecologicalandculturallandscapesoftheAPP.Thegoalofthisreportistouse

analysisofecologicalsuitabilityandcommunityperceptionstoprovideinformationabout

howbears,redwolves,andcoyotesinteractwiththeenvironmentandthepeopleofthis

region.

Inordertoprovidesuchinformation,thisreportwilluseecologicalstudiesand

geospatialanalysistoolstoevaluatehabitatsuitabilitythroughouttheAPPstudyareafor

redwolvesandblackbears.Bylookingatwhichareaswithintheregionofferthebest

overalllivingconditionsforeachofthesespecies,conclusionscanbedrawnaboutwhere

theyaremostlikelytothriveandhowcertainlanduseandmanagementactionsmight

impacttheirpopulations.Inaddition,wewillattempttocharacterizeaspectsofthese

predators’interactionswithhumansinthecontextofthelocalcultureandhowpeoplein

theareaareaffectedbytheirpresence.Wehopethattheresultsoftheseanalyseswill

providenewandusefulinformationaboutpublicperceptionsoftheselargepredatorsand

theecologicalconditionsthatsupportthem.

Inordertoaddressthislargergoal,weoutlinedthefollowingspecificresearch

objectivesandquestions:

9

1. HowsuitableistheAlbemarlePamlicoPeninsulaforblackbears?

2. Hasthelandchangedintermsofsuitabilityforblackbears?Ifso,how?

3. HowsuitableistheAlbemarle-PamlicoPeninsulaforredwolves?

4. Doesthefederallandallocatedfortheredwolvescontainsuitablehabitat?

5. Howdoblackbears,redwolves,andcoyotesfitintothelocalculture?

6. Whatarethelocalperceptions,attitudes,andvaluesregardingredwolves,black

bears,andcoyotes?

7. Whatarethelocalperceptions,attitudes,andvaluesregardingtheenvironment

andwildlifeingeneral?

8. Whatarethelocalperceptions,attitudes,andvaluesregardinggovernment

managementpractices?

Webeginwithanoverviewoftheregion’slargepredatorsandlandscape.Wethen

turntothespatialhabitatandquantitativemethodsusedforourstudy.Followingthat,we

willtalkaboutourinterviewingprocessandthequalitativeaspectsofthestudy.

10

Background

Predators

RedWolf

Thehistoricrangeoftheredwolfcoveredthemajorityoftheeasternregionofthe

UnitedStates.Redwolvesrangeincolorfromcinnamonbuff,tawny,orcinnamonredwith

grayorblackonthetail.Maleredwolvesaretypicallybetween50and85poundsand

femalesare45to68pounds(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:RedWolf).Comparatively,

theyarebetweenthesizeofacoyoteandagraywolf.

Redwolvesinhabitareasofuplandandbottomlandforests,coastalprairies,swamps

andmarshes.Fordenning,theyrequiredensevegetation.Notmuchisknownabout

behaviorsandpatternsofredwolvesinthewild,becausetheirpopulationdeclinedrapidly

beforetheycouldbestudied(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:RedWolf).Theyaremost

activeatdawnandduskandlivewithapackfromtwotoeightwolves.Thispacktypically

consistsofamatingpairandtheirpupsfromthatyear(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Red

Wolf).

AfterEuropeansettlerscametothearea,theredwolfwasextensivelykilledoutof

fearoftheanimalandtoprotectlivestock.Bythelate1960s,onlyasmallpopulationof

about14pure-bloodedwolves,basedonmorphology,remainedinsoutheasternTexasand

southwesternLouisiana(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:RedWolf).Forfearthattheentire

specieswouldbecomeextinctinthewild,theUnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService

(USFWS)capturedtheseindividualsin1970.Asaresult,in1980,theredwolfwasofficially

11

declaredextinctinthewild.Howevertherewere,andstillcurrentlyare,individualsin

captivebreedingprogramsacrossthecountry(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:RedWolf).

InSeptember1987,USFWSreleasedfouradultpairsintotheAlligatorRiverNational

WildlifeRefuge(ARNWR)inDareCounty,NorthCarolina.Therehavebeenadditional

reintroductions,forexampleintheGreatSmokyMountainsNationalParkin1991,butthis

programfailedduetolowpupsurvivorship,disease,andlackofprey(NorthCarolina

WildlifeProfiles:RedWolf).TheAlligatorRiverpopulationisconsideredanonessential-

experimentalpopulation(NEP)underSection10(j)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),

meaningthat“onthebasisofthebestavailableinformation,theexperimentalpopulationis

notessentialforthecontinuedexistenceofthespecies”(USFWSEndangeredSpeciesAct:

ExperimentalPopulations).Thisdesignationwasgivenbecausetherewerestablenumbers

ofredwolvesbreedingincaptivity.NEPdesignationisimportantbecauseitgives

landownersandbiologistsmorefreedomwithpopulationmanagement,suchasallowing

individualsto“take”(i.e.hunt,shoot,kill,trap)redwolvesthatareconsidereda

demonstrablethreattohumansafetyorlivestockundertheESA(ESA;NorthCarolina

WildlifeProfile:RedWolf).Intheearly2000s,thenumberofknownwolvesintheARNWR

reachedapeakhighofapproximately130andthenstartedtoslowlydecline(Murrayetal.

2015).ChangesmadebytheUSFWStotheprogram,alongwithanthropogenicinteraction

andcoyotehybridization,haveaffectedtherecoveryoftheredwolf.Currentpopulation

estimatesfromtheUSFWSarebetween45and60redwolvesleftinthewildintheAPP(US

FishandWildlifeService).

12

Coyote

ThecoyoteisnativetotheprairiesandgrasslandsofNorthAmericaandhasthe

widestrangeofallofthewildcaninesintheUnitedStates.WhenEuropeanssettled,

coyoteswerelimitedtotheGreatPlains(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).Since

then,theyhaveexpandedacrossthecontinent.Upuntilthe1980s,coyoteswereillegally

releasedinNorthCarolinaforhunting(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).Intothe

early1980s,somecoyotesnaturallybegantoexpandfromTennessee,GeorgiaandSouth

CarolinaintowesternNorthCarolina,andasof2005,arefoundinall100countiesofNorth

Carolina(Hilletal.1987).

Incomparisontoredwolves,coyotesaresmaller,withadultsranginginsizebetween

20and45pounds;theyaredarkgray,blonde,redorblackwithabushyblack-tippedtailand

havesharplypointedears(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).Coyotehabitatincludes

agriculturalfields,forestedregions,andevensuburbanneighborhoods.Thisisbecause

coyotesarecarnivoresandopportunisticfeeders,eatingfoodsthatarethemostreadily

availableandeasytoobtain.Coyotestypicallydigtheirowndens,whicharehiddenfrom

viewandusedtobirthpupsandsleep(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).

Thecoyoteandredwolfareinthesamegenusandarecapableofinterbreedingand

producingfertileoffspring(FWSRedWolvesandCoyotes).Redwolvesmateforlife,but

whenanindividualislostduetodeath,acoyotemayreplacethatindividualinthebreeding

pair(NationalWildlifeFederationRedWolf).Acombinationoftheredwolfreintroduction

programandtheexpandingcoyotepopulationshasledtomultipleinstancesofhybrid

offspring,whichdiminishesthepureredwolfgenepool(FWSRedWolvesandCoyotes).

13

Interbreedinghasbeenthegreatestthreattoredwolfrecoveryandtothesuccessofthe

RedWolfReintroductionProgram(BohlingandWaits2015).AnAdaptiveManagementPlan

wasimplementedbyUSFWSandtheRedWolfRecoveryImplementationTeamtoprevent

hybridization,whichincludesterilizingmalecoyotesthathadpairedwitharedwolfto

createplaceholders,andinsomecases,removingthecoyotefromtheareaaltogether

(BohlingandWaits2015).

Coyotesoftenreceivemorepublicattentionthanredwolvesbecausetheytendto

preyonlivestockanddomesticanimals(Turner2016).Managingthesepredatorshasbeen

difficultbecauseoftheiradaptability.Themostprevalentmanagementtechniquesare

trappingandhunting(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).Thereislimiteddataonthe

sizeofthecoyotepopulationinthecoastalregionofNorthCarolina,butasurveydone

between2002and2011regardingcoyoteharvestsestimatedthat1,100coyoteswere

trappedand10,261werekilledintotaloverthattimeperiodbyhunters(NCWRCFoxand

CoyotePopulationsReport).ThisdatashowsthatcoyotesareprolificincoastalNorth

Carolina,aswellasthroughoutthestate.Whencoyotepopulationsdecline,theyrespondby

breedingatyoungeragesandproducinglargerlittersizes,oftenwithhighpupsurvivorship

(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote).Thismeansthathuntingpressureoncoyotesmay

actuallycauseapopulationincrease.Movingintourbanizedspaceswithreadilyavailable

foodsourceshascausedmanycoyotestobecomeacclimatedtohumansandconsumption

ofunnaturalfoodsources,indicatingthatcoyoterangehasexpandedtoinclude

anthropogenicresourcesaswell.

14

Blackbear

OriginallyfoundallacrossNorthCarolina,theblackbearhasexperiencedpopulation

fluctuationsinrecentyears(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:BlackBear).Attheturnofthe

twentiethcentury,effortstoquellblackbearnumbersinconjunctionwithotherlarge

predators,includingthegraywolf(Canislupus),reducedtheblackbearpopulationto

historicallylowlevels(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:BlackBear).Progressivehunting

policiesandactiveblackbearmanagementinthepastseveraldecadeshaveallowedthe

bearpopulationtorecoverwithinNorthCarolinatonearly15,000bears(NorthCarolina

WildlifeProfiles:BlackBear).

Adultblackbearstypicallyrangefrom100to700hundredpounds,dependingon

genderandfoodavailability(NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:BlackBear).Non-

anthropogenicfoodpreferencesvaryseasonally,butaregenerallyamixoffruitsandnuts

(softandhardmast,respectively)fromlocalvegetation(Landers1979).Anthropogenic

food,specificallycorn,isalargeportionofthebeardietthroughouttheyear(Landers1979).

Bearactivitytendstodecreaseduringfallmonths,assomeindividualsneartheseasonal

hibernationthreshold(Hamilton1980).

Theblackbearhasbecomeanimportantandeasilyrecognizedculturaliconwithinthe

studyarea.Activemanagementpractices,includinghunting,havebeenenactedforblack

bearsandenforcedbytheNorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission(NorthCarolina

WildlifeProfiles:BlackBear).Ecotourismcenteredonblackbearencounters,aswellasbear

huntingexpeditionsintothecoastallowlands,bringvitaleconomicactivitytotheregion

(CoastalReviewOnline2015).Anthropogenicencountersalsotakeplacethrough

15

automobilecollisionsandroadcrossings(Kindall2007).Bearmovementistypicallylimited

toanestablishedhomerangebutcanbeextensivethroughoutthatrange,dependingon

seasonalityandfoodsources(Jones2002).

Landscape

Theforests,wetlands,dunes,rivers,andestuarysurroundingtheAPPmakeupa

productivenaturalsystemthathostsadiversearrayofspecies(TheNatureConservancy

2005).Inadditiontohistoricallandscaperesources,thefive-countyregionalsocontains

developedareasthatcontributetoanevenmorediverselandscape.Becausenatural

resourceavailabilityaswellasanthropogeniclandusearekeydeterminantsofhabitat

suitabilityforspeciesinthisregion,alandscapeanalysisisnecessaryforaholistic

understandingofhowtheAPPserveslargepredators.Table1describesthelandscapesof

Beaufort,Hyde,Dare,andTyrrellcounties.Thedatausedinthetableincludesalloftheland

fromthecountyareas;however,ourstudyareawaslimitedtomainlandcountyareasonthe

APP.WashingtonCountywasexcludedbecausetherewasnodataavailable.

Table1:LanduseinBeaufort,Hyde,Dare,andTyrrellcounties.Developedlandincludesmunicipalities,ruraldevelopment,ruralclusterdevelopment,andindustrialuses.Undevelopedlandincludeslandusedfor“extractive”purposesaswellasprivatelyowned,vacant,orforestland.

16

Approach

Thefollowingsectionswillprovideanexplanationofthemethodsemployed,

includinggeospatialanalysisofhabitatsuitabilityandqualitativeresearchintoresidents’

valuesandattitudes.

SpatialHabitat

Inordertounderstandhowredwolves,coyotes,andbearsfitintotheAPP,an

analysisoftheresourcesavailabletothesepredatorsishelpful.Thefood,habitat,denning,

andescapecoverneedsoflargepredatorscanbeindicatorsofwheretheyarelikelyto

thriveinthisenvironment.Thisinformationisbestrepresentedspatiallyusinggeographical

dataforvegetationandlandfeatures.Thefollowingsectionsdetailhowspatialdatacanbe

manipulatedtoprovideinformationabouthabitatsuitability.

Habitat Suitability Index

ThepurposeofcreatingaHabitatSuitabilityIndex(HSI)istoquantifythehabitat

needsofanorganisminaspatialcontext.AnHSIreliesonmathematicalfunctionsto

indicatetherelativeimportanceofdifferenthabitatcomponents.TheHSIthenusesspatial

datatodeterminethetotalsuitabilityofagivenregionordatapointbyprovidinganHSI

valuerangingfrom0to1–notsuitabletohighlysuitable,respectively.

ThereliabilityofanHSImodeldependsontheaccuracyofthemodelandtheinput

data.Forthepurposeofthisreport,aWesternNorthCarolinaHSIfunctionforblackbears

(Zimmerman1992)wasusedasatemplateandadjustedtofitobserveddifferencesin

landscapetobetterunderstandhowbearsfitintotheecologicallandscapeoftheAPP.

17

Resource Selection Function

AResourceSelectionFunction(RSF)createsavisualrepresentationofwhereoneis

likelytofindaspecificorganisminageographicregiongiventhehabitatpreferencesofthat

animal.AnRSFmodelworkssimilarlytoanHSIinthatitassignsvaluestodifferenthabitat

componentsandcompilesthosecomponentsinamathematicalmodelinordertoshowthe

highestconcentrationofsuitablehabitatcomponentsonamap.RSFmodelscanbeusedto

showwhereananimalislikelytobefound.Inthecaseofthisreport,anRSFanalysiswas

usedtodeterminewhereintheAPPredwolvesaremostlikelytosurviveandreproduce,

accordingtoananalysisconductedbyDellingeretal(2013).

Resourceselectionfunctionscandifferinaccuracydependingonthestructureofthe

mathematicsusedtocreatethemodel.GeneralLinearModels(GLMs)aremostoftenused

foranalyses,butavarietyofcomplexstatisticalmodelscanbeusedinsomecasesto

achievevariouskindsofdatastructuresandquality.Forthepurposeofthisproject,alinear

modelwasused(Dellingeretal.2013).

Bear Habitat Change Model

Abearhabitatchangeanalysiswasperformedtoexaminethreedifferentvariables-

forestcohesion,forestdiversity,andforest-agricultureedgedensity-andhowtheychanged

from1996to2010accordingtoapaststudyconductedbyKindallandVanManen(2007).

Theresultsshowwherehabitatischangingandtowhichdegreeonascalefrom-3to3,with

3beinggreatlyimprovingand-3beingseverelyworsening.

18

Thischangeinhabitatwasthenassignedestimatedmonetaryvaluesbasedonavariety

ofotherstudies.Thevaluescorrespondtoeitherthecostofrestoringworsenedlandtoits

1996qualityorthebenefitoftheimprovedhabitatforblackbears.

HumanDimensions

Peoplehavevaryingvaluesassociatedwithwildlife.Characterizingthisvariabilitycan

improveourunderstandingofpeople’sperceptionsofspecificpredatorsandthe

managementofthesepredators.Theseperceptionsarevitalbecausetheycanoftenpredict

howanindividual,orevenacommunity,willreacttowardspredatormanagement,the

predatorspecies,andtheultimatefutureofthespeciesorpopulation(Browne-Nunez2015).

Inthisstudywehopetounderstandlocalperceptionsofblackbears,redwolves,and

coyotestobetterunderstandtheobstaclesorsupportthatthesespeciesmayface.

Toresearchthecommunityperceptionsofbiodiversityandpredatormanagement,

weadoptedaqualitativeapproach.Thisisbecausequalitativeanalysiscansupport

investigationsthathopetounderstandthedetailsofaspecificexperienceorprocess

(Bazeley2013).Itallowedustodevelopdeeperdescriptionsofinterviewees’perspectives

andpermittedintervieweestoexpandonideasandtopicstheyfoundmostimportant

(Weiss1994).Interviewingisausefulqualitativeresearchmethodbecauseitallowsfor

unstructuredcollectionofinformationthatprovidescluestoidentifyanypatternsor

comparisonsbetweenthoughtsandopinionsgathered(Bazeley2013).Throughuseofan

interviewguide,questionscanbeaskedinawaytofacilitateresponsestocomplextopics

(Browne-Nunez2015).Recordedinterviewsarealsousefulbecausetheyallowforthe

19

interviewertoretrieveinformationatalaterdatewithouttheerrorofhandwrittennotes

(Bazeley2013).Interviewinghasbeenbeneficialinthepastregardingthereintroductionof

graywolvestoYellowstoneNationalPark.Researchersusedinterviewstogatherattitudes

aboutwolfmanagementandlocalfeelingstowardsthewolves(Browne-Nunez2015).This

methodwillsupportourexplorationandevaluationofattitudesregardingthethreelarge

predatorsintheAlbemarle-PamlicoPeninsula.

20

SpatialHabitat

Methods

UsingacombinationofaRSFforredwolves,anHSIforblackbears,andamodel

depictingchangesinblackbearhabitat,thisstudycharacterizedtheecologicalsuitabilityof

thelandscapeofnortheasternNorthCarolinaforblackbearsandredwolves.

ResourceSelectionFunction

ARSFcharacterizeshabitatqualitybyestimatingtherelationshipbetweenlandscape

covariates,anthropogenicdisturbances,andananimal’sobservedpresence.Dellingeretal.

(2013)constructedaRSFfortheredwolfineasternNorthCarolina,whichwasemployedas

aguidetomapsuitableredwolfhabitatinthisstudy.InArcGIS(version10.4.1),wefocused

ourRSFanalysisonastudyareaontheAPP.WithinGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)

andusingsatelliteimagery-basedcoverdatafromNationalOceanicandAtmospheric

Administration(NOAA)CoastalChangeAnalysisProgram(C-CAP),roaddatafromtheNorth

CarolinaDepartmentofTransportation(NCDOT),andpopulationdatafromtheUnited

StatesCensus,binaryrasterizedindicatorswerecreatedforthestudyarea,whichcaptured

thepresenceorabsenceofkeyhabitatvariables(Table2).Basedoneachvariable’s

weightedcontributiontoobservingaredwolf’spresence,asestimatedbyDellingeretal.

(2013),weemployedtherastercalculatortooltogeneratearedwolfpredictionsurface.

Thepredictionsurface,orredwolfRSFmap,generatedvaluesrangingfrom0to1

wherelowervaluesindicatedalowpredictedprobabilityofredwolfpresence

21

correspondingtolessdesirablehabitatforredwolves.Higherpredictedvaluesrepresented

moredesirableredwolfhabitat.Negativeestimatedvalues,outsideoftheDellingeretal.

(2013)samplerange,wererareandarelikelytorepresentareasvoidofsuitableredwolf

habitat.Toaddressnegativevaluesandcontrolforpotentialcomputederrorsinour

mapping,valuesbelowzerowerereclassifiedasnodataandvaluesgreaterthanzerowere

reclassifiedasone.

Here,weareconsideringthemostgeneralandleastrestrictivecasewhereinany

locationwithapositiveprobabilityofpredictingredwolfhabitatisconsideredsuitable

habitat.Amorenuancedanalysisfocusingonlyonhighqualityredwolfhabitat,ratherthan

themerepresenceofallpotentialredwolfhabitat,couldbeconductedbyrestrictingthe

predictedsurface.Weleavethisextensionforfuturework.

22

Table2.Habitatattributesandassociatedcoefficients,fromDellingeretal.(2013)usedinourstudyofredwolfhabitatontheAPP.

Coefficient EstimatedWeight

Intercept 0.62

SuccessionalFields -0.21

Pocosins -0.67

Wetlands -0.81

LowlandForests -0.82

PinePlantations -0.95

Distancetoroads -1.29x10

Distancetowater 2.85x10

HumanDensity -0.08

DistancetoroadsandLowlandForests -2.70x10

DistancetoroadsandPocosins -2.79x10

DistancetoroadsandWetlands -2.48x10

HumanDensityandDistancetoroads 4.146x10

HumanDensityandPinePlantations 0.09

HumanDensityandLowlandsForests 0.03

HumanDensityandWetlands 0.08

HumanDensityandPocosins -6.29x10

23

Habitat Suitability Index

TheHSIforblackbearsfromZimmerman(1992)thatwasadaptedtofitthe

northeasternregionofNorthCarolinainourstudyfollows:

HSI=((LRVFOOD+LRVESCAPE+LRVDEN)/3)*(I2)

DuetothefactthatZimmermancraftedthisequationtofitblackbearpopulations

nativetotheSouthernAppalachianMountains,certainelementseitherneededtobe

excludedorchangedsoastorepresentthehabitatinnortheasternNorthCarolina.The

variouschangesthatweremadeaswellasdescriptionsofvariablesandtheelementsthat

comprisethemaresummarizedinthefollowingsections.

Dataonthedistributionandabundanceofrelevantspeciesandvegetationcover

usedintheadaptedHSImodelwerefrom99CarolinaVegetationSurvey(CVS)plotswithin

ourstudyareatoidentifythedistributionandabundanceofrelevantspeciesandvegetative

cover.TheCVSisaresearchprogramthatwas“designedtodocumentthecompositionand

statusofthenaturalimpacts,andassessmentofconservationstatus.”TheCVSprogramhas

documentedthevegetationandotherenvironmentalattributesofthousandsof10x10m2

plotsthroughoutNorthCarolina(Peet1998).Thisdataisavailabletothepublicandupdated

annually(http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/).

Life Requisite Value – Food (LRVFOOD)

FortheblackbearfoodanalysiscomponentofourHSI,wedescribedtheseasonal

vegetationandanthropogenicfoodcomponentsoftheeasternNCblackbeardiet,andthe

24

spatialextentmostlikelytobetraversedbybearsinsearchoffood.Speciesproducingsoft

mastaswellasanthropogenicandothernaturalfoodsourceswereidentifiedvialiterature

reviewofBeemanandPelton(1980),JonesandPelton(2003),andLandersetal.(1979),

whichallowedforaspecificexaminationofthedietofbearsinnortheasternNorthCarolina.

Thesespeciesidentifiedtobeoffoodvaluewerecross-analyzedwithCarolinaVegetation

Survey(CVS)data.

AmodelblackbearHSI,featuringvariablesforanumberofseasonalplantfood

speciesaswellashomerangesize,wastakenfromZimmerman’s(1992)equation:

LRVfood=1/7FoTOT+(1/7FSpTOT+2/7FSuTOT+4/7FFaTOT)*I1

LRVFOODstandsforLifeRequisiteValueforfoodforblackbears.InZimmerman

(1992),LRVFOODdescribedthedifferentfoodsourcesblackbearsreliedonandincorporated

coefficientscorrespondingtotherelativeamountofusetheygotfromeach.Thefirstpart

oftheequation,1/7FoTOT,isthecomponentofgoodanthropogenicfood.1/7FSpTOTrefersto

totalamountofnaturalfoodeateninspring;2/7FSuTOTreferstototalamountofnatural

foodeateninthesummerand4/7FFaTOTreferstotheamountofnaturalfoodeateninthe

fall.I1referstotheaveragehomerangesizeofablackbearinsquarekilometers.The

variableswereassignedvaluesaccordingtothecorrespondingdatafoundintheliterature

reviewandusedtodeterminethemostsuitabletypeofhabitatforblackbearfood

gathering.

Thecoefficientsrepresentedrelativeimportanceamongtheseasonalfoodsources.

ComparedtoZimmerman(1992),wehadgreatersourcesofanthropogenicfoods.Astriking

25

proportionofthetotallandinthestudyareaisagricultural(KindallandVanManen2007).

Therefore,weaccountedforthisbyincreasingtheweightoftheanthropogenicfood

coefficientandadjustingtheothers’weightsaccordingly.Anotheradjustmentmadewas

removingtheI1variablewhichrepresentedinterspersiondistancebearstraveledtofoodon

acontinuoussurface.ThisdistancevaluewasnotusefulbecausewecompletedtheHSI

usingCVSplotsatdiscretelocations,whichresultedindiscontinuity.Theadaptedequation

usedinourstudywas:

LRVfood=7/14FoTOT+(1/14FSpTOT+2/14FSuTOT+4/14FFaTOT)

Less Seasonal Food Sources:

InordertomeasurethecontributiontoLRVfoodfromlessseasonalsources(FoTOT),

theequationsfromZimmermanwereadaptedfortheAPP.Zimmerman’sequationisas

follows:

FoTOT=Fo1+Fo2,forFo1+Fo2<1.0;

FoTOT=1.0,forFo1+Fo2>1.0.

ThefirstadaptationwemadetoZimmerman’sequationforlessseasonalfoodwasto

thevariableforcolonialinsects(Fo1).Fo1wasassumedtobezerobecausecolonialinsects

arenotamajorfoodsourceforblackbearsintheAPP(Zimmerman1992).

WealsomadesomeslightchangestoFo2,whichisthecontributionfrom

anthropogenicsourcesoffood.Fo2hasthreefactors:thesource(Fo2a),thedistancetothe

26

source(Fo2b),andthedistancefromthesourcetoescapecover(Fo2c),definedby

Zimmerman(1992)accordingtothefollowingequation:

Fo2=(Fo2a*Fo2b*Fo2c)1/3

Thesourcefactor(Fo2a)dependsontheamountoffoodatthesource(A),therisk

associatedwithgettingthefood(R),andtheseasonalityofthissource(S),accordingtothe

followingequation:

Fo2a=((A+R)/2)*S

Itappearsfromfirst-handobservationsintheareaandconversationswithlocal

residentsthattheprimarysourceofanthropogenicfoodinthisregionisagriculture.

Accordingly,anumberofassumptionsweremadeabouttheA,R,andSvariables.The

amountoffood(A)wasassumedtoalwaysbeveryhigh,becausecomparedtoZimmerman

(1992),whereanthropogenicfoodincludedthingsliketrashandbirdfeeders,the

anthropogenicfoodintheAPPcomesfromlarge,commercialagriculturalfields.Therisk

associatedwithgettingthefood(R)wasassumedtobezero.Inthisarea,thereisaplethora

ofanthropogenicfoodavailableandalthoughthereareshortbearhuntingseasons,and

bearhuntingusuallytakesplacearoundagriculturalland,theproportionofbearskilled

duringforagingissosmallthatitisunlikelythatthebearsperceiveanyrisk(USDA1997).The

seasonalityoftheanthropogenicfood(S)wasdeterminedusingUSDAgrowingseasons

data(1997)forthethreecropsthatbearseat:wheat,corn,andsoy.Sincethesecropsare

availableduringthreeseasons,avalueof3wasassignedtoS.Thefinalsource(Fo2a)

equationresultedinaFo2aof1forallplots,correspondingtothe"highquantitylow-risk

27

sourceavailablefromemergencetodenning”reportedbyZimmerman(1992).

Thesecondfactor,distancetoanthropogenicfood(Fo2b),canberepresentedbythe

followingequationfromZimmerman(1992):

Fo2b=-0.667x+2for1.5≤x≤3.0;

Fo2b=1.0forx≤1.5;

Fo2b=0forx≥3.0;

wherex=distance(km)fromtheplottotheclosestsourceofanthropogenicfood.

Thethirdfactor,distancefromplotswithinhomerange(7.8km;NCWRC)ofescape

cover(Fo2c)toanthropogenicfood,canbemodeledbytheequation:

Fo2c=1.0forx<25;

Fo2c=-0.0017x+1.0425for25≤x≤200;

Fo2c=-0.0015x+0.6for200≤x≤400;

Fo2c=0forx>400;

wherex=distance(km)fromplottoanthropogenicfoodsource.

Ifapointwasnotwithinhomerangeofaconterminousforestareaofatleast400ha,

Fo2c=0,whichisdifferentfromZimmerman(1992)becauseourmeasurementscorrespond

tospecificlocations(CVSplots).

WiththeseadaptationstoZimmerman’sFo1andFo2variablesforFoTOTourfinal

equationforFoTOTwasasfollows:

28

FoTOT=Fo2forFo2<1.0and

FoTOT=1.0forFo2≥1.0

Spring Value (FSpTOT):

FSpTOTrepresentstheamountofspringfoodthatisavailabletoblackbearsinthe

studyarea.Zimmerman(1992)definedthespringforagingseasonasMarchtolateMay.

Smilaxspp.,orgreenbriar,istheprimaryfoodsourceforblackbearsduringthisseason,so

Smilaxspeciesweretakenintoaccounttocalculatespringfoodtotals.Therestofthebears’

springdietconsistsofvegetationthatisdependentonaccesstowater.Therefore,

Zimmerman’sequationalsotakesdistancetowaterintoaccount.Distancetowateris

weightedmoreheavilytorepresenttheimportanceofdistancetoperennialwaterforplant

growthandneedforwaterafterdenning.Zimmerman’ssummaryequationfortotalspring

foodvalueisasfollows:

FSpTOT=(2FSp1+FSp2)/3

In our study, FSp1was calculated in a GIS as distance from each plot to perennial

water, toaccount for theamountof springdietsmadeupof vegetation fromperennially

moist environments. FSp1 values were calculated using the following from Zimmerman

(1992):

FSp1=1.0,forx≤0.64;

FSp1=-1.167x+1.75,for0.64<x<1.5;

FSp1=0,forx≥1.5;

29

FSp2wasderivedfromthepercentcoverofSmilaxwithineachplot.Smilaxspeciesin

eachplotwereidentified,andthenpercentcoverwascalculatedasthesumofthepercent

covervaluesforeachtypeofSmilaxineachplot.Zimmerman(1992)proposedthefollowing

forcalculatingFSp2basedsolelyonSmilaxcover,whichwasusedforourstudy:

wherex=distance(km)toperennialwater.

FSp2=0.08x,forx<12.5;

FSp2=1.0,forx≥12.5;

wherex=percentcoverbySmilaxspp.

Summer Value (FSuTOT):

SummerfoodavailabilityforblackbearsintheAPPwascalculatedfollowingthe

examplecitedinZimmerman(1992).Thiscalculationaccountedforsoft-mastandhard-mast

sourcesoffood,andtreatedthemasindependentvariablesintheoverallequation,which

wasformulatedasfollows:

FSuTOT=FSu1+FSu2,forFSu1+FSu2≤1.0;

FSuTOT=1.0,forFSu1+FSu2>1.0.

FSu1reflectedtheavailabilityofsoft-mastfruitavailabletoblackbearsduring

summermonths,notablyvariousberries.Thiscalculationdeviatedfromtheoneperformed

inZimmerman(1992)astheprimaryspeciesconsideredinthatpaper,blueberries(Vaccinium

spp.),huckleberries(Gaylussaciaspp.),andblackberries(Rubusspp.),differedfromcoastal

species.Coastalberryspecies,suchasAmericanpersimmon(Diospyrosvirginiana),

muscadine(Vitisrotundifolia),largegallberry(Ilexcoriacea),andotherspecies,were

30

includedinadditiontoberryspeciesthatoccurredinbothcoastalandmountainous

locations.TheformulaforFSu1wasasfollows:

Forn=1*: Forn=2: Forn=3: Foralln:

FSu1=0.033x FSu1=0.037x FSu1=0.042x FSu1=1.0,

forFSu1>1.0

*Wheren=numberofberrygenerapresent;

andx=percentunderstorycoverofsoftmastspecies.

FollowingZimmerman’s(1992)example,thepercentofunderstorycoverofsoft

mastspecies(x)wascalculatedasfollows:

x=(FSu1-0.1(n-1))/0.033;

Wheren=numberofberrygenerapresent;andFSu1=1.0.

FSu1generatotalswerecalculatedbyidentifyingandsummingthenumberofallsoft-

mastbearinggeneraamongthespecieslistedperCVSplot.

Again,followingZimmerman’s(1992)approach,hard-mastspecies,particularlyoak

(Quercusspp.)wereselectedforcalculationoftheFSu2value.Oakstendtoharboraparasite

knownassquawroot(Conopholisamericana),whichservesasanadditionalsourceoffood

forblackbearsinsummermonths.Accountingforthisspeciesselectionforthisvalue,plots

withco-dominantordominantoakswereassignedanFSu2valueof1,andplotsthatdidnot

havethesespeciesasdominantorco-dominantwereassigned0.Dominanceandco-

dominancewasdeterminedthroughtheplotclassificationtaboftheCVSdatafindings,

31

wherethedominatingspecieswithinaplotwaslistedunder“translatedscientificnameof

communityconcept”oftheCVSdataset.Totalsummerfoodavailability(FSuTOT)was

calculatedusingthefollowingequation:

FSuTOT=FSu1+FSu2,forFSu1+FSu2≤1.0;

FSuTOT=1.0,forFSu1+FSu2>1.0.

Fall Value (FFaTOT):

Tocalculatethecontributionoffallfoodfromnaturalsourcestotheoverallblack

bearHSI,thefollowingequationwasused:

FFaTOT=((2FFa1+FFa2)/3)*FFa3

Thethreeseparatefactors(FFa1,FFa2,andFFa3)affectingfoodavailabilitywere

assessedfromtheCVSplotsinthestudyarea.FFa1representshardmastspeciesinablack

bear'sdiet.FFa2representssoftmastspecies.FFa3representsdistancebetweenplotsand

roads.IncalculatingtheLRVoffallfoodforeachplot,hardandsoftmastvalueswere

weightedandaddedanddistancetoroadswasconsideredasamultiplicativefactor.

Thefirstfactor,FFa1,describedthecontributionofhardmastsuchasoakandmaple

seedstobeardiet.Dataspecifyingobservationsite,hardmastproducingplantspecies

present,stemdiameter(cm),andsiteobservationarea(m2)wereextractedfromtheCVS

datasetforthestudyarea.Stemareawascalculatedassumingacircularstemshapeforall

species.Thesumofstemareabysitewasthendividedbythatsite'sobservationareaand

multipliedby100toproduceapercentbasalcoverofhardmast(VanManenandPelton

32

1997,Kaminski2013).FFa1valuesweredeterminedforeachsiteusingdifferentformulas

dependingontherangeofpercentbasalcoverofallhardmastspecieswithineachplot(as

inZimmerman1992).Ifpercentbasalcover=0-15%,thenFFa1=0;ifpercentbasalcover=15-

40%,thenFFa1=0.6;ifpercentbasalcover=40-100%.thenFFa1=1.

Thesecondfactor,FFa2,describedthecontributionofsoftmastspecies,specifically

grapevines,toblackbeardietinthefall.Asforthefirstvariable,allgenusMuscadinia

species,theobservationareas(insquaremeters),andMuscadiniastemcountswere

extractedforeachCVSplot.Thenumberofgrapestemswassummedforeachplotand

dividedbytheplotobservationarea(inhectares)togetameasureofgrapestemsper

hectare.FFa2wasthendeterminedforeachplotdependingonwhichoftworangesthe

grapestemsperhectarevaluesfellinto(therangesbeing0-200stemsand>200stems):

FFa2=0.005x,forx≤200;

FFa2=1.0,forx>200;

wherex=numberofgrapevines/ha.

Thethirdvariable,FFa3,accountedforthedistancebetweeneachplotandthe

nearestroad,whichwasnecessarybecauseoftheimpactdistancetoroadshasonbearfood

availability.DepartmentofTransportationroaddatafortheAPPandaEuclidiandistance

toolwithinaGISwasusedtoobtainadistance(km)betweeneachplotandthenearest

road,asinZimmerman(1992).FFa3wasassignedadifferentvaluedependingonwhichof

threerangesthedistancevaluefellinto:

FFa3=0.33,forx≤0.2;

FFa3=0.454x+0.273,for0.2<x≤1.6;

33

FFa3=1.0,forx>1.6;

wherex=distance(km)toclosestroad

Thesemodelvalueswerebasedontheassumptionthatallrelevantroadsinthe

studyareawerepaved,hencethereasonFFa3wasassignedvaluescorrespondingto

Zimmerman's(1992)functionforpavedroads.

Life Requisite Value – Escape:

TheLRVforescapecoverasmodeledbyZimmerman(1992)consistsoffour

variables:area(ha)ofconterminousforest(E1),understorycover(E2),slope(E3),and

distancetoroads(E4).Torepresentthis,Zimmermancameupwiththemodel:

LRVESCAPE=(E1+0.5E2+0.25E3)*E4;

IfLRVESCAPE>1.0thenLRVESCAPE=1.0.

WeadaptedthismodelfromZimmermantofitourstudyareainnortheasternNorth

Carolina.Undercoverstory(E2)wasadjustedtoreflectplantsthatarefoundinthestudy

areafromLanders(1979)andHellgrenetal.(1989).Slope(E3)wasfoundtoalwaysbezero

becausetopographywithinthestudyareaisflat.

Conterminous Forest (E1):

Thefirstvalue(E1)intheLRVforescapecoverfunction,asdescribedbyZimmerman

(1992),istheavailabilityofconterminousforest-thatis,acontinuousareaofforest

uninterruptedbyroads.TheC-CAPlandcoverdataset(NOAA2010)wasusedtoidentify

differentsizedparcelsofconterminousforest.Areasunder400hectareswereconsidered

insufficienttoallowforbearstoescape;theaveragerangeforabearis3,200hectares

34

(Zimmerman1992).AccordingtoZimmerman,thevalueofconterminousforestrisesquickly

andthenlevelsoutsoalogarithmicfunctionisneededtodetermineitsvalue.

E1=0,forx≤400;

E1=1.11(Logx)-2.89,for400<x<3200;

E1=1.0,forx≥3200;

Wherex=area(hectares)ofconterminousforest

Understory Cover (E2):

Thesecondvalueneeded,E2,forZimmerman’sLRVforescapecovergivesthe

availabilityofunderstorycoverforbearstohide,travel,andrest.Theprocessofdefining

understoryspecieslocatedinblackbearhabitatinthestudyareaevolvedfrominformation

foundinZimmerman(1992).Zimmermanlistedrhododendronandmountainlaurelas

componentsofthedenseunderstorythatbearsused(1992).Literaturereviewrevealed

understoryspeciesspecifictonortheasternNorthCarolinaandincluded:mountain

doghobble(Leucothoefontanesiana),wildgrape(Vitisspp.),greenbriar(Smilaxspp.),

blueberry(Vacciniumspp.),andfetterbush(Lyoniaspp.)(Landersetal.1979;Hellgrenetal.

1989).TheCVSwasusedtolocateplotareasofthesespecies.Welimitedthedatatoour

studyareaandwereabletomanuallyfindpercentcoveroftheunderstoryspecies.Plot

coverageofspecieswasbasedontwofactorslocatedintheCVS:areaofplotsand

percentagecoverofeachspecies.Area(ha)oftheplotwasmultipliedbypercentage

coverageoftheunderstoryspeciestogiveareacoverofplantspeciesintheplot.Areacover

isdefinedasx.Theminimumcoverwasjudgedtohaveavalueof20%andtheimportance

35

risesexponentiallytoamaximumat80%,(Zimmerman1992).Noneofourliteraturereview

hasindicatedthatthesevaluesshouldbechangedandwe,therefore,usedthesame

formulas.Theresultingsummedpercentagevalueswerethevariablespluggedinto

Zimmerman’sformula.

E2=0,forx≤20

E2=-0.007x+(2.38*10-4)x2+0.06,for20<x<80

E2=1.0,forx≥80;

wherex=percentcanopycoverofunderstory.

Slope (E3):

Thethirdvalueneeded,E3,forZimmerman’sLRVforescapecoveristheslopeofthe

terrain.However,becausewewerelookingatnortheasternNCandnottheAppalachian

Mountains,slopewasnotafactor.AllofnortheasternNChasaninsignificantslopewhen

lookingatZimmerman’sformula.Therefore,E3=0throughouttheentirestudyarea

(Zimmerman1992).

Distance to roads (E4):

InordertodetermineE₄,thedistancetoroadsvariable,wehadtodeterminethe

impactofroadsonbear.Thiswasbasedonthedistancearoadisfromwherethebearsare

harvestedbyhunters(Zimmerman1992).Thereisnoavailableliteraturethatcontradicts

Zimmerman’suseofharvestratesbyhuntersofblackbearsare50%and73%whenthe

distancefromroadsis0.8kmor1.6kms.Moreover,thereisnoavailableliteraturethat

suggeststhevaluesforE₄wouldchangeinacoastalarea.Distancefromroadswas

36

calculatedasEuclideandistancebetweentheCVSplotsandatransportationdatalayer

(United2002).

E₄=0,forx=0;

E₄=0.156x+0.195x2=0.25,for0<x<1.6;

E₄=1.0forx≥1.6;

Wherex=distance(km)tonearestroad.

Life Requisite Value – Denning:

TheLRVforthedenningofblackbears,asoutlinedbyZimmerman(1992)inthe

southernAppalachianMountainsconsistsoffourmajorcomponents:areaofconterminous

forest(ha),terrainslope,presenceoflargediametertrees,andcanopycoverofdense

understory.WhilethismodelwasdesignedtosuitthesouthernAppalachianarea,elements

ofthemodelcanbeadaptedtofitthetopographyandhabitattypicalofthestudyarea.

Specifically,therequisitevalueforconterminousforestremainedthesamewhilethe

requisitesforpercentcoverofdenseunderstoryandpresenceoflargediametertreeswere

expandedtoincludevegetationindigenoustonortheasternNorthCarolina.Theaspectof

slopewasreducedtozerogiventheextremelyminimalelevationchangethroughoutthe

studyarea.Theoverallformula,asstatedinZimmerman’spaper,fortheLRVforblackbear

denningis:

LRVDEN=[((D1+D2)/2)(D3+D4)]0.5

IfLRVDEN>1.0thenLRVDEN=1.0

37

WhereD1istheareaofconterminousforest,D2isthepercentareacoveredbydense

understory,D3istheslope,andD4isthepresenceoflargediametertrees.Thedifferent

aspectsoftheDsubsectionsareexpoundeduponandgivenvaluesinthefollowingsections.

DuetodifferencesinthesevaluesbetweentheAppalachianMountainstudyareawhere

Zimmermanconductedtheirexperimentandthisstudyarea,theformulawasadaptedto:

LRVDEN=((D1+D2)/2)+1/23(D3+D4)

IfLRVDEN>1.0thenLRVDEN=1.0

ThereducedweightofD3andD4wasbasedonMartorelloandPelton(2003),which

showedthatonly1in23blackbearsincoastalNorthCarolinautilizedtreedenning.The

equationwasmadeadditiveinsteadofmultiplicativebecauseoftheminimalimportanceof

treesforblackbeardenninginthestudyarea.RaisingLRVDENtothepowerof0.5wasdone

byZimmermanduetothefactthattwodenningvaluesweremultipliedinthatequation.

Seeingastheadaptedequationisadditive,theexponentwasremovedasitwasnot

relevanttoourstudy.

Conterminous Forest (D1):

AccordingtoZimmerman(1992),theareaofconterminousforestisimportantin

determiningchanceofdisturbance.Hesuggestedaminimumareaofconterminousforest

fordenningtobe200ha(toreflecthalfoftheareaneededforescape);belowwhichthe

suitabilityindex(SI)fordenning,D1,wouldbezero.Heusedtheaveragefemalehomerange

of1,225hatobetheareawhereD1levelsoutat1.0.Usingthis,hecreatedalinear

relationshipbetweentheminimumandmaximumareaforD1andderivedthefunction:

38

D1=0forx≤200;

D1=(9.8x10^-4)x-0.20,for200<x<1225;

D1=1.0,forx≥1,225;

wherex=area(ha)ofconterminousforest.

WeusedspatiallandcoverdatafromC-CAP(NOAA2010)withinaGIStofindareasof

conterminousforest.

Area Covered by Understory (D2):

TheprocessofdefiningunderstoryspeciesforD2wasthesameasforescape(E2),

differingonlyinhowtheunderstoryrelatedtodenningasopposedtoescape.Relatingto

denning,Zimmerman(1992)definedunderstoryassuitablewhenacontiguousareaof

understorycoverisgreaterthan30hectares.Aregressionofalinefromtheorigintothis

maximumgavethefunction:

Ifx<30,thenD2ismultipliedby0.0333.

Ifx>30,thenD2=1.

IfD2wasmultipliedby0.0333,thenthereisanuncertaintyofblackbearsbeing

locatedthereornot.Ifthenumberweregreaterthan30,theplotwascertainlysuitablefor

bearsandtheseareasweregivenavalueof1.

Slope (D3):

Aspreviouslystated,theparameterofslopewasreducedtozeroforallsiteswithin

thestudyareagiventheratheruniformelevation.Seeingastheslopeandpresenceoflarge

diametertreeswascumulative,D3+D4reducedtoD4.

39

Presence of Large Trees (D4):

Bearsusetreesfordenning,butinordertobesuitablefordenning,thetreeshaveto

beofcertainsize.Therefore,asthenumberoflargediametertreesincrease,withlarge

diameterreferringtobaldcypressesthataregreaterthan145cm(CrookandChamberlain

2010)andothertreeswhosediametersaregreaterthan90cm,thenumberofbeardensin

treesshouldalsoincrease.ThedatacollectedbytheCVSlistedbothtreetypeaswellas

diameteratbreastheightforvegetationwithinthestudyarea.Onlytreesmeetingthe

aforementionedparameterswereincludedinthecalculationandthenindividualvegetation

surveylocationsweregivenweightunderacertainsetofconditions.Theseconditionswere

thatifasitehadmorethan250treesgreaterthanorequalto90cmindiameter,thenD4

wouldequal1.0(Zimmerman1992).Iftherearelessthan250treesthatfitthatqualification,

thenumberoftreesarepluggedintotheequationD4=0.564(ln(x))-0.352withthenumberof

treessubstitutingforx(Zimmerman1992).Duetotheoverwhelminglackoftreesabove90

cmindiameterandbaldcypresseswithadiametergreaterthan145cm,thisvariablewas

alteredsothatifanynumberoftreeswerefoundgreaterthan145cmforbaldcypressesand

90cmforallothertrees,thenD4wouldequal1.0.Anyplotthatdidnothavetreesofthissize

wasgivenaD4ofzero.

40

Table3.TheadaptationsthatweremadetotheequationsfoundinZimmerman(1992)tobettersuitourstudyarea.Thevariablesthatwerechanged,theoriginalZimmerman(1992)equations,thenewmanipulatedvalues,andthejustificationsforeachchangeareshown.

ManipulatedVariable

Zimmerman(1992)value Manipulatedvalue Justification

LRVfood,LifeRequisiteValueofFood

=1/7FoTOT+(1/7FSpTOT+2/7FSuTOT+4/7FFaTOT)*I1

=7/14FoTOT+(1/14FSpTOT+2/14FSuTOT+4/14FFaTOT)*I1

Anthropogenicfoodweightedmoreheavily

Fo1,variableforcolonialinsects

=0.00082x+0.1,forx≤1100;

=1.0,forx>1100;wherex=downedlogs/ha.

=0.0 BeemanandPelton(1980);JonesandPelton(2003);Landersetal.(1979)

Fo2a,Sourceofanthropogenicfood

=((A+R)/2)*S =1 First-handObservations

Fo2c,Distancefromanthropogenicfoodsourcetoescapecover

Fo2c=1.0forx<25Fo2c=-0.0017x+1.0425for25≤x≤200Fo2c=-0.0015x+0.6for200≤x≤400Fo2c=0forx>400wherex=distance(km)fromplottoanthropogenicfoodsource

Fo2c=1.0forx<25Fo2c=-0.0017x+1.0425for25≤x≤200Fo2c=-0.0015x+0.6for200≤x≤400Fo2c=0forx>400wherex=distance(km)fromplottoanthropogenicfoodsourcewithinconterminousforestofamplesize

NorthCarolinaWildlifeBlackBearProfile

I1,Interspersion =1.0,forx≤5;=-0.07x+1.35,for5<x≤19;=0,forx>19;wherex=traveldistance(km).

Notincluded Interspersionisonlyrelevantwhenexaminingacontinuoussurfaceinsteadofindividualplots

E3,SlopeandEscape =0,forx<15;=0.0333x-0.5,for15≤x≤45;=1.0,forx>45; wherex=slope(degrees)ofterrain.

=0.0

First-handObservations

D3,SlopeandDenning

=Tan(x),forx≤45;

=1.0,forx>45;wherex=slope(degrees)ofterrain

=0.0 First-handObservations

D4,PresenceofLargeTrees

=0.564(Log10x)-0.352,forx≤250;=1.0,forx>250; wherex=numberoftrees≥90cmDBH/ha.

=0.564(Log10x)-0.352,forx≤250;=1.0,forx>250; wherex=numberoftrees≥90cmDBH/ha. wherex=numberofbaldcypress≥145cmDBH/ha.

CrookandChamberlain(2010)

LRVDEN,LifeRequisiteValueofDenning

=[((D1+D2)/2)(D3+D4)]0.5;

IfLRVDEN>1.0thenLRVDEN=1.0

=((D1+D2)/2)+1/23(D3+D4);IfLRVDEN>1.0thenLRVDEN=1.0

MartorelloandPelton(2003)

41

Land Use Change and Black Bear Habitat Replacement Cost in Northeastern North Carolina

Historicallandcoverdatafrom1996and2010wereusedtoexaminechangesinblack

bearhabitatovertimeandtoestimatethecorrespondingcosttorestoreworsenedlandsto

their1996conditions.Weusedhabitatqualityconditionstoidentifyaspectsofthe

landscape,includingforestcohesion,forestdiversity,andforest-agricultureedgedensity,

whicharesuitablehabitatforblackbearsinnortheasternNorthCarolina(KindallandVan

Manen2007).

Toexaminechangesinlandusefrom1996to2010,NOAA’sCoastalChangeAnalysis

Program’sdatasetwasusedwithinArcGIS(version10.4.1).The1996and2010datasetswere

firstreclassifiedtoidentifyonlycohesiveforestsintheregionbasedonthepresenceof

deciduousforests,evergreenforests,mixedforests,palustrineforestedwetlands,and

estuarineforestedwetlands(KindallandVanManen2007).Alloftheseareaswere

reclassifiedtothesamevaluebecause,regardlessoftheforesttype,cohesionwasthe

desiredvariable.Foreachoftheyears,wethenuniquelyidentifiedeachforesttype,which

wasthenusedtocalculateourmeasureofforestdiversity.Forest-agricultureedgedensity

variablewasdeterminedbyreclassifyingforestedlandandcultivatedcropsasunique

indicators.

EachvariableineachyearwasprocessedinFRAGSTATS.Theforestcohesionvariable

foreach1996and2010datasetwasprocessedusingthePatchCohesionIndexwithinthe

softwarewithsquare300meterx300meterpatches.Thisproduceda.tiffileforbothyears,

42

whichwasthenuploadedintoArcGIS.WithinArcGIS,anyforestwithpatchcohesion≥91

wasconsideredfavorableblackbearhabitat(KindallandVanManen2007).

TheforestdiversityrasterdatasetswerethenanalyzedinFRAGSTATSbyusingthe

Simpson’sDiversityIndexcalculationwiththesamepatchdefinitionusedforforest

cohesion.ConsistentwithKindallandVanManen(2007),wereclassifiedvaluesrangingfrom

0to0.5asarangesuitableforblackbears.Thesecellswereattributedavalueof1andany

areathatdidnotfallwithintherangewasgivenavalueofzero.

Forest-agricultureedgediversitywascomputedusingtheEdgeDensitytoolwithin

FRAGSTATSandappliedtothetworeclassifieddatasetsconcerningthevariable.Basedon

visualinspection,thisindicatorwasreclassifiedasfavorableedgedensityforblackbearsfor

thosevaluesrangingfrom0.25to0.5.

WithinArcGIS,thechangeinblackbearhabitatfrom1996to2010wasdetermined

usingtherastercalculatorforeachrastercell(300meterby300meter).Withinthe

calculator,thecumulativevaluesofallvariablesfrom1996weresubtractedfromthe

cumulativetotalofvariablepresentin2010.Thiscalculationresultedinascalerangingfrom-

3to3.Eachofthesevalueswasgivenadescription(Table4).

43

Table4.DegreeofChangeofBlackBearHabitatandDescription

Description DegreeofChange

GreatlyImproved -3

ModeratelyImproved -2

SlightlyImproved -1

NoNetChange 0

SlightlyWorsened 1

ModeratelyWorsened 2

SeverelyWorsened 3

Theweighting(Table4)assumesthateachvariable’scontributiontoblackbear

habitatisindependentofoneanotherandthatthereductionorimprovementinone

variablehasanequivalentimpactonblackbearhabitatasanalogouschangetoanother

variable.Althoughtheabovescalingislikelytocapturebroadtrendsinblackbearhabitat

quality,amorenuancedapproachmightconsiderthesehabitatcharacteristicsindividually.

Forexample,thecostofrestoringagricultural-edgesmaybemoreexpensivethan

replantingtoincreaseforestcohesion.

Weusedthetabulateareatooltosummarizetherastercellswithineachprivate

parceloflandthatwere“severelyworsened,”“moderatelyworsened,or“slightly

worsened.”Thetotalcostofrestorationwasthendeterminedforthestudyareaand

related,onaparcel-by-parcelbasis,tothevalueoflandinthesecounties.

44

Thecostsofhabitatrestorationarehighlyuncertainandarelikelytovaryacross

spaceandtime.Forexample,undertheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture’sWetlands

ReserveProgram,similarreplantingeffortshavebeenconductedinArkansasandLouisiana

withtheaimofsupportingtheLouisianaBlackBear(Ursusamericanusluteolus).Nationally,

in2001,“theaveragecostofpurchasingandrestoringapermanenteasementwas

approximately$1,200peracre.Theaveragecostofpurchasingandrestoringa30-year

easementwasaround$770peracre.Restorationcost-shareagreements,whichdonot

includeeasementacquisitioncosts,averagesaround$450peracre”(USDA2016).In

Delaware,theper-acrecostofforestrestorationis$400whengrowingforests;wetland

restorationprojectswereapproximately$1,500peracre;replantingofriparianforestbuffers

wereapproximately$500peracreandrestoringforestedBogturtlehabitatcosts

approximately$1,000peracre(FWS2016).Usingthesecostestimatesasaguide,and

recognizingthathabitatworseningintermsofthemultipleindicators,forestdiversityand

forestcohesion,ismorecostlytorestore,weassumerestorationcostsof$300peracreif

oneofourthreeindicatorsisworsening,$600peracreiftwoindicatorsareworseningand

$1000peracreifallthreeindicatorsareworsening.Wethenemployedlandparcel

valuationsfromcountyassessorofficestogainperspectiveontherestorationcostasit

comparestotheproperty’smarketvaluationforthirtyyears.Thesecostsaccountedforonly

thedirectcostsofrestoration,suchasreplantingefforts,andnotforindirectcosts,suchas

landacquisitionorrentalanddisruptionofexistinghumanuse.Therefore,ourestimations

ofthefinalcostareonthelowerboundsofthetruecostofblackbearhabitatrestoration.

45

Results and Discussion

Red Wolf Habitat Suitability on the APP

Figure1showsthediscrepancybetweensuitablehabitatandfederallands.Thered

wolfreintroductionprogramreleasedwolvesonfederallands,namelytheARNWR.

Whereas,ouranalysisrevealedthatsuitableredwolfhabitatislocateddisproportionatelyin

themoreinlandportionoftheofthestudyarea.Thisfindingsupportstheclaimmadeby

Dellingeretal.(2013)thatredwolvesprefertoremaindistantfromhumandevelopment,

butclosetolargeagriculturalfieldsandintactagriculturaledges.Thesehabitat

characteristicsprovideastablefoodsource(i.e.smallgame)andpreservelowinteractions

withhumans(Dellingeretal.2013).NortheasternBeaufortandsouthernWashington

countiesarepredominatelyagriculturalland(Figure2).Agriculturalexpansioninthese

regions,aswellasthroughouttheentirestudyarea,mayimprovethesuitabilityofthe

region’shabitatfortheredwolves.

46

Figure1.TheculminationofmultipleRSF(resourceselectionfunction)layers,derivedfromDellingeretal(2013),thatrepresentthemostsuitableredwolfhabitatinNortheasternNorthCarolinain2013incomparisontothefederallandsalsolocatedintheregion.ConstructedinArcGISbyreclassifyingfavorablehabitattypesandthensubtractingawaylandthatisnottraditionallyindicativeofredwolves.Blueareasrepresentsuitableredwolfhabitats.Greenareasrepresentfederallands.Theblackborderrepresentsthecountieswearestudying.

47

Habitatnearfederallands,wheretheUSFWSplacedtheredwolvesforthe

reintroductionprogram,islargelyfragmented.Takingintoconsiderationthelargeexpanses

oflandneededtosupportaredwolfpack,federallandshavecomparativelylittlepotential

tohelpsustainpopulations.Also,muchofthefederallandisPocosinforest(Figure2),

which,accordingtotheNorthCarolinaWildlifeRedWolfProfile,isconsideredsuitablered

wolfhabitat.ThisRSFindicatedthatPocosinsandwetlandsareunsuitableforredwolves

(Table2;Dellingeretal.2013).Therefore,therefugesandlandsthattheUSFWSdeemed

suitablefortheredwolfreintroductionprogramarelikelylesssuitablethanpreviously

believed.However,becauselittlewasknownaboutredwolfbehaviorandpreferencesprior

totheRedWolfReintroductionProgram(becauseredwolfpopulationshadbeen

decimated),informationgleanedfromtheAPPwildpopulation’sbehaviorisvaluableand

noteworthy.InformationaboutredwolfbiologyandecologygatheredthroughtheNEP

programontheAPPwillbeusefulinexaminingthesuitabilityoffuturelandscapesto

supportredwolves.

Habitatpresencedoesnotnecessarilydeterminetheabsolutepresenceofred

wolvesinthearea;duetothefragilenatureoftheredwolfpopulation,thepopulationmay

bemoreconcentratedinareaswheretheyaresignificantlymanaged.Ifmanagementefforts

dostronglyinfluencethelocationofredwolfpopulations,thenmanagementinareasthat

theRSFdeemedasmoresuitablemaybemorebeneficialtothefragilepopulation.Intensive

managementefforts,liketheplaceholdermanagementmethodtoreducecoyote

hybridization,alongwithremovalsofredwolvesfromprivatelandbytheUSFWSshows

thatunfetteredaccesstotheselands,whichisavailableonfederallands,wasvital(Bohling

48

andWaits2015;Murrayetal.2015).Intensivemanagementpracticesandnaturallimitations

tomigration,suchashabitatfragmentationandanthropogenicharvesting,mayconcentrate

thelocationofredwolvestofederallandsdespitetheirlessthansuitablehabitat.

Althoughfederallanddoesnotcontainamajorityofhabitatmostsuitableforred

wolvesinnortheasternNorthCarolina,therestillisjustificationfortheUSFWS’sdecisionto

locatethereintroductionprogramonfederalland:therewasnocosttoacquiretheselands

andaccesstomanageontheselandswasunfettered.Incomparison,sincethemostsuitable

habitatwaslocatedonprivateland,accesswouldrequirelandownersupport,whichmight

requirecompensationoranotherformofincentive.Aneffectiveincentiveprogramwould

focusonconnectingfragmentedhabitatandencouraginglandownerstoallowwildlife

managersontheirland.TheseresultsareconsistentwiththeWilliamsetal.(2014)

conclusionthatconstructionofsuchanincentiveprogramisnecessaryforthesuccessful

managementofredwolvesinsuchadiverselandscape.

Black Bear Habitat Suitability Index

TheaveragecalculatedHSIforthe99CVSplotswas0.56withastandarddeviationof

0.23(allHSIcalculationsandtheircorrespondinglocationsandCVSplotsareprovidedin

Table7intheAppendix).Thevaluesrangedfrom0.14foraparcelinmainlandDareCounty

to0.91foraparcelinBeaufortCounty(Figure2).ThisHSIvalueissimilarto,andslightly

greaterthan,Zimmerman’sestimationof0.48intheAppalachianMountains,whichisan

areawithathrivingblackbearpopulationsimilartoourstudyarea.

49

Figure2.LanduseandcalculatedHSIvaluesatCVSplotswithinthestudyareaoftheAPP.LanduseisclassifiedbycolorandHSIvalueisindicatedbythesizeofthepoint.LandusewasderivedfromCCAP(2010)andHSIvalueswerecalculatedfromCVSdatausingamodeladaptedfromZimmerman(1992).

HSI Calculation vs. Land Use

0 10 205 Miles

Row Crop

Quarry/Strip Mine/Gravel Pit

0.1

0.25

0.5

1

HSI Value

±

Managed Pine

Developed

Open Water (Fresh)

Open Water (Brackish/Salt)

Pocosin Forest

Maritime Forest

Tidal Marsh

Pine Woodland

50

IfwedissecttheHSI,again,wehavethreecontributingfactors,denning,food,and

escapecover.ThedenningLRVaveragewas0.79,whichmeansthatithadthestrongest

influenceonourfinalHSIcalculation.Theotheraveragevalueswere0.40forthefoodLRV

and0.49fortheescapecoverLRV.

OurHSIresultsmaynotaccuratelyrepresentthehabitatvalueofalllocationsonthe

APP,whichisdifferentfromthecontinuoussurfaceresultingfromZimmerman’s(1992)

analysisoflandintheAppalachianMountains.CVSplots,whichwereusedasHSIcalculation

locations,arelargelylocatedinnaturalcommunities,andthus,underrepresentagricultural

areasthatserveasimportantblackbearhabitat,especiallycontributingtheLRVfood,within

ourstudyarea.Theseagriculturalareas,rowcrop,pasture/hay,andmanagedpine,comprise

approximately27%ofthelandareaoftheAPP.Thisleadsustobelievethatifanything,our

modeledaverageHSIfortheAPPislowrelativetoreal-worldhabitatsuitabilityoftheAPP

forblackbears.Anotherfactorthatlimitstheapplicabilityofourresultstotheentire

landscapeisthepoint-basedapproachwetooktotheblackbearHSI.Here,weconsidered

andmeasuredonlythehabitatqualityforprecisepointlocations,whichdoesnotaccount

forspatialeffects,i.e,nearbylandscapeconditionsthataffecthabitatquality.Forinstance,a

wetlandlocationadjacenttoforestoragriculturalfieldswouldbemeasuredaspoorer

qualityhabitatdespitethepresenceofnearbyhighqualityhabitat.

OneofthemajordifferencesintheHSIequationbetweenourstudyand

Zimmerman’sisthedenningLRV.WhileouraveragedenningLRVisrelativelyhigh(0.79),

thathighvalueislargelydrivenbyonevalue,understorycover(D2)contributingtothe

denningLRV.WhereasZimmerman(1992)hadseveralfactorscontributingtodenning

51

suitability,twoofthosevalues,localconterminousforestvalue(D1)andthetreediameter

value(D4),hadsomepointswithvaluesofzeroinourstudyandslope(D3)wasremoved

fromourcalculation.TheD1valueiszerofor35outofthe99plots,whichwouldindicate

thatthereisahigherpercentofhabitatfragmentationinthearea,preventingbearsfrom

makingdens.Again,thefirsthandobservationofbearsinthefieldseemstounderminethe

factthatdenningspaceisunavailableandthereforetheareaisunsuitableforblackbears.

Thismaymeanthatdenning,oratleastconterminousforestdenning,isnotcriticalforblack

bearsinnortheasternNorthCarolina.TheD4valuesimilarlybringsdownthedenningLRV

duetothefactthattherearenotmanylargediametertreesinthestudyareathatqualifyas

whatZimmerman(1992)foundwasnecessaryforblackbeardenning.Thislackoflarge

diametertreesinnortheasternNorthCarolinacouldbeduetoacombinationoffactorssuch

asalackofsustainablelandusepracticesinfavorofblackbears,deforestationand

development,andthegeneraldifferencesofhabitatandwhatitcansupportbetween

Zimmerman’sstudyareaandourown.TheweightwegaveD4reflectsthisreducedreliance

ontreesoflargediameterinourstudyforbeardenning(MartorelloandPelton2014).These

factorsindicatethatsomeadjustmenttotheHSIequationsandvaluesshouldbemadeto

betterreflectthesituationofthebearsintheareainfurtherstudiesandtheimportanceof

site-specificHSImodels.

Bear Habitat Change Model

Wealsoexaminedbearhabitatchangefrom1996to2010withinourstudyarea.The

extentofhabitatimprovedorworsenedfrom1996-2010inthestudyareaisshowninTable5

andFigure3.

52

Table5.Area(acres)withineachcountythatfellintooneofthesevencategoriesthatrankedtheamountofpositiveornegativechangeinregardstoblackbearhabitat.Positivenumbersrepresentpositivechange,with3havingthelargestmagnitude,andnegativenumbersrepresentnegativechange,with-3havingthelargestmagnitude.Thecompositionofoverallimprovedorworsenedareasinthecountiesarealsoshowninthistable.

Beaufort Hyde Dare Tyrrell Washington

3 63 8 0 4 31

2 1153 355 4 96 224

1 17954 25577 15335 11102 5371

0 246676 201381 183110 164745 92223

-1 64022 22564 5955 15303 22185

-2 18093 4516 212 3331 5873

-3 2794 614 0 454 944

ImprovedArea(acres) 19170 25941 15340 11202 5626

WorsenedArea(acres) 84910 27694 6166 19087 29003

TotalArea(acres) 350756 255016 204616 195034 126852

ImprovedPercentage 5.47 10.17 7.50 5.74 4.43

Worsenedpercentage 24.21 10.86 3.01 9.79 22.86

UnchangedPercentage 70.33 78.97 89.49 84.47 72.70

53

Fig.3.Thechangeinlandusefrom1996-2010ontheAPPasarepresentativeofworseningorimprovingblackbearhabitat.Threevariables,forestcohesion,forestdiversity,andforest-agricultureedgedensity,werecomparedfromtheir1996valuetotheir2010value.TheimprovementorworseningwascalculatedbasedoffKindallandVanManen(2007),measuredusingFRAGSTATS,andfinallymappedusingArcGIS.

54

Amajorityofhabitatneitherworsenednorimprovedacrossthecounties,as

indicatedbythelargeamountofyellow-coloredlandintheFigure3.Thistrendofnochange

isespeciallyevidentclosertothecoast.MuchofDare(89.49%),Hyde(78.97%),andTyrrell

(84.47%)countiesexhibitednochangeinblackbearhabitatsuitabilityfrom1996to2010

(Table5).Thiscouldbebecausetherehasnotbeenmuchchangeinlanduseoverthetime

spanduetofederalprotectioninlandslikeARNWR,DareCountyBombingRange,and

numerousgamelandsthroughoutthecounties,comparedtootherregions.Additionally,in

thesethreecounties,thereweresomepatchesoflandthatslightlyimproved,especiallyin

theheartoftheDareCountygamelandsandinHydeCountynearLakeMattamuskeetand

SwanQuarter.Thegamelandsareprotectedfromhabitatdestructionandbecauseofthis

likelyincreasedinforestcohesionandforesttreediversity,whichwouldimprovethearea

forblackbearhabitat.Ontheotherhand,SwanQuarterandLakeMattamuskeetareasare

richinfarmland,whichlikelyincreasedforest-agricultureedgedensity,whichwouldalso

improvethelandintermsofbearhabitat.Outsideofthesethreecounties,however,bear

habitatworsenedmorenoticeably.Ingeneral,therewasmorechangetothehabitatin

Washington(27.3%)andBeaufort(29.67%)countiescomparedtotheotherthreeanda

majorityofthischangewasaworsening,whichcanbeseenbythehighamountofslightly

worseninglandinFigure3andTable5.Thiscouldbetiedtogreaterchangeinlandusein

WashingtonandBeaufortcounties,butfurtherrelatedinformationwouldbeneededto

makesuchaconclusion.

Inonlyonecounty,Dare,didmoreareaimprovethanworsen.InHyde,therewas

nearlyequalimprovementandworsening,althoughtherewasmorelandareathat

55

moderatelyorseverelyworsenedthantherewaslandthatmoderatelyorgreatlyimproved.

Byaccountingforthreeseparatevariables,ouranalysiswasabletodeterminetheintensity

ofworseningrelatingtothosethreevariables,whichisimportantinunderstandingthe

extentofwhichthehabitatworsened.InTyrrell,almosttwiceasmuchlandworsenedas

improvedwhileWashingtonandBeaufortbothhadalmostfivetimesmorelandworsen

thanimprove,withBeaufortshowingthehighestpercentageofworsenedland.Across

thesecounties,thethreefactorsaregenerallyworseningforbear.Thisisimportantto

realizewhenexaminingfuturelandusechangesifblackbearhabitatistobeconsidered.If

thepastlandscapechangesfrom1996-2010arerepeatedoverthecomingyears,bear

habitatwillcontinuetodecreaseinsuitabilitypertainingtothevariablesweconsidered.

Itisimportanttonotethesizesofthecountieswhenexaminingthedata.Thecounty

withmostworseninglandintermsofpercentage,Beaufort,alsoisthelargestcountyin

termsoftotallandarea.Infact,morelandareaworsenedinBeaufortCountythanallother

countiescombined.BehindBeaufort,thecountiesthatworsenedmostintermsoflandarea,

indescendingorder,are;Washington(despitebeingthesmallestcountyintermsoftotal

landarea),Hyde,Tyrrell,andthenDareCounty.Contrastingly,thecountythatimproved

mostintermsofpercentage,Dare,isonlythethirdlargestcountyinthestudyarea.Because

ofthis,itwasalsoonlythirdintermsoftotalareaofimprovementwhileHydeactually

rankedfirstintermsoftotallandareaimprovedfollowedbyBeaufort,Dare,Tyrrell,and

WashingtonCounty.Whileasacounty,Dareisimproving,thestatistic,whenappliedacross

thestudyarea,doesnotcarrymuchweightbecausemorethandoubletheamountofland

worsened(166,857acres)thanimproved(77,277).

56

Itisveryimportanttorealizethatsincethechangeinhabitatwasquantifiedona

binarybasisbeforebeingsummed,itdoesnottaketheextentofworseningorimprovingof

habitatintoaccountinasignificantmatter.Andfinally,thechangeinhabitatwasnot

examinedinawaythattooktheeffectsofonevariableonanotherintoaccount.Although

wedofocusonthreeclearcontributorstohabitatchange,thepotentialforsynergies

amongstourindicatorstoimpacthabitatqualityisnotexamined.Forexample,agricultural

expansionmaycreateedgehabitatswhilealsoreducingforestdiversity.Inourexamination,

thesefactorswouldoffsetintheircontributiontohabitatquality.Inreality,edgehabitats

maybedisproportionatelyattractivetoblackbearsinthepresenceofhighforestdiversity.

Accountingforsuchinteractiveeffectswouldrequireaclearerunderstandingofblackbear

habitatsuitabilityinhighlydiverselandscapes.

Table6showsanestimationofthecostsassociatedwithrestoringnegatively

impactedlandstoabettersuitedhabitatforblackbearsandaswellasthemonetarybenefit

ofimprovingbearhabitatfrom1996-2010basedoncostsfromaDelawarerestoration

project(KindallandVanManen2007).Unsurprisingly,thecostofrestoringnegatively

impactedlandtoimprovehabitatsuitabilityforblackbearsisdirectlyrelatedtolandarea

thatworsenedfrom1996to2010.Beaufortwouldrequirethemostfinancialcommitmentto

restoretheirlandatabout$32.9millionfollowedby,Washington($11.1million),Hyde($10.1

million),Tyrrell($7.0million),andlastlyDare($1.9million).Normalizingthisbylandarea

(acres)thatworsened,Beauforthadthehighestcostofrestorationperacre($387)followed

byWashington($384),Tyrrell($369),Hyde($364)andfinallyDare($310).Similarly,the

benefitofimprovedhabitatqualityinTable6correlatedwiththeamountoflandarea

57

improvedinTable5.Hydehadthehighestbenefitatabout7.9milliondollarsfollowedby

Beaufort(6.1million),Dare(4.6million),Tyrrell(3.4million),andWashington(1.8million).

Normalizingthisbylandarea(acres)improved,Beauforthadthehighestbenefitof

improvedhabitatperacre($320)followedbyWashington($316),Hyde($304),Tyrrell($303),

andfinallyDare($300).Thesenormalizedvaluesforbothrestorationcostandimproving

habitatreflectthedegreetowhichhabitatwasworsenedorbetteredacrossthecountiesin

awaythatdisplaysnecessaryfinancialcommitmenttorestorelandorcompensationfor

improvingthevalueofland.Thehighestrestorationcostsperacreareassociatedwiththe

twocountiesthathadthemostlandareaworsen,showingthatnotonlydidalotofhabitat

worsenbutitdidsoinamoresignificantmannerthaninothercounties.Theonlycounty

thathadmoreimprovementofhabitatthanworsening,hadthelowestbenefitforimproved

habitatquality,whichshowsthatmostofthelandthatimprovedinDareCountyonly

improvedslightly.Infact,15,335acresoutofthetotal15,339thatimproveddidsoonly

slightly.Whenconsideringthethreevariablesaccountedfor,itwasmuchmorelikelyforthe

worseningtobeseverethantheimprovementtobegreat.

58

Table6.Themonetarycosts,whichwerederivedfromaDelawarerestorationproject,associatedwithrestoringthelandthathasworsenedfrom1996to2010canbeseen(KindallandVanManen2007).Thevaluefrompro-socialbehavioristheamountofmoneythatwassavedwhenlandsimprovedtobettersuittheblackbearfrom1996to2010.

TotalPrivateParcel Hyde($million)

Beaufort($million)

Tyrrell($million)

Dare($million)

Washington($million)

RestorationCost(1996to2010)

10.09 32.86 7.04 1.91 11.12

Benefitfrompro-socialbehavior(1996

to2010)

7.89 6.14 3.39 4.60 1.78

InallcountiesexceptDare,thecostforrestoringworsenedlandstotheirprevious

conditionsoutweighstheeconomicbenefitsthatresultedfromimprovedlandsforbear

habitat.Overall,morelandareaworsenedthanimprovedandthecostsfromthatworsening

greatlyoutweighedthebenefitofhabitatthatimproved.However,itisimportantto

understandthatdespitetheresultsfoundinourstudy,blackbearsarethrivinginthearea

andsotheextentof“worsening”bearhabitatinthestudyareadoesnotseemtodetermine

thebearpopulation’sgeneralstatus.Thisstudyofchangingbearhabitatonlyaccountedfor

threevariablesonabinarybasisandweightedthemevenly,bothseparatelyand

aggregately.Therearelikelymorecomplexitiesinvolvedinthebetteringorworseningof

bearhabitatinthestudyareathatwerenotaccountedforinouranalysis.

TocompareourHSItoadifferenthabitatsuitabilitymodel,wecontrastedtheindex

topositivelyindicativelandvaluesforblackbearhabitatin2010(KindallandVanManen

2007).ManyofthelocationsthattheHSIindicatedassuitableforblackbearsarenot

59

suitableforblackbearsinthecontextofthevariablesoutlinedbyKindallandVanManen

(2007;Figure4).OnereasonmaybethatKindallandVanManen’svariables,forest-

agricultureedgedensity,forestdiversity,andforestcohesion,werepredominatelyforest

based.Whiletheforestisrelevantforblackbearsinbothmodels,theHSIalsostressed

naturalfoodsources,whichKindallandVanManen(2007)doesnotdirectlyconsider.This

maybeoneshortcomingofrelyingsolelyonlarge-scalegeospatialanalysistoguide

managementactions.Whereas,ashortcomingoftheHSIforspecificlocationsisthatthey

maynotnecessarilybescalabletothebroaderlandscape.

60

Figure4.ComparisonofHSI’scalculatedfromCVSplotdataandblackbearhabitatmodelcalculatedfromsatelliteimagery.HSIvaluesarerepresentedasreddotswithsizecorrelatingtothemagnitudeoftheHSIvalues(modeladaptedfromZimmerman(1992)).HabitatqualityasdeterminedbyKindallandVanManen(2010)wasbasedoffofforestcohesion,forest-agricultureedgedensity,andforestdiversity.

Our Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) vs. Kindall & Van Manen's

0 10 205 Miles

Kindall and Van Manen 20100 - Not Suitable

1 - Somewhat Suitable

2 - More Suitable

3 - Most Suitable

Our HSI Values0.142569 - 0.364117

0.364118 - 0.572925

0.572926 - 0.731055

0.731056 - 0.913255

61

Ourrecommendationforthehabitatsuitability-basedmanagementofblackbears

wouldbeacombinationofusagesofon-thegrounddetailedmeasurementsandsite-specific

models,suchastheCVSdataandourapplicationtoourHSIandlandscape-scalemodels,

similartoKindallandVanManen(2007).Inthisway,thelargermodelscanbeusedandthe

resultingfindingscanbeconfirmedoradjustedbasedonmoredetailed,site-specific

methods.Despitethedifferencesseenbetweenthetwomodels,deemingoneuniversally

rightandtheotherwrongwouldbeerroneous.Eachmodelconsistedofdifferentvariables

withdifferingweights.Groundtruthingandcomparisonsofthehabitatsuitabilitytohabitat

usebyorganismsarehighlyrecommendedtoolstoconfirmthesuitabilityofindicesbefore

theyareusedtoguidemanagementdecisions.

62

Human Dimensions

Methods

Weconductedsemi-structuredinterviewsusinganinterviewguide.Interview

questionsfocusedontheinterviewee'sbackgroundandenvironment,aswellasbears,red

wolves,coyotes,andmanagement(seeAppendixforthefullinterviewguide).Therewere

similarquestionsaboutallthreepredatorsthatwouldeventuallyallowustocompareand

contrastperceptionsoftheseanimals.Theguideformatallowedfortailoringquestions

dependingontheindividual’sprofessionandlevelofinteractionwiththepredators.For

example,wemighthaveaskedafarmerslightlydifferentquestionsthanahunter.Weasked

open-endedquestionsallowingintervieweestoexpresstheirideasandfocusonwhatwas

meaningfultothemwithinthequestionposed.Whentheintervieweemovedofftopic,we

hadtheabilitytoredirect,andwhentheintervieweefoundsomethingmoremeaningful,we

hadtheabilitytofocusinonthataspectoftheconversation.Attheendoftheinterview,we

askedforanyadditionalinformationthattheintervieweemightfindimportantbuthadnot

beenaddressedwiththequestionsinourguide.Allinterviewswereconductedin

accordancewiththestandardsoftheUNCInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB),andwe

maintaintheconfidentialityoftheidentitiesandresponsesofinterviewparticipants.

Sampling

WepurposivelysampledresidentsofTyrrellandHydeCounties,NCthatwere

farmers,hunters,andlocalofficialswhohaveknowledgeandexperiencewithoneormore

ofthestudypredators.Weusedreferralstoidentifyinterviewees,withinitialcontactsfrom

63

fieldsitefacultyandcontactsinthestudyarea.Wereceivedsubsequentreferralsusing

snowballsamplinginwhicheachintervieweewasaskedtorecommendotherpotential

participants.Wecontactedpotentialintervieweesbyemailandphone.

DuetothecontroversialnatureoftheRedWolfProgram,weanticipatedthatwe

mightrunintobarrierswhenaskingindividualstoparticipateinourstudy.However,wealso

ranintootherdifficultieswhentryingtosampletosaturation,orwhenwenolongerheard

newinformationintheinterviews.Itislikelythatindividualswerealreadyreceiving

numerousphonecallsduetothepresidentialracecomingtoanend,anditispossiblethat

ourcallswerescreenedout.Therewasalsoalimitedtimeframeforconductingthese

interviews.Wewereabletoachieveabroadintervieweebase;however,wedidnotsample

tosaturationbecausewewerestilllearningnewinformationfromeachinterview.Ideally,

wewouldhavelikedtotalktoresidentsoftheotherthreecountiesinourstudyarea,

Beaufort,Washington,andmainlandDareCounties,aswellashuntguidesandstateand

Federalmanagers.

Analysis

Interviewsweretranscribedword-for-wordusingOtranscribe,afreeopen-source

webapp.TranscriptswereanalyzedbycodingusingNVivov.10,qualitativeanalysis

software.Codinginvolvescategorizingstatementsmadebytheinterviewees.Usingasetof

emergentcodesorlabels,wecategorizedsegmentsofinterviewsbasedontheircontents.

Thecodingprocessallowedforclearerandmoreregimentedidentificationofthemes,as

wellaseasiercomparisonofstatementsmadeacrossinterviews.Breakingdownkey

conceptsinthismannerprovidedmoremeaningfulandmoreeasilyreferencedresultsfor

64

eachtopicofinterest.Usingthecodes,wepulledbroaderthemesoutofthedatatomake

coherentcharacterizationsoftheattitudesofinterviewees.Animportantaspectofthe

processwasthateachinterviewwasanalyzedshortlyafteritscompletionratherthanafter

allinterviewshadbeenconducted.Analyzingonarollingbasisallowedforafasteroverall

process,anopportunitytoidentifytopicsaturation,andtheabilitytoexploreemerging

themesinsubsequentinterviews.

Samplesizeandlimitations

Weinterviewed12individualswholiveinthestudyarea—sevenresidentsofHyde

CountyandfiveresidentsofTyrrellCounty,includingtwowomenandtenmen.Thesample

iscomprisedofindividualsfromawidevarietyofbackgrounds.Whileoursampleincluded

farmers,hunters,andgovernmentofficials,therelevantstakeholdersinthisproject,the

smallsizeofthesamplesomewhathinderedourabilitytodrawacompletepictureofthe

attitudesofthepeopleontheAPP.Ideally,wewouldhaveconductedsomanyinterviews

thatwewouldstarttohearmuchofthesameinformationfromintervieweeswithinthe

samestakeholdergroup.Unfortunately,wewerenotabletodothat,andsothe

perspectiveswegot,whilesometimesaligned,oftendifferedquitesignificantlywithinthe

variousstakeholdergroups.Nevertheless,wewereabletocharacterizesomeoftheshared

attitudesamongintervieweesaboutlargepredators.

65

Results and Discussion

SeveralkeythemesemergedfromtheinterviewsinHyde,Tyrrell,andmainlandDare

Countiesthatweorganizedaroundperceptionsoflandscape,predators,andwildlife

managementineasternNC.Respondentsexpressedanappreciationofnatureanditsrolein

theirprofessionalandpersonallives,aswellasastrongsenseofprideintheirwildand

challenginglandscape.Incharacterizinglargepredators,respondentstendedtoidentify

blackbearsasnon-threatening,longtimeresidentsoftheareathatexemplifythebeauty

anduniquenessofthelandscape,whiletheycharacterizedredwolvesaselusiverecent

additionsthatlackatrueplaceinthearea.Coyoteswereidentifiedasunwantedpests,

threateningbecauseofboththeirbehaviorandtheirrapidlygrowingpopulation.With

regardtohowthesepredatorsarebeingmanaged,respondents’attitudesweregenerally

shapedbytheirperceptionsofstateandfederalgovernmentandinfluencedbytheir

livelihoodsandtheirfeelingsaboutthelandscapeoverall.

LandscapePerceptionsandValues

Thelandisextremelyimportanttopeoplewhowereinterviewed,andtheirlocal

cultureandcommunitywereinevitablyintertwinedwithit.AsoneTyrrellCountyresident

said,“It’sanislandofnon-development”(2).Withalackofconveniences,likelargegrocery

anddepartmentstores,andanabundanceoffarmandgameland,thereisaconsensusof

appreciationforthenaturallandscape.Manypeople’sjobsandhobbiesaretiedintothe

land.Farmers,huntingandeco-tourismguides,wildlifemanagers,andloggerscomprisea

largepartoftheworkforceintheAPP;hunting,fishing,andoutdoorsportstakeupmuchof

66

people’sfreetime.AccordingtothemostrecentCAMALandUseplansforTyrrellandHyde

Counties,fishing,hunting,loggingandfarmingjobscomprise16.8%and15.9%ofthe

workforce,respectively,twoofthehighestratesinthestates(HollandConsultingPlanners

Inc.2010,2008).Oneoftheintervieweesdescribedthis,“…peopleworkinthefishing

industryorthefarmingindustryortheforestry.That’sthethreebigonesofcourse,the

schoolsystemandtheprisonsemployalotofpeoplebutmainlyfarming,fishingand

forestry”(1).Thewaysinwhichthesubjectsvaluethelanddiffergreatlydependingonhow

theyusetheland,aswell.Forinstance,afarmermightvaluethelandforthefertilesoilto

growcropswhileahuntermightvalueitforthehabitatitprovidesforgame.Oneofthe

intervieweessaid,“…HydeCountyisrealfertilesoilforwhatI’mgrowing,forfarming.It’s

reallygreat,andtheterrain,Iliketheflatground”(2).Thisintervieweehadaclear

appreciationofthelandthatinvolvedhisoccupation.Anotherintervieweehadasimilar

experience,“Justseeingthewildlifeandalsohunting,it’sfun.OrwhileI’mdeerhuntingone

[abear]willcrossinthewoods,you’rehopinghe’lljustgoonhisway”(3).

Connectionstothelandscaperundeep—manysubjectsemphasizedenjoymentof

wildlife.Oneintervieweementioned,“It’ssoopenandtheskyissobig”(2),anotherstated

“thisplaceisstillwild”andcalledtheareaa“paradise”(3).Whileothersmightstruggle

livinginthisenvironment,thesepeoplearedrawntoorperhapsshapedbytheareainsuch

asignificantwaythattheydonotwanttoimaginelivinganywhereelse.

ToliveontheAPPistoliveamongauniqueenvironmentalframework,wherewildlife

andPocosinwetlandsdefineyourdailylifeandstruggles.Thepeopleofthepeninsulahave

67

adaptedtoalandscapethatisnotfortheweak-hearted.Thepeoplestrivetomakealivingin

asmallcommunitywithfewsupportsystemsandhandouts.Onepersonstated:

Thelevelofwildlifehereisubiquitousinthatyoulivewithwildlife,youlivewithnature,andyoulivewiththeforceofnaturehereeveryday…youwillnotbehereunlessyouchoosetobe...Youareaself-starter.Youwanttobehere.Youappreciatethequalityoflifeouthereandyouarewillingtodowhateverittakestobesuccessful.Soyouhaveatremendousamountoffiercelyindependent,fiercelyprideful,fiercelyindividualisticpeoplewhoarecraftingalifeinanenvironmentthatisbeautifulandchallenging(5).

Accordingtothisinterviewee,thereisastrongsenseofindependenceandindividualismin

thepeoplewhoresideinthislandscape.Thepeoplearenotputoffbythechallengesofthe

environment.Theyarepeopleofpride,andtheyalsotakeprideintheirwildlife.

Manyrespondentsexpressedprideinthefactthatthebearsoutnumberthepeople.

InregardtoTyrrellCounty,onerespondentsaid,“Fromademographicstandpoint,it’sthe

smallesttowninNorthCarolina.It’s800squaremiles,3,645people,and12,000blackbears

livinghere”(5).

Anotherthingrespondentsboastedaboutisthelackofcorporationsinfluencing

urbanizedgrowthinthesecommunities.Prideinthepreventionofurbanizationwasa

recurringthemeamongrespondents:“Walmartisanhouraway,whichisagoodthing”(6).

TherearenotMcDonaldsorWalmartsaroundeverycorner.Thisruralpreservationis

importanttothesmalltownswhereunityandtraditionlargelykeepthesepopulations

connectedinsuchaharshenvironment.Thoughthismayseemlikeaninconvenienceto

manypeople,itisnotsoforthemajorityofinterviewees.

68

CharacterizationsofLargePredators

Black Bear

Respondentsseetheblackbearasanirreplaceablefeatureoftheirnaturalworld.

Interviewsshowedpeople’spositiveperceptionsoftheanimal,aswellasthelackofthreat

theyfeelfromsuchanenormouscreature.Themajorityoftherespondentsdescribedthe

blackbearasabeautifulyetwildanimalthattheytakeprideinhavinginthearea.One

intervieweesaid:

IfyouspendenoughtimeinTyrrellCounty,you’regonnarunintobears,andtheyare…they’rebeautiful,andit’sexcitingwhenyouseecubsscamperingacrossthefieldormarchingacrossyourfrontyardoryouseetheminafield(5).

Othershadsimilarexperienceswithblackbears,asanotherintervieweeputit:

Ilovethemjustforthewildlifefactor…Ithinktheyarebeautiful.Theyarecharismaticmegafauna,Idon'tevenknowhowtocompareit.Itwouldbelike,ifwehadelkdownhereliketheyhaveupinthemountainsnow,it’slike,there'ssomethingaboutthemegafaunathatjustlike,it’sawesomebutyouknowthereisacoolfactoraboutallmammalsreally.Especiallythebigger,thecooler,Iguess(10).

Thesetwoquotesshowthattherespondentsareproudtohavetheblackbearwherethey

live.Thebearsarewild,muchlikethewildlandthatcharacterizesthestudyarea.This

connectionissuchthatintervieweesareexcitedwhentheyseeabear,asifseeingthemisa

treat.

Moreover,intervieweestalkedaboutalackofthreatassociatedwiththeblackbear.

Theanimalshaveplentytoeatduetotheenormousamountofcropland,andpeoplehave

beenencounteringthemforgenerations.Oneintervieweestated,“Ifonecrossesinfrontof

69

mewhileI'mwalkingthedogs,thebear'srunningaway,youknow?It'snotusrunning

away”(10).

Intervieweesdescribedblackbearsasnotonlyasymbolofthewildnessoftheir

landscape,whichtheyverymuchvalued,butasasourceofeconomicprosperity,aswell.

“Huntingisabigpartoftheeconomy”andothersimilarstatementsweremadeinmany

interviews(3).Anotherrespondentemphasizedthat“bearhunterswillespeciallypaya

premiumtocomeafterabear…andImeanalotofmoney”(2).Thespecificdollaramounts

associateddirectlywithbearhuntingwereneverexplicitlymentioned.Onerespondent

referredtobearhuntingasbeingableto“makealittlemoneyofftheland”andcalledita

“legitimateuseofaresource”(3).Itappearsthatmostpeoplewhoinvestsignificanttime

andenergyintobearhuntingexpectaconsiderablebenefit.Forexample,“Onefarmerlast

yearspent15,000dollarsonbait…justbait”(2).Wecanassumefromthisthatthisspecific

farmerexpectstomakebackatleastthatvalue,whichisjustonepartofthebearhunting

process.

Bearhuntingalsoattractsmoneytotheareaintheformofnon-localhunters.Not

onlywilloutsidehunters“payapremium,”buttheyalso“comefromallovertocometo

HydeCounty”toshootbears(2;3).Anotherpersonsaidtherearenormally“morepeoplein

thosesixdays[inNovember],thenalltherestoftheyearcombined”(2).Bearhuntingisnot

onlyattractingasignificantamountofmoney,butalsoasignificantnumberofpeople.

Thereisalsoasignificantcostassociatedwithhavingbearsinanarea,includingthe

effectsblackbearshaveonagriculture.Onesubjectsaidbearscan“doalotofcropdamage.

Theygrazeinthebeansand…youcancount12to20bearsinasinglefield.Sothefarmers,

70

whenyou’reinfarmermode,it’snotwhatyoulike”(3).Thisdepredationbyblackbearsis

definitelynotseenasapositiveoutcome.Onerespondentsummarizedconcisely,“Idon’t

reallyparticularlylikefeedingawholebunchofthem[blackbears]inmycrops,”(6).Inthis

way,peopleseemtoberatherannoyedwiththeanimal’spresence;somuchsothat“there

aretimeswhenyouhavetopullyourhairoutwhenyou’retryingtoworkandlivewhere

theseanimalsaretryingtomaketheirliving”(3).

Despitethisannoyance,blackbearsseemtobewidelytolerated.Onerespondent

saidthatblackbearsareessentiallypartofthecommunity,saying,“Mostpeopleouthere

getalongwiththem—justpartofbeingouthere”(3).Becausethebearsareacommonly

acceptedpartofthelandscape,peoplehave“learnedtolivewiththebear”(1).Despite

harmtocrops,onerespondentsaid,“Wenever,asfarmers,runthebearsoff”(9).Another

aspecttotolerationofbearscouldbethatfarmersrealizetherevenuemadefromhunting

balancesouttheamountofrevenuelostfromcropdepredation.Onerespondentsaid,

“Theypayusforallthecropsthattheyeat”(11).Althoughbearsaretoblameforcrop

damage,theirstatusasapartofthelocalculturemakesthisdamagesomewhatexcusable.

Oneintervieweesaid:

There'salwaysbearshere…andIthinkthatit'sreallyingrainedinpeople.It'snotlikethemostimportantthing,butit'spartoftheirlandscapeandtheirmindtoapointthatsomeofthemtakeitforgranted(2).

Bearshaveresidedintheareaforgenerationsandhavebecomepartofthelocalculture

becauseofit.Itappearsthattimeandfamiliaritymaketheannoyancesthatblackbears

causeeasiertoforgive,andourintervieweesseemtotolerateorevenenjoyhavingthem

around.

71

Red Wolf

WhileblackbearsareafamiliarsiteintheAPP,theredwolf,whichisconsiderednew

bythelocalpeople,isgenerallymuchlesstolerated.Forexample,oneintervieweestated:

Everybodyhasastoryaboutabear,butthere'salwaysbeenbearshere,youknow,thewolves—ifthey'rebeyondthememoryofthesefamilies,andtheearlyfamilieswouldn'thavehadasweetspotintheirheart,becausetheywouldhavebeenperceivedasathreatbackthen,youknow,automatically….it'snotacultural—it'snotapieceofthecultureyouknow,theyalmostfeellikesomeonetookapieceofaculturesomewhereelseandjuststuckitinandtriedtojamitin,youknow?(2).

Comparedtothebear,respondentshadamoreneutral,andinsomecasesevennegative,

attitudetowardtheredwolf.Manyofourintervieweeshaveonlyhadfleetinginteractions

withthemandhaveneverseenthemforlongerthanafewseconds.Onerespondentsaidof

hisencounters,“Theytookoff.Imean,andtheonlytimeIeversawthemwasinthedarkon

thebackroadsinhere—thegravelroads.Andassoonastheyseeorhearthevehicle,they

startrunning”(4).Becausewolvesarenotpresentininterviewees'dailylives,thereisa

distancebetweenthemthatleadssometocharacterizewolvesinmoredetachedterms,

indicatingthatwolvesarevaluedlessthanbearsbyrespondents.Wolvestendtoavoid

peopleandhumandevelopment,whichmayhavereinforcedthisdisconnectinterviewees

expressedandpreventedthemfromimbuingthewolveswithpersonalityandcharisma.One

residentsaid,“Idon’tseewolvesenoughtobeabletosaytheirbehavioristhiswayorthat

way”(2).Theelusivenatureofredwolveshasbeenanimpedimenttoresidentsoftheir

introductionareaformingaconnectionwiththem,becausemanypeopleintheareahave

beenhereforanextendedperiodoftime,buthaven’tencounteredtheanimal.

72

Compoundingtheseissuesareaperceivedlackofhistoricalconnectionbetweenthe

redwolvesandtheareaandthenatureofthewolves’introduction.Oneinterviewee

commentedontheredwolf’slackofhistoricaltie,stating“therewasnevernoredwolves

aroundherein60someyearsthatI'velivedinHydeCounty.Sothey'reputtingtheir

scientificproofonsomethingthatthelocalshaveneverhadtodealwith”(1).Whilethe

USFWSidentifiedtheregionaspartoftheredwolf’shistoricalrange,theanimalshadnot

livedherefornearlyacentury.Someintervieweesthereforedonotbelievetheredwolves

haveaplaceintheAPPbecausemembersofthecommunitieswerenotalivewhenthe

wolveswereoriginallyinthearea.Onerespondentsimplysaid,“I'mnotgoingtosayI'ma

bigfanofredwolves,‘causeIdon'tthinktheywereeverhereregardlessofwhateverybody

says”(9).Somerespondentslookattheredwolvesasintruders.Thegovernmentbacking

oftheredwolfreintroductionprogramfurthercomplicatestheissue,leadingpeopleto

oftenrejectthewolvesbasedupondistrustofthegovernment.Lackofinteractionwiththe

redwolvesmaycauseasortofdistancebetweenthecommunityandthewolvesthatis

heightenedbyanassociationofthewolveswiththegovernmentandUSFWSmanagement

practices.

Anotherfactorthathasaffectedtheperceptionofredwolvesintheareaisthe

perceivedeffectthewolveshaveonthedeerpopulation.Respondents,bothhuntersand

farmers,notedadecreaseinthewhite-taileddeerpopulationandoftenattributedthat

decreasetothepresenceofredwolvesandcoyotes.Onerespondent,afarmer,talked

abouttheeffectoftheperceiveddecreasingdeerpopulation:

Onethingtheredwolfisknownforiseatingwhitetaileddeer.We'vegotsomefarmsthatIdon'thaveasmanydeer—thedeeraren'thurtingmy

73

cropsasbadastheywerefiveyearsago.Ilaythattothecoyotesandtheredwolvesbecausetheyeatthemwhenthey'reyearlings,youknowwhenthemdeerareborn.There'snotasmanydeerasthereusedtobe,sothey'renoteatingmycropsasbad(2).

Whileitappearsthatareductioninthedeerpopulationisnotentirelyabadthingfor

farming,deerhuntingisalargeenoughindustryintheareathatsomemayhaveseen

businessnegativelyimpactedbywolf-deerinteraction.Anotherrespondentdescribedthis

perceptionbysaying,“probablythemostimpactthatthecoyotesandwolveshaveison

deerhunting,runningthedeeroutofacertainarea.Thedeerwillcomebackafterthe

wolvesmoveoutofthatarea,butifwolfisinacertainareathedeerleave”(1).Thedeer

leavinghurtshuntingbusinesses,leadingsometoassociatetheredwolfwithan

economicallyharmfulpattern.

However,otherrespondentsdidnotconsiderwolvestobeagreatthreattothe

huntingeconomybecausetheybelievethereisstillahealthyandevenincreasingdeer

population.Onerespondentnoted:

Weweretold,thegeneralpublicwastoldthattheywouldhelptakecareofthedeerpopulation.Whichwehaven'treallyseen.There'smoredeernowthanthereeverwas.Sothatdidn'tholdtobetrue(9).

Someintervieweeswerenotopposedtoseeingthedeerpopulationreduced,butcitedthe

largeandseeminglygrowingnumbersofthemasanunfulfilledpromiseoftheredwolf

program,tyingbacktotheirdoubtsaboutit.Thus,respondentsonbothsidesofthedeer

issueseetheredwolfasbeingatfaultforsomething,complicatingperceptionsofthewolf's

placeintheecosystem.

74

Nearlyallintervieweesrespondednegativelywhenaskedabouttheredwolves’place

inlocalculture,includingthosethatweresupportiveoftheprogramgenerally.One

intervieweeresponded,“Theynevergottothatpointhere,whichissad”(3).Givenallofthe

abovefactors,thewolvesmaynothavebeenabletobecomepartofthelocalcultureand

gainacceptanceinthesamemannerofblackbears.Thisisnottosaythatthereare

overwhelminglynegativeattitudestowardwolvesacrossthestudyarea—rather,our

interviewsrevealedthatwolvesarenotconsideredanintegralpartofthearea.

Coyote

Ingeneral,intervieweeshadanegativeattitudetowardcoyotes.Thisismainly

becausecoyotesareinvasive,threatening,andperceivedasanuisance.However,a

secondaryreasoncoyotesaredislikedistheirassociationwiththeRedWolfProgram.

Coyotesmovedintotheareaaroundthesametimeastheredwolves,andthetwohave

beenknowntointerbreed.

Thefactthatcoyotesareinvasiveisoneoftheprimaryreasonstheyaresodisliked.

Whilethepeopleintheareagenerallyhavepositiveopinionsofnatureandwildanimals,

coyotesareseenasmoreofaninvasivepestthananadmirablepartofthenatural

landscape.Thefollowingquoteexpressesthissentiment:

Andwhentheyseeacoyote,theyshootthecoyotebecausehe’sanuisance.Notbecausehe’sasportinganimal.Whenyoukillanicesizedblackbear,you’reproudofthat.Itmakesyouhappytokilloneofthem.Oranicedeeroranicebuck.Butwhenyoukillacoyote,youjustkillinghimbecausehe’sanuisance.AndIdon’tthinkit’sthesame(6).

Asopposedtotheblackbear,whichishuntedforbraggingrightsandhashistorically

inhabitedthearea,coyotesareseenasforeignanimalsthathavedisruptedthenaturalorder

75

andarekilledbecausetheyarenuisances.Differingreactionstotherecentpopulation

growthofthetwoanimalsareparticularlytelling.Coyotesandblackbearshaveboth

increasedinnumbers,andwhileintervieweesdidnotseemtobebotheredbytheincreasein

blackbearpopulation,theyhavebeenfrustratedbythecoyotepopulationincrease.Bears,

whichareviewedaspartofthelocalcultureandbringrevenuetothearea,arefreeto

reproduceasmuchastheywant,withoutthelocalsmindingtoomuch,butcoyotesareseen

aspestsandnuisances,sotheincreaseintheirnumbersisseeninanegativelight.Because

thecoyoteisananimalthathasnotbeenseenintheareauntilrecently,therecentgrowth

initspopulationisseenasadisruptionofthenaturalorder.Numerousinterviewees

emphasizedtherecentdrasticincreaseincoyotenumbers.Respondentssaidthey“usedto

noteverseeacoyote”(2)andthatthey“seealotmorecoyotes,morethan…ever”(1).

Anotherintervieweestraightforwardlysaid,“Thepopulationisgrowingdramaticallyhere”

(1).Theirhowlsareconsideredloud,disruptive,andcanwakepeopleupinthemiddleofthe

night.Onerespondentsaidthecoyotessoundedlikeabunchof“collegekidsdrunk”(11)

whentheyhowledlateatnight.

Residentsalsoareconcernedaboutadropinthewhite-taileddeerpopulation,

comparabletoasentimentexpressedaboutredwolves.Oneintervieweesaid,“Everytime

thecoyotepopulationgoesup,thedeerpopulationgonnagodown”(6).However,within

ourrespondentbase,thereseemstobeconflictingideasaboutwhetheradeclineinthe

deerpopulationexists.Anothersubjectsaid,“They'rehere,andI'msurethey'reeating

fawns,butthereareenoughdeertomakeupforthat,tomakeupforthatdepredation”

76

(10).Respondentsblamecoyotesforkillingyoungdeer,whichsomeintervieweessayis

leadingtoadropinthedeerpopulation.

Becausecoyotesarehardysurvivalistsandarenotsensitizedtohumanpresence,

coyoteencountersofteninvolvepropertydamageorlossofanimallife,causingpeopleto

feartheirpresence.Coyotewillfeedonchickens,rodents,andevensmallpets.One

interviewee(6)saidthatwhenhisdogwasapuppy,hewouldkeepitveryclosetothe

houseatnightbecausehewasafraidthatthecoyoteswouldhearthepuppyandcomeeat

it.Thisfearrunsdeep,andanotherintervieweewentsofarastosaythat“Ifthereare

coyotesaround,Iwillbemorecarefulwithsmallchildren”(2).Althoughthepeopleofthe

regionadmirethenaturallandscape,theyhaveanegativeattitudeaboutcoyotesbecause

theyperceivethemasthreats.Oneintervieweesaid,“Peoplewillletacoyotebeacoyote

untilittriestoeatyourchickens”(5).Inotherwords,peoplewillrespectanycreatureinthe

naturallandscapeuntilitisperceivedasathreattotheirphysical,emotional,oreconomic

well-being.

Ahandfulofintervieweesexpressednegativeattitudesaboutcoyotesbecauseof

theirrelationshiptotheRedWolfProgram.Becausethecoyote’sarrivalhascoincidedwith

theRedWolfReintroductionProgram,someintervieweesassociatethetwo,andbecause

theydonotliketheRedWolfProgram,holdnegativeattitudestowardscoyotes.One

respondentclaimed,“Theymayhavebeenbroughtheretoactuallybeputinthisarea”(6).

Althoughthisconnectiontotheprogramcontributestotheoverallnegativefeelings

towardscoyotes,itisarelativelyminorcomponent.Primarily,respondentshavestrong

77

negativeattitudesaboutthecoyotesbecausetheyareperceivedasinvasivepeststhat

annoypeopleandposeathreattothesafetyandeconomicwell-beingofthecommunity.

Comparison

Ingeneral,peoplefeelaconnectionwiththebearthattheydonotfeelwiththe

coyotesandredwolves.Thisislikelyduetothefactthatthebearshavebeenherefor

longerandareapartofaculture,whiletheredwolvesandcoyotesareseenasinvasive

peststhathavedisruptedthenaturalorderofthings.Intervieweesdocumenthaving

multipleinstancesofinteractionwiththebear,butdescribedinteractionswithredwolvesas

shortandfleeting.Inotherwords,ourintervieweeshavegottentoknowtheblackbear,

becausetheyseeitregularlyandithasbeenherealongtime,buthavenotgottentoknow

theredwolf,becauseitisshyerandhasonlyrecentlybeenintroducedintothearea.The

coyoteisanentirelydifferentstory.Whileourintervieweesinteractedwiththecoyotesona

regularbasis,theseinteractionswereoverwhelminglynegative.Furthermore,becausethe

coyoteisanewadditiontothelandscape,ourintervieweeswereveryhostiletowardsit.In

conclusion,timeofinhabitanceandconnectionwithplacearethefactorsthatseemto

influencehowintervieweescharacterizedtheanimals.

Attitudes about the Management of Large Predators

General Attitudes about Federal, State, and Local Governments

Interviewees'perceptionsofthefederalgovernmentseemtoplayacrucialrolein

howtheyviewthemanagementoflargepredatorsontheAPP.Manyintervieweesadvocate

forsmallgovernmentandbeinglargelyleftalonetotheirowndevices.Bothfederaland

78

statewildlifemanagementagenciesareactiveintheAPP,andintervieweesgenerally

expressedskepticismaboutthefederalgovernment,butweremorereceptivetothemore

localstateagencies.

Skepticismofthefederalgovernmentamongintervieweescamefromavarietyof

interactions,notjustthoserelatedtotheredwolfreintroduction.Talkingaboutdrainage,

intervieweesexpressedmanynegativeattitudesaboutfederalregulations.Oneinterviewee

saidthatthereare“somanyregulationsandregulatoryagenciesoutthere”thatdraininghis

farmwas“alwaysabattle”(1).Anotherdescribedcertaindrainageregulationsas

“misplaced”(5).Discussingthecoyotenighthuntingban,oneintervieweesaidthattheban

was“thefederalgovernmentsteppingonpeople’stoes”(10).Oneintervieweewasso

skepticalofthefederalgovernmentthattheysaid:

Alotofpeopleheresaythatsomeofthefederalagenciesreleasedthecoyotesheretobeherefortheredwolvesandalsohelpeatnutriaandkeepthedeerpopulationlow(11).

Allofthesesentimentsexpressedbytheintervieweespointtowardsagenerallynegative

attitudetowardsthefederalgovernmentandperceivedperceptionsofoverregulation.The

intervieweesseemtothinkthefederalgovernmentistryingtodotoomuch,andare

skepticaloftheirinvolvementintheregion.

Incontrast,manyintervieweestookspecialnoticeoftheactivemanagementactions

takenbylocalandstateagencies.Theseincludedoor-to-doorcontactandconversationwith

locals,biologicalmeasurementsofharvestedanimalsforrecordkeepingpurposes,and

nonintrusiveanimaltracking,whichsomefeltweremoreeffectiveatmaintaining

communication.Onesubjectsummarizedthisrelationship,“Theyareapartofthe

79

community,andIthinktheydoasgoodajobastheycanaboutkeepingrelationshipswith

thelocals"(3).

Akeyelementinthisrelationshipisdirectpersonalcontactbetweenthelocalagents

andmembersofthecommunity.Intervieweesdidnotfeelthatfederalagenciesmaintain

thissenseofcloseness.OneintervieweenotedthatUSFWSseemslikeanoutsiderinthe

community:

RightnowIthinklocalsfavorthestateagenciesoverthefederalagencies,andyoudohavealotofstateagenciesthatmaketheirhomesintheseplacesmore.Andalotoffederalagencieshavefolksfromawayfromhere.AndI'mnotsayingyoucan'tbethatway,butyoucan'tbethatwayandbeajerkaboutit(2).

Inotherwords,thesituationmightbedifferentiffederalgovernmentrepresentativeswere

fromthearea,andnottryingtoimposesomanyregulationsonthepeople.However,

becausetheyareviewedasoutsiderstellingthelocalswhattodo,intervieweesgenerally

viewedthefederalgovernmentnegatively.Stateagencymanagementwaspreferred

becauseoftheirperceptionthatstateofficialshavegreaterknowledgeofandrespectfor

localissues,aswellasthegreateramountofpersonalcontactthatcomesfromhavingstate

officialslivinginthearea.

RespondentsnotedthatthewayUSFWSworkslimitsitslocalappeal.Itseemsthat

residentsseethevalueoftheagency,buttheydonotnecessarilysupporthowtheirtax

dollarsarebeingused.Onerespondentsaid,“Wegotallkindsofrefuge,andthatthe

peopledon'tgetanytaxvaluebackfromit"(1).Anotherintervieweesaidtheyseeboth

sidesoftheissue:

80

WellyouknowIthinkthere’stwosidestoit.I’mallfortryingtomaintainaspeciesandkeepitfromgoingextinctandtryingtoreestablishtheirwelfare.But,theflipsideofthatisthat’sallbeingdonethroughtaxpayer’sdollars.(4)

Theintervieweesgenerallydidnotapproveofthewaythattheirtaxdollarswerebeing

spentoncertainprograms,andhowthefederalgovernmentwasbothpreventinglocaltax

revenuefrombeingraisedbyprotectinglargeswathesofland,andwastingthemoneythat

thelocalsspendonfederaltaxes.

It’s Not the Wolves, It’s the Government

Anissueraisedbymanyintervieweeswasthatresidentsarenotnecessarilyagainst

havingredwolvesinthearea;rather,theyobjecttothestrictregulationsthatcomewiththe

reintroductionprogram.Somefeelthefederalgovernmenthasoversteppeditsboundsand

isregulatinglanduseintheintroductionarea,andhasspenttoomuchmoneyonthe

program.Anumberofintervieweeshavealsoquestionedthesuccessofthereintroduction

programandtheeffectivenessofredwolfmanagement.Intervieweesalsoobjectedtothe

spatialcomponentofthereintroductionstrategy,arguingthatwolvesshouldbekepton

federallandbutthatthegovernmentdidnottakeanymeasurestokeepthemthere,

allowingthemtoroam.

Becausetheredwolfreintroductionprogramrequiressomuchactivegovernment

involvement,theprogramhasbecomeasourceofcontentionamonglocalresidents.One

respondentpointedoutthathostilitytowardtheredwolvesandthereintroduction

programmaystemfromissueswiththegovernmentingeneral:

Idon'tthinkit'ssomuchthespecies;Ithinkit’sthefederalgovernment.People'sopinionofthefederalgovernment.IthinkthemainpointisthatIdon'tthinkit'sthewolvesthemselves.Ithinkit’sjustpeoplebeingmadatthe

81

governmentandtakingitoutonthem…Soit’sprobablythepeoplewhohavenegativeopinionstowards[redwolves]areprobablymoresotheindividualswhohavenegativeopinionstowardsthegovernment(10).

Thisquoteelegantlyillustrateshowgeneralperceptionsofthefederalgovernmenthavea

directimpactontheattitudesaboutnotonlythemanagementofthesepredatorsbutofthe

predatorsthemselves.Inthiscase,theintervieweeexpressedthesentimentthatthepeople

oftheregiondonothaveaproblemwiththeredwolfitself,butratherhaveaproblemwith

thefederalgovernmentanditsactivities.

Avarietyofperceptionsincludingexcessiveregulationoflanduse,fiscalwaste,and

doubtaboutwhethergeneticallypureredwolvesstillexistcausedanumberofthe

intervieweestodisapproveofthefederalgovernment’smanagementstrategy.For

instance,considerthefollowingconcerningtheprogram’sfiscalwaste:

Afterspendingtensofmillionsofdollarsontheprogramandnothavinganysuccess,youcanseehowsomebodylikemewhopaysalotintaxesandseesmymoneybeingthrownawaylikeit’sbeenthrownaway,whywewouldbereluctanttosupportit(12).

Alackofreturnoninvestmenthasbeenacomplaintamongsomelandownersastheysee

theirtaxdollarsputtowardaprogramthathasn’tbeenabletomaintaintheredwolf

populationeffectively.Thus,thewolveshavebecomeasymbolofgovernmentintervention

andwaste,causingsometoleantowardanegativeopinionofthemwheretheywouldhave

otherwisebeenindifferent.Complaintsaboutthemanagementtendedtobeattheprogram

scale;issuesrelatingtobadpersonalinteractionswithofficialsdidnotcomeup.

Anumberofintervieweeswereskepticalofthenumberofgeneticallypurered

wolvesinthearea,compoundingtheirnegativeopinionsofthemanagement.Residents

realizethatcaninesofdifferentspeciesarecapableofinterbreeding,andbecausetherehas

82

beenrecordedhybridizationbetweenwolvesandcoyotesintherecoveryarea,manyhave

doubtsaboutthelong-termefficacyoftheprogram.Thetwospeciesarealsovirtually

physicallyindistinguishabletoamajorityofthepublic,whichhascausedproblemssincethe

startoftheprogram;asoneintervieweebluntlyphrasedtheissue,“It’srealhardto

distinguisharedwolffromacoyote"(9).Thisconfusionoccasionallyleadshunterstoshoot

redwolvesthattheyassumedtobecoyotes,resultinginharshpunishmentbecauseofthe

species’endangeredstatus.Thesetypesofinteractionstestthepublic’spatience,assome

believethatthegovernmentisputtingresourcestowardestablishingahybrid

population.Thefollowingdescribesthissentimentwell:

Ithinkthereshouldbenoredwolfprogram,becauselikeIsaidit’snotagenuineredwolfanymore.Ifitwas,itmightbedifferent,butwhenyoushootacoyoteoraredwolforwhateverandyoulaythemonthetailgateofyourtruck,thewildlifemanagercan’ttellyouwhichoneitis.(6)

Someresidentsdonotseethepointofmaintainingapopulationofredwolvesthatmaynot

evenbegeneticallypure.

Furthermore,someintervieweesbelievethatroamingawayfromfederallandallows

wolvestoposeagreaterthreattodeerandotheranimals,aswellasbreedandformpacks

withcoyotes,whichfurtherunderminestheprogram.Thefollowingsumsupthis

sentiment:

Ireallydon'tthinkit’ssomuchtheredwolvesthemselvesbutthefederalgovernmenttryingtointroducethesewolvesintothewildwhichofcoursewhenyouintroducesomethingunderarefuge,itisnotgoingtostaywhereyouputit.(10)

Thisquoteshowshowthefederalgovernmentisperceivedbysomeintervieweestobe

incompetent.Thisintervieweeinparticularthoughtitwasquitenaïveofthegovernmentto

83

expectawildanimaltoremainonfederalland,andespeciallyunwiseofthemtonoteven

attempttokeepthewolvesonfederalland.Thesenegativeattitudesabouttheamountof

governmentresourcesputintotheprogramandthesituationthathasresultedhaveled

sometoseetheredwolfasafailedexperiment,tyingtheirperceptionsofitmoretothe

governmentthantotheplaceitself.

Perceptions of Hunting

Anumberofintervieweesalsothinkaboutmanagementintermsofhunting,whichis

importantintheareaforbotheconomicandrecreationalreasons.Huntingisimportantasa

sourceofrevenueinthecounties,aswellasthestate,andisapartoflifethatresidentsin

theareaenjoy.Bearhuntingbringsasubstantialseasonalinfluxofrevenueintothese

countiesduringthe20-dayseasoninNovemberandDecember.EasternNorthCarolinahasa

thrivingblackbearpopulation,asbothindividualbearsandtheoverallpopulationare

reachinglargersizesthantheyhaveinthepastfewdecades.Alargebearpopulationcarries

risks:bearscancausecroplossandareinvolvedinvehicularaccidents.Oneofthemainways

thepopulationismanagedisthroughashorthuntingseason,andmultiplerespondents

suggestedelongatingtheseasontoimprovebearpopulationmanagement.Forexample,

oneintervieweesaid,“Ifeellikealongerseasonwouldbebeneficialtothefarmers.The

farmersarecomplainingaboutthebearseatingthecropsandyouknow,he’stryingtomake

aliving"(7).Additionally,anotherrespondentsaid:

WecoulddoanothertwoweeksandIdon’tthinkthatitwouldhurtatallanditwouldidentifysomeofthebearwhoprobablyneedtobeculledbecausethesizeofsomeofthesebearsthatarecomingoutnowshowthatthereadilyavailablefoodisnotreallyallthatgoodforthebear.They’rejusthugeandbearsshouldn’tbe700pounds.You’regettingjustthesemonstrousbearsand

84

it’sbecausethey’lljustsitdowninthemiddleofasoybeanfieldandjusteatallday(5).

Althoughmanyrespondentsweregenerallyskepticalaboutthegovernmentandits

managementpractices,theyviewedtheregulationsonbearhuntingaslegitimateandpart

oflifeontheAPP.Aminorhuntingseasonadjustmentwastheonlytopicthatcameupwith

regardtobetterbearmanagement.

Incontrast,respondentswereupsetaboutcertainrestrictionsoncoyotehunting,

citingthemasfederaloverreach.Multipleintervieweesbroughtuptheneedforfewer

huntingrestrictionsoncoyotes,citinglooserregulationincentralNC.Toensurewolves

wouldnotbeconfusedforacoyoteandmistakenlykilled,theNorthCarolinaWildlife

ResourcesCommissionimplementedabanonhuntingcoyotesatnightinthefivecounties

ontheAPP.Thisnighthuntingbanthatwasintendedtoprotecttheredwolfwas

questionedbyintervieweeswhothoughtresidentsshouldbeabletokillcoyotesatwillto

controlthepopulation.Asoneintervieweeputit,“Ithinkyoushouldbeabletoshootoneat

anytimeyouseeone…nobodyIassociatewithapprovedoftheban”(6).Sincethecoyotes

areprimarilyactiveatnight,thenighthuntingbanessentiallyeliminatedanyabilityforthe

localstocontrolthecoyotepopulation.Asaresult,thenighthuntingbancontributedto

oppositiontothereintroductionprogram.

Theconsensusfromtheintervieweeswasthatmanagementofbearsandcoyotesis

bestdonethroughhuntingandcouldbebetterifbothseasonswerelonger,allowingfor

moretakes.Whilemanagementofblackbearhuntingisgenerallyviewedfavorablyandasa

necessarypartofthehuntingculture,themanagementofcoyotehuntingisseenasan

85

intrusionandanimpedimenttothenaturalwayoflivingontheAPP.Huntingperceptions

arealsotiedtoeachpredator'sperceivedroleinthearea.Bearhuntingwasgenerally

viewedpositivelybecauseoftherevenueitbringstolocaleconomiesandthepridehunters

takeinhuntingahistoricandvaluableanimal.Theneedtohuntcoyotes,however,was

viewednegativelybecauseofitslackofeconomicbenefitsandtheassociatedrestrictions,

whicharetiedtotheredwolfprogram.Thus,huntingwasapointwhererespondents

tendedtovoicedisapprovalofbothcoyotesandredwolves.

Synthesis

Forrespondents,lifeontheAlbemarle-PamlicoPeninsulaislargelytiedtotheir

perceptionsoftheland—amainlyundeveloped,wildsettinginwhichpeopleandother

animalscoexist.Theyholdgenerallypositiveviewsofblackbears,morenegativeviewsof

redwolves,andextremelynegativeviewsofcoyotes.Intermsofthegovernment,

respondentsheldgenerallynegativeviewsofthefederalgovernment,butmorepositive

viewsofstategovernment.Whiletheyfeltthatalotoffederalregulationsweremisplaced,

theyviewedstateregulationofthingslikehuntingtobeforthemostpartsatisfactory,with

onlyminorsuggestionsforimprovements.

Attitudetowardgovernment,placeidentity,andthenatureoftheanimalitselfwere

identifiedasthemainfactorsaroundwhichintervieweesbasedtheirperceptionsofeach

species.Allthreefactorsplayedsomeroleinthewayeachspecieswasperceived,buttheir

relativeimportancevaried.

Attitudetowardgovernmentwasthemainfactorinfluencinghowtherespondents

viewredwolves.People’sattitudesaboutgovernmentimpacttheirperceptionsofthe

86

managementofpredators,andtheirattitudesaboutthewolvesthemselves.Thissame

relationshipbetweengovernmentperceptionandattitudetowardwolveshasbeen

demonstratedinanumberofstudies.Browne-Nunezetal.(2013)foundthatattitudes

towardsthegovernmentinfluencedattitudesaboutthegraywolfmorethanthepeople’s

perceptionsofthewolvesthemselves.Kreyeetal.(2016)foundthatperceivedgovernment

mismanagementhasanimpactonhowpeopleviewpredators.Thenatureofthewolfalso

influencedhowpeopleviewedthem,butitwasnotasmuchofafactorastheirattitudes

aboutgovernment.Redwolvesareshyandelusive,sorespondentsgenerallydidnothave

asmuchcontactwiththemastheotherspecies.

Placeidentitywasthemainfactorinfluencingrespondents’viewsofblackbears.

Becauseoftheirhistoryinthearea,bearsareinasensesynonymouswithplaceandso

respondents’opinionstendedtoblendinwiththeirsenseofplacevalue.Thefarmerswe

interviewedviewedcropdamagefromblackbearsasapartoflifeinthearea.Thisissimilar

toresultsfromBowmanetal.(2001)whofoundthatlandownerswhohaveexperienced

damagefromblackbearsstillhaveagenerallypositiveviewtowardthespecies.Thenature

oftheanimalwasasecondaryinfluenceonhowpeopleviewedtheblackbears.Blackbears

arecharismatic,predictable,andpassive,sopeopleareabletoidentifywiththem,andenjoy

seeingthem.

Thenatureofcoyotes,themselves,wasthemainfactorinfluencinghowrespondents

viewthespecies.Coyotesareadaptive,invasiveandarerelativelyunafraidofhumans.

Becauseofthis,coyotesareviewedasanuisance.Secondarily,somerespondentsassociate

87

coyoteswiththeredwolfprogram,andsincesomehaveanegativeviewoftheredwolf

program,thatnegativelyinfluencestheiropinionsaboutcoyotes.

Ourcomparativeapproachofferstheabilitytoseethedifferencesinopinionsofthe

variouspredators,andoverallprovidesamoreholisticwayofassessinghowthecommunity

viewedthepredators,andwhytheyfeltthatway.Previousliteraturehasattemptedto

associatecertainvalueswithfeelingsaboutanimals,andhasinsomecasestriedtolump

predatorstogetherwhenexplaininghowpeoplefeelaboutthem.Forexample,Hunterand

Brehm(2004)attemptedtoassessattitudestowardswildlifeheldbypeopleinruralareas,

butmadelittleattemptintheiranalysistodifferentiatebetweenspecies.

Ourworksuggeststhatacomparativeapproachthatasksintervieweesabouteach

predatorindividuallymaybebetterforcharacterizinghowthepeoplefeelaboutthe

predatorsandwhytheyhavetheattitudesthattheydo.Inthisstudy,wefoundthata

comparativeapproachmayallowforabetterrepresentationabouthowthesegeneral

attitudesinfluenceperceptionsofpredators,andhowthoseperceptionsabouteach

predatordiffer.

88

Conclusions

Asrecentpolicydecisions,litigation,andanecdotalencountersregardingblackbears,

redwolves,andcoyotesintheAPPdrawtheattentionofthenewsmediaandthepublic

nationwide,futurelandusebythesepredatorshangsinadelicatebalance.Thisstudystrives

toshedlightonthenaturalhabitatandanthropogenicfactorsthatwillultimatelyimpactthe

presenceandabundanceofthesethreeapexpredatorswithintheAPP.

TheRSFanalysissuggeststhatthefederallandsontowhichredwolveswere

introducedandrelocatedarenotoptimalhabitatrelativetonearby,privatelyownedland

areas.PrivatelandswithintheAPPwerecharacterizedbygreatertravelcorridorsbetween

theresourcesofhigherelevatedlands,foodsourcesaroundagriculturaledgehabitats,and

watersources,butmanagementoftheselandsandanywolvesthatmayinhabitthemis

limited.Asuccessfulredwolfmanagementprogramonprivatelandsrequiresadditional

outreachandlandownersupportandwouldperhapsbenefitfromtheimplementationof

alandownerincentiveprogram.Thisprogramwouldpaylandownerstoallowactive

managementofanimalsthatmoveacrosstheprivately-aswellaspubliclyownedlandscape

insearchofsuitablehabitat(Williamsetal.2014).Overall,largeareasofsuitablehabitatfor

redwolvesarepresentontheAPP,evenifthecurrenthabitatfoundonUSFWSpropertyis

lesssupportiveofredwolfsuccessthanthehabitatonprivatelandwithinthestudyarea.

TheHSIresultsshowthattheAPPprovidesagreatdealofhabitatsuitabletoblack

bears,althoughtheapplicationoftheHSItothewholeAPPislimitedbythedatasetthat

wasavailableforitscalculation.Ifanything,weexpectthattheHSIunderestimateshow

suitabletheAPPhabitatistosupportingblackbears.Additionalanalysisshowedthatthe

89

overalltrendforbearhabitatqualityintheAPPoverfourteenyearswasgeneralstability,

withaslightdecline.Despitethisdeclineinhabitatquality,ourfirst-handobservationsand

recordedinterviewsdescribedathrivingbearpopulation.Basedonthecontentofour

interviews,itseemsthatpeoplewantthebearshere.Onelimitationofthemodelproposed

byKindallandVanManen(2007)wasthatanthropogenicandin-situfoodandother

variableswerenottakenintodirectconsideration.Thismodelmayalsohavebeenlimitedby

thefactthatallvariablesthatweremeasuredwereconsideredindependentlywithout

consideringanypotentiallycompoundingeffects.Futurespatialanalysesshouldconsider

inclusionofadditionalvariablesforgreaterresolutionofHSIandRSFresults,anda

sensitivityanalysisforconfoundingamongstvariables.

Neitherspatialmodelsconsideredvariablesrelatedtosocialperceptions.Greater

socialacceptanceandfavorabilitymayaffectlong-termhabitatsuitabilityandrelative

successofconservationactions.Qualitativefindingsfromourinterviewswithlocalresidents

showedthatacceptanceandfavorabilityofblackbears,redwolves,andcoyotesdiffer

withinthestudyarea.Theinterviewees,ingeneral,hadpositiveattitudesaboutblackbears,

neutralorslightlynegativeattitudesaboutredwolves,andoverwhelminglynegative

attitudesaboutcoyotes.Theseattitudeswereinfluencedbythreefactors:attitudestoward

government,placeidentity,andexperienceswiththeanimals.

Ourcomparativeapproachprovidesnewinsightintohowpeopleperceivepredators.

Wefoundthataskingrespondentsaboutdifferentpredatorsallowsfortheabilitytosee

howdifferentunderlyingvaluescaninfluenceattitudesabouteachpredator,andprovides

anadvantageovertraditionalmethods,whichhavelumpedpredatorstogether.

90

Incorporatingvariablesrelatedtohumanperceptionsandunderlyingvaluesintofuture

spatialhabitatanalysescouldimprovecapacitytoprovidemoreholisticassessmentsof

landscapefitforpredators.

OurworkrevealsthattheAlbemarlePamlicoPeninsulaisamatrixofbothecological

andsocialfeatures.Together,thequalitativeinterviewsandspatialanalysesofhabitat

qualityandresourcesavailabilityillustratethevarietyandcomplexityoffactorsthat

contributetohowblackbears,redwolves,andcoyotesarefindingtheirplacesin

northeasternNorthCarolina.

91

References BeemanLE,PeltonMR.1980.SeasonalFoodsandFeedingEcologyofBlackBearsinthe

SmokyMountains.BearsTheirBiol.Manag.4:141–147.

BohlingJH,WaitsLP.2015.Factorsinfluencingredwolf-coyotehybridizationineasternNorthCarolina,USA.Biol.Conserv.184:108–116.

BowmanJLetal.2001.AttitudesoflandownerstowardAmericanblackbearscompared

betweenareasofhighandlowbearpopulations.Ursus12:153–160.Browne-NunezCetal.2014.ToleranceofwolvesinWisconsin:Amixed-methods

examinationofpolicyeffectsonattitudesandbehavioralinclinations.Biol.Conserv.189:59–71.

CatherineKozak.2015.InauguralFestivaltoCelebrateBlackBears.CoastalReview.Available

fromhttp://www.coastalreview.org/2015/06/inaugural-fest-to-celebrate-black-bears/.CrookAC,ChamberlainMJ.2010.AMultiscaleAssessmentofDenSelectionbyBlackBearsin

Louisiana.J.Wildl.Manage.74:1639–1647.DellingerJA,ProctorC,SteuryTD,KellyMJ,VaughanMR.2013.Habitatselectionofalarge

carnivore,theredwolf,inahuman-alteredlandscape.Biol.Conserv.157:324–330.HellgrenEC,VaughanMR.1989.DemographicAnalysisofaBlackBearPopulationinthe

GreatDismalSwamp.J.Wildl.Manage.53:969–977.Hill,E.P.,Sumner,P.W.,Wooding,J.B.,1987.Humaninfluencesonrangeexpansionof

coyotesinthesoutheast.Wildl.Soc.Bull.15,521–524HollandConsultingPlannersInc.2008.HYDECOUNTY,NCCAMACORELANDUSEPLAN.HollandConsultingPlannersInc.2010.TYRRELLCOUNTY/TOWNOFCOLUMBIACAMA

CORELANDUSEPLAN.HollandConsultingPlannersInc.2009.BeaufortCountyJointCAMALandUsePlan2006

Update.HunterLM,BrehmJM.2004.Aqualitativeexaminationofvalueorientationstowardwildlife

andbiodiversitybyruralresidentsoftheIntermountainregion.Hum.Ecol.Rev.11:13–26.

92

JohnsonR,etal.2011.2009DARECOUNTYLANDUSEPLANUPDATE.JonesMD,PeltonMR.2003.FemaleAmericanblackbearuseofmanagedforestand

agriculturallandsincoastalNorthCarolina.Ursus14:188–197.KaminskiDJ,ComerCE,GarnerNP,HungIK,CalkinsGE.2013.UsingGIS-based,regional

extenthabitatsuitabilitymodelingtoidentifyconservationpriorityareas:AcasestudyoftheLouisianablackbearineastTexas.J.Wildl.Manage.77:1639–1649.

KindallJL,VanManenFT.2007.IdentifyinghabitatlinkagesforAmericanblackbearsin

NorthCarolina,USA.J.Wildl.Manage.71:487–495.KreyeMMetal.2016.TheRoleofCommunityIdentityinCattlemenResponsetoFlorida

PantherRecoveryEfforts.Soc.Nat.Resour.1920:1–16.LandersJL,HamiltonRJ,JohnstonSA,MarchintonRL.1979.FoodsandHabitatofBlack

BearsinSoutheasternNorthCarolina.J.Wildl.Manage.43:143–153.MartorelloDA,PeltonMR.2003.MicrohabitatcharacteristicsofAmericanblackbearnest

dens.Ursus(Knoxville)14:21–26.MurrayDL,etal.2015.TheChallengesofRedWolfConservationandtheFateofan

EndangeredSpeciesRecoveryProgram.ConservationLetters.8:338–344.http://www.nagsheadnc.gov/vertical/sites/%7BB2CB0823-BC26-47E7-B6B6-

37D19957B4E1%7D/uploads/CoyoteOBX_DareCommissioners_030216.pdfNationalWildlifeFederation.RedWolf.Availablefrom:http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/wildlife-

library/mammals/red-wolf.aspx.NOAAOfficeforCoastalManagement.1996.CoastalChangeAnalysisProgram(C-CAP).High

ResolutionLandCover.https:\\www.coast.noaa.gov.NOAAOfficeforCoastalManagement.2010.CoastalChangeAnalysisProgram(C-CAP).High

ResolutionLandCover.https:\\www.coast.noaa.gov.NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.2016.Availableat

http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Documents/Coastal%20Bear%20Harvest%201996-2015.pdf.

NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:RedWolf.

93

NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.2009.NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:Coyote.

NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.2008.NorthCarolinaWildlifeProfiles:BlackBear.

NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.ManagementofBlackBearsInNorth

Carolina.NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.ManagementofBlackBearsInNorth

Carolina.NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.CoyoteOccurrencesandDates.NorthCarolinaWildlifeResourcesCommission.2012.FoxandCoyotePopulationsStudyFinal

Report.PartnersforFishandWildlife.2001.Delaware.PeetRK,WentworthTR,WhitePS.1998.AFlexible,MultipurposeMethodforRecording

VegetationCompositionandStructure.Source:Castanea63:262–274.U.S.CensusBureau.SelectedEconomicCharacteristics2006-2010AmericanCommunity

Survey5-YearEstimates.UnitedStatesBureauofTransportationStatistics.2002.U.S.NationalTransportationAtlas

MajorRoadNet.UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.2002.RestoringAmerica’sWetlands:TheWetlands

ReserveProgram.U.S.Fish&WildlifeService.2016.RedWolfRecovery.Availablefrom

https://www.fws.gov/redwolf/.U.S.FishAndWildlifeService.EndangeredSpeciesAct:ExperimentalPopulations.U.S.Fish&WildlifeService.2016.RedWolvesandCoyotes.Availablefrom

https://www.fws.gov/Redwolf/wolvesandcoyotes.html.U.S.FishAndWildlifeService.EndangeredSpeciesAct:ExperimentalPopulations.VanManenFT,PeltonMR.1997.ProcedurestoEnhancetheSuccessofaBlackBear

ReintroductionProgram.Int.Assoc.BearRes.Manag.9:67–77.

94

WildlifeManagementInstitute.2014.Acomprehensivereviewandevaluationoftheredwolf(Canisrufus)recoveryprogram.

ZimmermanJW.1992.AHabitatSuitabilityIndexforBlackBearsintheSouthern

AppalachianRegionEvaluatedWithLocationError.NorthCarolinaStateUniversity.

95

Appendix

Tables

Table7.ThecalculatedHSI’sforblackbearsatspecificCVSplotswithinthefivecountystudyarea.PlotIDsreferenceCVSplotsatspecificlocations(latitudeandlongitude).TheHSIwasadaptedfromZimmerman(1995)tosuitourstudyarea.

PlotID Lat. Long. H.S.I.

2821 35.939707 -76.6872 0.795574603

2823 35.922187 -76.695589 0.796203175

2835 35.91124 -76.72044 0.404034186

2868 35.927192 -76.683933 0.796442241

2869 35.926419 -76.683455 0.793873514

2871 35.913972 -76.679072 0.836465216

2872 35.903355 -76.685968 0.716562055

2873 35.909015 -76.684316 0.772259791

2878 35.911046 -76.658032 0.709179856

2880 35.911631 -76.658626 0.676191781

2881 35.9387 -76.683772 0.796901587

2899 35.928928 -76.689526 0.803815873

2900 35.922768 -76.701861 0.28881127

2901 35.922831 -76.701941 0.281746032

2907 35.922238 -76.711323 0.409551989

2911 35.931395 -76.67768 0.803815873

6046 35.628238 -75.793874 0.687876968

6047 35.630224 -75.796301 0.782628776

6088 35.933665 -75.826144 0.142569347

6089 35.933058 -75.826514 0.342074958

6090 35.926347 -75.853858 0.794355556

6094 35.799277 -75.882597 0.796196825

96

6099 35.890488 -75.919986 0.515446913

6100 35.890675 -75.919102 0.572925446

6103 35.62898 -75.796597 0.752921081

6104 35.628223 -75.793784 0.769394532

6105 35.81455 -75.788332 0.669762431

6106 35.819273 -75.784405 0.721223504

6109 35.855448 -75.757472 0.281746032

6110 35.874677 -75.769088 0.2381135

6111 35.874828 -75.772213 0.232943465

6115 35.79614 -75.884898 0.796215873

6116 35.945727 -75.828875 0.496804559

6119 35.855214 -75.757437 0.281746032

6120 35.874903 -75.769001 0.237430845

6121 35.874933 -75.772646 0.232020894

6126 35.814968 -75.7893 0.617898172

6127 35.821713 -75.783665 0.794292063

6136 35.933107 -75.82596 0.349626951

6139 35.945466 -75.83007 0.548584536

6240 35.802354 -76.613163 0.654299453

6242 35.936035 -76.384154 0.27341476

8546 35.712166 -76.195652 0.492622572

8547 35.677176 -75.795574 0.793714286

8562 35.918927 -75.794585 0.319456104

8563 35.919083 -75.794276 0.318477393

8564 35.472256 -76.928658 0.227790266

8567 35.361305 -76.11101 0.281746032

8568 35.362533 -76.411408 0.281746032

8570 35.361672 -76.4118 0.281746032

8571 35.362114 -76.411819 0.281746032

97

8572 35.361799 -76.412562 0.281746032

8574 35.361918 -76.412355 0.281746032

8580 35.734351 -76.441094 0.223208112

8581 35.734251 -76.439611 0.495433885

8582 35.734292 -76.438473 0.494107352

8584 35.731416 -76.554418 0.866397943

8585 35.802969 -76.454362 0.282084853

8586 35.776521 -76.398686 0.759923153

8587 35.803164 -76.454698 0.364116641

8588 35.734338 -76.438385 0.493982064

8589 35.744328 -76.308856 0.860330159

8590 35.623681 -76.349653 0.235177129

8591 35.936613 -76.361151 0.430986049

8592 35.885572 -76.285619 0.740878583

8593 35.889176 -76.30665 0.779460431

8595 35.679114 -75.794223 0.803815873

8597 35.671914 -75.909606 0.753412698

8598 35.735167 -75.908843 0.799371429

8602 35.437274 -76.39601 0.296467302

8603 35.472303 -76.928009 0.397996492

8604 35.839056 -75.901833 0.801904762

8605 35.745393 -76.079883 0.781146603

8607 35.361162 -76.110865 0.281746032

8608 35.361768 -76.412121 0.281746032

8615 35.473304 -76.928496 0.268271545

8616 35.527851 -75.979096 0.255616547

8618 35.871655 -76.353492 0.653029208

8620 35.826382 -75.889512 0.807631746

8621 35.679084 -75.920009 0.794355556

98

8626 35.914049 -76.533082 0.490846602

8627 35.915416 -76.532676 0.499234541

8628 35.433019 -76.715018 0.494132055

8629 35.914446 -76.534464 0.502789684

8630 35.933133 -76.363563 0.903879341

8631 35.935181 -76.358654 0.819688911

8633 35.855721 -76.397895 0.760879086

8933 35.436724 -76.396827 0.281746032

12315 35.710152 -77.185295 0.895901129

12322 35.460571 -76.90265 0.437360249

12337 35.70939 -77.184069 0.898762689

12338 35.712194 -77.186025 0.769017044

24719 35.792626 -75.878446 0.709153968

24720 35.874543 -76.359578 0.777643518

24722 35.875552 -76.361999 0.48400913

24723 35.611294 -75.923284 0.534478341

24724 35.712162 -76.190633 0.57236178

24733 35.724481 -76.193857 0.538598205

24734 35.795509 -75.88369 0.723093968

99

Interview Guide OBXFS2016InterviewGuide

v.2016September27

Materials

Consentdocument,iPad(Reminder:checkbatterylife),pen/pencil,clipboard

Introduction

Asktheintervieweetoreadtheconsentdocument.Makesures/hedoesn’thaveanyquestionsandaskiftheyagreetoparticipateandberecorded.Whileyousetuptherecorder(Reminder:keeptheipadvolumelowtoavoidanyfeedback.),briefthemaboutthestudy.Askher/himmarktherecordingbystatingher/hisname,thedate,whereyouare.

1.BackgroundandEnvironment

• TellmeabitaboutyourhistoryhereineasternNorthCarolina(orsubstituteHydeCounty/TyrrellCounty).

o Haveyoualwayslivedhere?§ Y:Canyoutellmeaboutyourfamilyrootsinthisarea?§ Y:Whataboutthisplacekeepsyouhere?§ N:Whendidyoufirstcometothisarea?§ N:Whatbroughtyouhere?

• Tellmeabouttheworkyoudo.o Howdidyougetintoit?o Howlonghaveyoudoneit?

• HowwouldyoudescribeXXXCountytosomeonewhohadneverbeenherebefore?o Areastoprompt:resources,landscapefeatures,people/communitylife

• WhatdoyouvalueaboutthelandscapeinXXXCounty?

• Howhasthelandscapechangedsinceyougothere/whenyouweregrowingup?o Ifs/heonlymentionsnegativechanges,askaboutanypositivechanges.o Ifs/heonlymentionspositivechanges,askaboutanynegativechanges.

§ Howdoyoufeelaboutthosechanges?

100

Transition:I’dliketotalktoyouaboutsomeofthelargemammalsthatlivearoundhere.

2.Bears

• Haveyouhadanyencounterswithbears?o Canyoutellmeaboutthat?

§ Howdoyoufeelwhenyouseeabear?o Whataboutanyfamilymembersorotherpeopleyouknow?o Haveyounoticedanyseasonalpatternstotheseencounters?o Havetherebeenincreasesinencountersinthepast10years?o Farmer:

§ Dobearscomeonyourfarm?§ Whataretheydoingthere?§ Howdoyoufeelaboutthembeingonyourland?§ Isthereasituationinwhichyouwouldchoosetoshootatoneofthese

predators?o Guide:

§ Canyoudescribehowbearsareapartofyourguidingbusiness?o Howhavetheseexperiencesaffectedyourperceptionsaboutbears?

• Howinformedwouldyousayyouwereaboutblackbears?o Doyouthinkmoreinformationwouldaffectyourperceptionofbears?

§ Y:Whatwouldyouliketoknowaboutthem?

• Whatdoyoubelieveshouldbedonetomanagetheblackbearpopulation?

• Wouldyousaythatbearsareapartofthelocalculture?o Y:Inwhatways?o N:Howcome?o N:Whatotheranimalsaremoreapartofthelocalculture?

• Whatdoyouvalueabouthavingablackbearpopulation?

Transition:NowI’dliketoaskyouaboutwolves.

3.Wolves

• Haveyouhadanydirectexperienceswithwolves?o Canyoutellmeaboutthat?o Howdiditaffectyou?[Listenforlosses/benefits]o Havetheseexperienceschangedovertime?

101

o Doyouhaveextraconcernwhenyourpetsareout?o Howhavetheseexperiencesaffectedyourbeliefsaboutwolves?

• Howinformedaboutredwolveswouldyousayyouare?o Doyouthinkmoreinformationwouldaffectyourperceptionofwolves?

§ Y:Whatwouldyouliketoknowaboutthem?

• Hasyourlandorbusinessbeenimpactedbythereintroductionofthewolves?o Canyoudescribehow?

• HaveyouheardabouttherecentdecisionmadebyU.S.FishandWildlifeabouttheRedWolfReintroductionprogram?

o Whatareyourthoughtsaboutthis?§ Doyouagreewiththedecision?

• Ifnot,whatdoyouthinkshouldhavebeendone?o Howhasthereintroductionprogram,beforethedecisionandnow,impacted

thecommunity?

• Wouldyousaythatwolvesfitintothelocalculture?o Y:Inwhatways?o N:Howcome?

• Whatdoyouvalueabouthavingredwolvesinthisarea?

• IfI’daskedyouaboutthewolves10yearsago,whatdoyouthinkyouwouldhavesaidaboutthemthen?

Transition:I’dalsoliketotalktoyouaboutcoyotes.

4.Coyotes

• Whathasbeenyourexperiencewithcoyotes?o Haveyouhadanydirectencounterswithcoyotes?

§ Canyoutellmeaboutthat?o Farmers/Landowners:

§ Docoyotescomeonyourland?§ Whatdotheydothere?§ Doestheirpresencechangehowyoudothings?§ Howdoyoufeelabouthavingthemonyourland?

102

o Guides:§ Howhavecoyotesaffectedyourguiding?

• Whatdoyoubelieveshouldbedonetomanagethepopulation?o Howdoyouthinklandownersfeelaboutthenighthuntingbanoncoyotes?

• Docoyotesfitintothelocalculture?o Y:Inwhatways?o N:Howdon’ttheyfit?

• Doeshavingcoyotesaroundherehavevaluetoyou?o Howso?

5.Management

• There’sagooddealofacreageinthisareathatispublicland–refuges,preserves,thebombingrange.Hasthatbeenagoodthing?

o YorN:Howso?

• Whatvaluedothesepubliclandshaveforyou?

• Whatistherelationshiplikebetweenwildlifemanagementagenciesandthecommunity?

6.Closing

• IsthereanythingIhaven’taskedyouaboutblackbears,redwolvesandcoyotesthatyouwouldliketotellme?

• IsthereanythingelseaboutthispartofeasternNorthCarolinayouthinkIshouldknow?

• That’sallthequestionsIhaveforyou.Doyouhaveanyquestionsforme?

• THANKYOUandinvitetothepresentation.– Wewillbecompilingthefindingsofourstudy,alongwiththeresultsofour

naturalscienceresearch,inareportandgivingapublicpresentationaboutthemattheendofthesemester.Ifyou’dliketoattend,thepresentationwill

103

beonDecember15that2pm,that’saThursday,attheCoastalStudiesInstituteinWanchese.

• Nowthatyou’veseenwhattheinterviewisallabout,canyourecommendanyotherpeoplethatyouthinkitwouldbegoodforustotalkto?

– (Youcanmentionspecific“types”ofpeoplewe’reinterestedininterviewingifyouthinkthatwouldhelpprompttheirthinking.)

• WhenIgobackandlistentotherecording,ifIhaveanyquestionsorwouldliketo

clarifyanythingyou’vesaid,woulditbeOKifIcontactyouagain?

• Thankyouforyourtime.