No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
What's in a Name? Do Species' Names Impact Student Support for Conservation?
... This diversity does however mean that species common names could be a potential differentiator between species when it comes to donor preference. Karaffa, Draheim et al. (2012) found a relationship between species names and students support for conservation, but Blades (2020) found no difference in willingness to pay for multiple common names of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus). Still, the focus of these studies on hypothetical measures, small number of species and limited respondent samples means that a wider and systematic examination of the impact of species common names is required. ...
... Our results showing that common names have no influence on donations for species conservation run counter to the findings of Karaffa, Draheim et al. (2012). This difference is likely explained by the fact that Karaffa, Draheim et al. (2012) did not include a visual representation of the species, which meant that the name was the only information respondents had to consider when providing information about their preferences. ...
... Our results showing that common names have no influence on donations for species conservation run counter to the findings of Karaffa, Draheim et al. (2012). This difference is likely explained by the fact that Karaffa, Draheim et al. (2012) did not include a visual representation of the species, which meant that the name was the only information respondents had to consider when providing information about their preferences. The inclusion of images is important as there are few instances where donations are elicited without the use of any visual elements, particularly as fundraising move increasingly online and into social media (Gallo-Cajiao, Archibald et al. 2018, Steve MacLaughlin, Duff et al. 2019. ...
In the search for new ways to bring attention to the conservation of neglected species, marketing is increasingly recognised as offering new insights. Brand creation frameworks provide guidelines to create names or symbols for products that will differentiate them from the competition. In this paper, we examine if species common names that follow these guidelines can improve their fundraising potential. Using a novel choice experiment format that employs a budget allocation task, we evaluate if species common names influence donor preferences, where participants were given real money to donate to the species of their choosing. We model the data collected, which is fractional response data, using a Hierarchical Bayesian Dirichlet regression. Our results indicate that while all attributes are positively related to making a donation, Appeal and Familiarity coefficients are statistically significant but Name is not. There were also no statistically significant interactions between Name and any of the socio-economic variables. Our results on the importance of Appeal and Familiarity follow past research but contradict past research on the importance of common names, although the latter looked at common names in isolation. This suggests that species traits should not be tested in isolation when trying to understand the drivers of donations to wildlife conservation, as some traits that may appear important when tested separately become comparatively irrelevant when placed in a more realistic context where respondents have to consider multiple species traits. Future research into the influence of common names should investigate the possible impact of name sentiment as well as whether names with geographic references increase support from donors from those areas. © 2021 The Authors. Animal Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Zoological Society of London
... Furthermore, perceptions of a particular species can be influenced by demographic characteristics, fear of, and empathy toward an animal (Kellert, 1985). Karaffa et al. (2012) asked whether the name used for an animal influenced respondents' opinions regarding its conservation and found that on average species names with negative connotations prompted less support for conservation compared to charismatic sounding names which roused greater support for conservation. They suggest alternative names might make social marketing campaigns more effective and that renaming a species could be a more cost effective way to enhance conservation support (Karaffa et al., 2012). ...
... Karaffa et al. (2012) asked whether the name used for an animal influenced respondents' opinions regarding its conservation and found that on average species names with negative connotations prompted less support for conservation compared to charismatic sounding names which roused greater support for conservation. They suggest alternative names might make social marketing campaigns more effective and that renaming a species could be a more cost effective way to enhance conservation support (Karaffa et al., 2012). ...
... Of the three "fake" species, more participants thought the Majestic spotted dolphin was more important to conserve than the Lump-headed dolphin and the Pygmy shortfinned whale (7.0, 6.17, and 4.2%, respectively). These results might be expected as a study by Karaffa et al. (2012) found that on average species names with negative connotations gathered less support for conservation (51%) whereas charismatic/positive sounding names prompted greater support for conservation (65%). Respondents were twice as likely to not conserve a negative sounding species (14%) than a positive sounding species (7%) (Karaffa et al., 2012). ...
In 2015, an online survey was conducted to investigate public attitudes and perceptions toward key cetacean (whale, dolphin, and porpoise) conservation and “hot topic” issues such as legislative protection and whaling (n = 858). The vast majority of the participants in this study indicated their permanent residence was the United States (n = 577) or India (n = 251). Perceptions of participants on the conservation priority of cetacean species did not match with the factual IUCN status, where most participants assumed that the larger and more charismatic whales (blue whale, 24.01%; humpback whale, 22.14%; and killer whale, 23.43%) were more endangered or more important to conserve than the small cetacean species such as the Vaquita or Hector's dolphin. Additionally, 39.74% of participants indicated that they thought bottlenose dolphin was the most important to conserve. More members of the public highlighted non-existent (fake) species (e.g., pygmy short-fined whale, lump-headed dolphin, and majestic spotted dolphin) as being of conservation concern than certain species of actual, genuine concern. The majority of participants considered dolphins and whales to be “under protected” or only “slightly protected” (29.95%; 41.96%, respectively) and expressed that marine mammal conservation laws and policies were “very important” or “important” (47.43 and 37.88%, respectively). In addition, 86.83% of participants expressed opposition to the hunting of dolphins and whales (57.93% “strongly opposed” and 28.90% “opposed”); however, only 47.44% of participants were aware that several countries are still involved in whaling. A lack of awareness of the conservation status of whales and dolphins and continued whaling activities suggests that greater outreach to the public about the conservation status of whale and dolphin species is needed.
... The research on the impact of knowledge on conservation support is unclear. Some research has found that having more knowledge of a species may predispose individuals to support that organism's conservation (O'Bryhim & Parsons, 2015;O'Bryhim et al., 2016;Penn, Penn & Hu, 2018), while other research has found that the general public may have poor knowledge of an organism or its conservation status, and still support funding for its conservation Karaffa, Draheim & Parsons, 2012;Friedrich, Jefferson & Glegg, 2014;O'Bryhim et al., 2016). In this study, a lack of accurate knowledge about basking sharks did not preclude those surveyed being against legal protection for basking sharks. ...
... It is not clear if support for legal protection for basking sharks is related to the 'charisma' or 'likeability' of the species or a belief that it is economically valuable. Research has found that 'cute' and charismatic 'flagship' species tend to get more conservation support (Karaffa, Draheim & Parsons, 2012;Qirko, 2017). However, the lack of a significant difference between support for legal protections for 'basking sharks' or just 'sharks' may imply that survey respondents were overall receptive to conservation, regardless of the charisma of the species. ...
Basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) visit the coastal waters of Ireland annually, and while protected in Northern Ireland, they are not protected by domestic legislation in Ireland. In Ireland, basking shark conservation relies heavily on publicly reported sightings to assess population size and migration patterns. While basking shark tourism is popular in nearby Scotland, Irish tourism materials rarely feature basking sharks. In order to determine public awareness about basking sharks, public support for basking shark conservation and interest in shark tourism, 173 residents and visitors in Buncrana, Ireland were surveyed in July 2018. The results indicated that public knowledge of basking sharks is low, whilst support for basking shark conservation and interest in tourism are high. Despite the fact that conservation groups rely on publicly reported sightings as a cost-effective research tool that is important for conservation policy, only 7% of survey respondents were aware that they could report a basking shark sighting to local research organizations (Irish Whale and Dolphin Group or Irish Basking Shark Group). Individuals who support conservation were significantly more likely to believe that others would be willing to pay to view basking sharks, indicating a link between tourism potential and support for conservation. This study showed that there may be an untapped tourism market for basking shark viewing in Donegal as well as public support for shark conservation.
... Names are a key part of any brand and the same can be said for flagship species. In one study in the USA, Karaffa et al. (2012) offered members of the public a selection of real and fictitious species names and asked them which species were most important to conserve. The study found that species with fictitious common names with patriotic terms were selected as being of highest conservation concern, such as "American eagle", "patriot falcon", "great American wolf". ...
... The study found that species with fictitious common names with patriotic terms were selected as being of highest conservation concern, such as "American eagle", "patriot falcon", "great American wolf". In contrast, negative-sounding species names, such as "razor eagle", "killer falcon", "sheep-eating eagle", evoked least concern (Karaffa et al., 2012). Similar results were also found in a more recent study by Scott and Parsons (2014). ...
Addressing impacts from human activities requires the change of current practices. However, reaching a target audience about conservation issues and influencing their behaviour is not easy in a world where people are continually bombarded with information, and distractions are permanently available. Although not typically considered to be part of the conservation science toolbox, marketing techniques were designed in the commercial sector to identify and influence human preferences and behaviour by placing target audiences at the core of the marketing process. It thus seems reasonable that the same marketing principles and tools could and should be used to address pressing conservation issues. In this manuscript, we provide an introduction to the main objectives of marketing and illustrate how these can be applied to conservation and animal welfare issues. To that end we offer two examples: Project Ocean, where a major UK retailer joined forces with the Zoological Society of London to influence consumer behaviour around seafood; and Blackfish, which coupled social media with an award-winning documentary to create a discussion around the welfare of large cetaceans in captivity. Without the ability to influence human behaviour, a conservationists' role will likely be limited to that of describing the loss of biodiversity and the decline of the environment. We thus hope that conservation practitioners can embrace marketing as a fundamental component of the conservation toolbox.
... Although the evidence in literature is still scanty, the designated name of a species appears to have a significant impact on how people relate to it, and this may be especially important for threatened endemic species, and the willingness of the locals to support conservation (Pillon, 2021). In an independent survey conducted by George Mason University in the U.S., species names with negative connotations provoked less support for conservation whilst charismatic sounding names prompted greater support for conservation (Karaffa et al., 2012). Since the founding of taxonomy by Linnaeus, it has been a common practice to name species after people (eponyms) for their contribution in the discovery or distinguished achievements in the field of botany (Figueiredo & Smith, 2011). ...
... In some cases, such as Kleenex or Xerox, names become generic trademarks synonymous not just with a specific brand but also an entire group of objects (Rozek 1982;Brody 2015). In conservation biology, the common name given to a species may influence attitudes to its conservation, with charismatic sounding names drawing greater support than names with negative connotations (Karaffa et al. 2012). ...
The choice of words we use often conveys specific meanings and tone to a topic. Hence, the words that we use in conservation science often have important ramifications in scientific, legal, and social contexts. The management of free-ranging cats is an important example, because of the animal welfare, predation, and public health implications. In this context, one set of words that has recently arisen outside of conservation but has particular relevance for it and many other fields is ‘community cat.’ As we note, through an evaluation of the literature, ‘community cat’ is almost always used as a synonym for unowned, free-ranging cats. Such rebranding is significant for conservation, policy, and management because it implies community ownership of animals without, in many cases, explicit agreement from the community. As such, there is a need to understand the history of the term, what it really means, and its implications for the advancement of conservation biology, natural resource management, veterinary medicine, and animal welfare.
... When a species has more than one common name, it can fragment conservation attention (Ladle et al., 2016), or in cases when there is confusion over what name matches with what organism, vernaculars may hinder conservation support (Jarić et al., 2016). Further, names themselves carry negative and positive connotations (Karaffa et al., 2012;Ehmke et al., 2018). These issues are exacerbated when species names are used as product names (called theronyms), or when cultures create new meanings for animal names to represent concepts that are completely different (called homonyms) (Jarić et al., 2016;Ladle et al., 2016). ...
Noise is the non-target search results that people encounter when searching for a particular topic of interest; it is also the cloud of distracting data that can obscure or deflect conservation communication. Online noise associated with large carnivores is particularly dense because their defining characteristics make them salient. Mountain lions ( Puma concolor ) exemplify noise associated with multiple vernaculars for a species in the crosshairs of conservation conundrums. We compared internet search results, Google Trends reflecting topic interest, use in science publications and sentiment in print and online media for P. concolor 's most frequent vernacular names, “mountain lion,” “cougar,” “puma” and “Florida panther.” Puma and panther exhibited greater noise and salience than cougar or mountain lion, but, results for mountain lion, followed by cougar, yielded the highest biological relevance. Online sentiment negatively correlated with biological relevance, with positive sentiment highest for the noisiest vernaculars, puma and panther. As conservation practitioners, we must recognize that public outreach is part of our scientific agenda and be conscious of crafting communication that reaches and resonates with our intended audiences.
... For example, the name of the Hitler beetle (Anophtalmus hitleri), a species described from Slovenian caves in the 1930s (Scheibel, 1937), has promoted the interest of amateur collectors, which has in turn led the species to a threatened status (Khalaf, 2010). In some cases, the words 'rat', 'wild', 'stray', or 'killer' in its common name are less likely to receive positive human attention and support for conservation (Karaffa, Draheim & Parsons, 2012;Ehmke, Fitzsimons & Garnett, 2018). However, in certain cases (e.g. ...
• The knowledge and awareness that the general public has about aquatic invertebrates is often poor, even when they are highly threatened. The frequent lack of popular names and the unattractiveness of the scientific ones may be among the factors hindering the knowledge of these organisms and, consequently, the awareness of their conservation status and the willingness to conserve them.
• Linderiella baetica (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Anostraca) was discovered in 2007 in southern Spain and is considered a critically endangered species. However, being a small invertebrate inhabiting generally unappreciated temporary ponds, this species was completely unknown by the general public, even in the area in which it occurs.
• To increase the knowledge and awareness of L. baetica, 1,347 children from five schools within its distribution area participated in a contest to select a common name for this newly described taxon. The winning name, gambilusa (Andalusian shrimp), will be used in the future by the Spanish Ministry of Environment and hopefully by the general public to identify the species.
• The contest was found to have increased the knowledge about the target species in a sustained manner, as 1 year later, 93% of the children recognized gambilusa as a crustacean, 75% remembered its typical habitat, and 89% broadly identified its geographical distribution.
• This kind of name‐choosing contest is applicable for different regions and taxa to raise awareness on the conservation of threatened but poorly known biota.
... On the other hand, the name had a positive impact on species such as the British Wartbiter cricket or the Diana Monkey. Similar results were later obtained in an independent survey with students of an American university (Karaffa et al., 2012). Although it has not been investigated, it is likely that New Caledonians lack any particular attachment to species named after botanists or other persons who are unknown to them. ...
Since Linnaeus popularized the system of binomial nomenclature to describe living organisms, it has been common practice to name species after people (eponyms). Trends in species naming were analyzed in the endemic flora of New Caledonia, a biodiversity hotspot in the South-West Pacific. It was found that eponyms were predominantly from France and other European countries, and to a lesser extent from neighboring countries in Oceania or North America. Today, just 7% of these eponyms were born in New Caledonia, and 6% were women. Most of the corresponding species were described in the past five decades. Although the evidence is still preliminary, the name of a species appears to have a significant impact on how people relate to it, and this may be especially important for threatened endemic species and the willingness of local populations to preserve them. Because newly described species are often rare and endangered, adopting a more balanced approach to species naming may help to secure their future, particularly given the current extinction crisis.
... Some authors Karaffa et al., 2012) assert that from the point of view of conservation, it is preferable not to use common names with pejorative connotations like wild or killer, avoiding the term wild goat. However, in our opinion, nowadays the term 'wild' can have positive connotations for a growing sector of the population that sympathizes with nature and wilderness. ...
The names of southwestern European goats: is Iberian ibex the best common name for Capra pyrenaica? The
common name designated to a species is important because it connects specialists with non–experts. The matter
of the correct common name is relevant to the conservation and management of conspicuous or flag species.
The English name 'Spanish ibex' to designate Capra pyrenaica is extensive in the scientific literature, and some
have defended its appropriateness. However, in our opinion, it is not the best term to designate this species.
We propose that 'Iberian wild goat' should be used. Herein, we review the etymology, history, taxonomy and
public use of the names used to designate goats (domestic and wild) in southwestern Europe during the last
two millennia. Used first by Pliny the Elder, the name 'ibex' has been applied most often for the Alpine wild goat
(C. ibex), and few authors applied this name to C. pyrenaica until the 20th century when some influential works
extended its use in the scientific literature. Adult males of C. pyrenaica have lyre–shaped, and typically smooth
horns that do not match the ibex morphotype, which has scimitar–shaped knotted horns. Although C. pyrenaica
and C. ibex are probably phylogenetically close, their common names do not necessarily have to match. The
rules of common names differ from those of scientific names. Cabra montés or cabra brava (wild goat) is the
common name used by most authors in the Iberian peninsula. This name is deeply entrenched in the Iberian
languages and has been used since the earliest references to the species in mediaeval times. We propose the
adoption of 'Iberian wild goat' for legal and scientific communication and when interacting with the media.
... Some authors Karaffa et al., 2012) assert that from the point of view of conservation, it is preferable not to use common names with pejorative connotations like wild or killer, avoiding the term wild goat. However, in our opinion, nowadays the term 'wild' can have positive connotations for a growing sector of the population that sympathizes with nature and wilderness. ...
The names of southwestern European goats: is Iberian ibex the best common name for Capra pyrenaica? The
common name designated to a species is important because it connects specialists with non–experts. The matter
of the correct common name is relevant to the conservation and management of conspicuous or flag species.
The English name 'Spanish ibex' to designate Capra pyrenaica is extensive in the scientific literature, and some
have defended its appropriateness. However, in our opinion, it is not the best term to designate this species.
We propose that 'Iberian wild goat' should be used. Herein, we review the etymology, history, taxonomy and
public use of the names used to designate goats (domestic and wild) in southwestern Europe during the last
two millennia. Used first by Pliny the Elder, the name 'ibex' has been applied most often for the Alpine wild goat
(C. ibex), and few authors applied this name to C. pyrenaica until the 20th century when some influential works
extended its use in the scientific literature. Adult males of C. pyrenaica have lyre–shaped, and typically smooth
horns that do not match the ibex morphotype, which has scimitar–shaped knotted horns. Although C. pyrenaica
and C. ibex are probably phylogenetically close, their common names do not necessarily have to match. The
rules of common names differ from those of scientific names. Cabra montés or cabra brava (wild goat) is the
common name used by most authors in the Iberian peninsula. This name is deeply entrenched in the Iberian
languages and has been used since the earliest references to the species in mediaeval times. We propose the
adoption of 'Iberian wild goat' for legal and scientific communication and when interacting with the media.
... The name of an animal can have a significant effect on its conservation appeal (Karaffa et al. 2012) and the presence of a vernacular name can be critical to conservation (e.g. Stubbs andShardlow 2012, Lunney 2014). ...
Over the last 25 years subspecies have become an important unit of bird conservation in Australia. Some have evocative common English names which have allowed the subspecies to be vested with meaning among conservation advocates, evoking feelings of concern, loyalty and affection. This suggests that providing subspecies with stable English names can allow development of a ‘brand’ among those in need of conservation action. Also, since scientific names often change with knowledge of taxonomic relationships among birds, a stable list of standardised English names for all species and subspecies can minimise confusion and ambiguity among the public and in legislation. Here we present the arguments for creating a standardised list of English names for Australian bird subspecies and set out principles for formulating subspecies names, along with a list of the names themselves, with the aim of building the general public’s attachment to subspecies, increasing interest in their conservation and as subjects of research.
... The influence common names may have on human perceptions of a species has received attention in the literature. For example, researchers have examined the relationship between negative and positive sounding names and support for conservation (Karaffa, Draheim, & Parsons, 2012) and the influence terms such as "wild" may have on public acceptance of management strategies (Sarasa, Samer, & Pérez, 2012). ...
makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
... The influence common names may have on human perceptions of a species has received attention in the literature. For example, researchers have examined the relationship between negative and positive sounding names and support for conservation (Karaffa, Draheim, & Parsons, 2012) and the influence terms such as "wild" may have on public acceptance of management strategies (Sarasa, Samer, & Pérez, 2012). ...
The problem of dueling names for a species has been minimized within the scientific community through the development and use of standardized ordering and naming systems. Ambiguity, however, persists among common vernaculars. Such variation in names transcends countries and continents, and can result in a single species being known by multiple names in the same area, a single species being known by different names in neighboring communities, or many species being known by one name. As part of a group-administered survey regarding wildlife, we asked 932 Tanzanian primary school children to name the species represented by animal illustrations. Participants provided up to 37 different names for each species (M = 19.8, SD= 13.3). Determining if the names indicated familiarity with the species proved challenging. Our results highlight the complications common names can cause for human dimensions of wildlife researchers.
Species common names underpin communication between researchers, stakeholders and the public. Changing unappealing (e.g., rough-skinned horned toad), misleading (e.g., lesser bird of paradise) or even immemorable (e.g., little grassbird) species names could be an effective, and inexpensive, way to improve engagement with and support for threatened species. We use two sentiment lexicons to analyze the common names of 26,794 IUCN Red List animal species to understand which words drive sentiment in species names. Words driving common name sentiment varied across taxonomic class and threat status; highly frequent words associated with human emotions included anger, fear, disgust, and joy. We identified keywords for future targeted research on strategic name changes (e.g., greater, golden, least, lesser, false). This article provides essential grounding for future species common name research and improving public engagement with threatened species.
The UN declared 2010 the “International Year of Biodiversity” (IYB). A survey was undertaken at the end of this year in the Washington D.C. metro area (n = 180). Thirty-eight point nine percent of the participants had not heard of the term “biodiversity”. Only 36.7% could correctly define “biodiversity”. Almost no one had heard of the IYB (99.9%). Respondents understood the importance of maintaining biodiversity for food security (82%), new pharmaceuticals (84%), and agriculture (83%). Stated concern for “rainforest”, “wilderness areas”, “natural places” was higher than that for “biodiversity”. The IYB seems to have had limited impact on public awareness in Washington D.C.
This paper reviews the literature on human attitudes to animals, and postulates the existence of two primary motivational determinants of attitudes labelled 'affect' and 'utility'. It also proposes that the relative strengths of these key attitude dimensions are affected by various modifying variables including the specific attributes of the animal, the individual characteristics and experience of the person evaluating the animal, and a range of cultural factors. The role of science as a cultural modifier of human attitudes to animals is also discussed.
In this paper, we analyse self-reported fear of four large carnivore species in a representative sample of the Norwegian population. People reported the most fear of the two largest and most dangerous carnivores, brown bears and wolves, and less fear of lynx and wolverines. Women expressed significantly more fear of these species than did men, and expressed fear increased with age in both sexes. Human population density had very little effect on the degree of self-reported fear of large carnivores, but people living in rural areas with one carnivore species in their vicinity expressed less fear of this species than people from rural areas where this carnivore species was absent. Activities related to experience with, or knowledge of, the large carnivores also effected fear patterns. People with higher education and those who expressed interest in outdoor activities like small game hunting and mountain hiking generally reported less fear than did respondents with lower education and no interest in outdoor activities, respectively. We argue that a good management strategy is to develop educational programs where people learn about the biology and habits of the large carnivores and are encouraged to gain first-hand outdoor experience in areas with large carnivores
Until recently, large apex consumers were ubiquitous across the globe and had been for millions of years. The loss of these
animals may be humankind’s most pervasive influence on nature. Although such losses are widely viewed as an ethical and aesthetic
problem, recent research reveals extensive cascading effects of their disappearance in marine, terrestrial, and freshwater
ecosystems worldwide. This empirical work supports long-standing theory about the role of top-down forcing in ecosystems but
also highlights the unanticipated impacts of trophic cascades on processes as diverse as the dynamics of disease, wildfire,
carbon sequestration, invasive species, and biogeochemical cycles. These findings emphasize the urgent need for interdisciplinary
research to forecast the effects of trophic downgrading on process, function, and resilience in global ecosystems.
Ecology Letters (2011) 14: 886–890
At the heart of our efforts to protect threatened species, there is a controversial debate about whether to give priority to cost-effective actions or whether focusing solely on the most endangered species will ultimately lead to preservation of the greatest number of species. By framing this debate within a decision-analytic framework, we show that allocating resources solely to the most endangered species will typically not minimise the number of extinctions in the long-term, as this does not account for the risk of less endangered species going extinct in the future. It is only favoured when our planning timeframe is short or we have a long-term view and we are optimistic about future conditions. Conservation funding tends to be short-term in nature, which biases allocations to more endangered species. Our work highlights the need to consider resource allocation for biodiversity over the long-term; ‘preventive conservation’, rather than just short-term fire-fighting.
This paper explores American attitudes toward, and knowledge of, predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. The data for this paper were derived from a national study of animal-related attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours among 3107 randomly selected Americans residing in the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Each respondent was personally interviewed in his or her home for approximately one hour. Additionally, special mail surveys of cattle and sheep producers and trappers were conducted.Responses to questions regarding attitudes toward wolves, coyotes, and a variety of other predators were analysed. Comparisons were made among a variety of demographic groups distinguished by age, sex, region of residence, urban-rural residence, education, and occupation. The views of livestock producers—mainly cattlemen and sheep producers—were also explored. Attitudes toward the wolf, coyote, and other predators were compared with attitudes toward other species, and factors identified as possibly accounting for these differences in species preference.Knowledge of animals and, in particular, predators was also examined and compared across various demographic groups. Additionally, groups characterized by relatively great like or dislike of predators were contrasted regarding basic attitudes toward animals. Finally, the study explored attitudes toward predator control, in particular alternative methods for limiting coyote depredations of livestock. Attitudes toward a variety of control strategies were examined, and distinguished among the general public and livestock producers.
Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) biomass has declined in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) in the past century. We installed permanent belt transects (plots) for long-term monitoring of aspen stands both within and outside of established wolf pack territories on YNP’s northern range to determine if reintroduced wolves are influencing elk browsing patterns and aspen regeneration through a trophic cascades interaction. Wolves may have an indirect effect on aspen regeneration by altering elk movements, browsing patterns, and foraging behavior (predation risk effects). Elk pellet groups, aspen sucker heights, and the percentage of browsed suckers were the variables used to measure differences in aspen stands in high and low wolf-use areas of the northern range. The aspen stands in the high wolf-use areas had significantly lower counts of elk pellet groups in the mesic upland steppe and the combined mesic upland steppe and riparian/wet meadow habitat types. Based on our pellet group results, it appears that elk foraging behaviors may have been altered by the increased risk of predation due to the reintroduction of the wolf. In the riparian/wet meadow habitat type, mean aspen sucker heights were significantly higher in the high wolf-use areas than in the low wolf-use areas. The percentage of browsed suckers in high and low wolf-use areas showed no significant differences in any of the habitat types. Considering the high browsing pressure in YNP aspen stands, it is uncertain whether the taller aspen suckers measured in the high wolf-use areas will eventually join the aspen overstory. These permanent plots represent a valuable baseline data set to assess any current and future aspen regeneration responses to the reintroduction of wolves in YNP.
In the company of animals
- J A Serpell
Serpell, J. A. (1986). In the company of animals. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.