Man vs Wolves: What's Driving the Debate

With wolves slowly making a recovery across the United States, a question has arisen: should wolves be left to do as they please, even while they prey on livestock? Researchers have now looked at the dynamics of this mounting debate, trying to help both sides understand the other better.

"People who are for or against this issue are often cast into traditional lots, such as gender, political party or where they live," Meredith Gore, the co-lead author of the study, said in a recent release. "This issue, however, isn't playing out like this. Concerns about hunting wolves to reduce conflict are split more by social geography and less by physical geography."

That comes as a bit of a surprise, especially since one of the common arguments among those in favor of wolf hunting is that wolf defenders are "a bunch of urbanites who don't have a clue" about what it takes to raise and defend livestock.

That sentiment has been expressed time and time again, and conservationists pushing for stricter wolf protection in their new territories likewise counter that far too many hunters are too focused on their land and limited by their education to see the bigger picture.

However, according to Gore, the "us" verses "them" in this specific debate actually has less to do about location and a lot more to do with personal moral drivers.

"The concept of how our identity drives our activism is quite interesting," she went on. "Our findings challenge traditional assumptions about regional differences and suggest a strong role for social identity in why people support or oppose wildlife management practices."

Specifically, Gore's study details how, in an assessment of nearly 670 surveys on wolf-hunting and management (the majority of which was taken within Michigan), it was determined that positions on the subject varied intensely, regardless of region, and was heavily dependent on whether the participant feared wolves or cared for them.

This should come as no surprise, as pro-hunting groups often focus on the brutality of wolves even as conservationist groups tend to exclusively talk about the delicate situation the species is in.

Gore suggests that if both groups speak openly about these drivers, rather than subtly using them to bolster support, common grounds for reason may be found.

"These types of communications may not only build trust, but they can also contribute to a sense of procedural justice," Gore said. "This, in turn, may increase support for decision-makers and processes regardless of the outcome."

The study is detailed in full in the journal PLOS One.

For more great nature science stories and general news, please visit our sister site, Headlines and Global News (HNGN).