Fear and caring are what's at the core of divisive wolf debate

Fear and caring are what’s at the core of divisive wolf debate. Credit: Photo by G.L. Kohuth

To hunt or not hunt wolves can't be quantified as simply as men vs. women, hunters vs. anti-hunters, Democrats vs. Republicans or city vs. rural.

What's truly fueling the divisive debate is fear of wolves or the urge to care for canis lupis. The social dynamics at play and potential options for establishing common ground between sides can be found in the current issue of the journal PLOS ONE.

"People who are for or against this issue are often cast into traditional lots, such as gender, political party or where they live," said Meredith Gore, associate professor of fisheries and wildlife and co-lead author of the study. "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."

It's definitely an us-versus-them debate, she added. However, it took the concept of social identity theory to better reveal the true "us" and "them." Applying principles from social psychology revealed how the two groups were interacting and offers some potential solutions to get the vying groups to work together.

The team's findings are comparable, in part, to civil uprisings in the Middle East. The region is far removed from the United States, in terms of geography. Americans, however, tend to identify with a distant, threatened identity group, said Gore, an MSU AgBioResearch scientist.

"The concept of how our identity drives our activism is quite interesting," said Gore, who co-led the research with Michelle Lute, former MSU fisheries and wildlife graduate student who's now at Indiana University. "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."

The majority of the nearly 670 surveys were collected from Michigan stakeholders interested in wolf-hunting as a management response to wolf conflicts. However, a small percentage of the data was gathered from participants in 21 states. While the study focused on gray wolves in Michigan, its results have implications for other states' policies on wolves as well as other large carnivores such as brown bears, polar bears, mountain lions and other predators, Gore added.

Noting that there's sharp polarization in debates about wolf management is not new. However, providing empirical evidence of its existence is new and meaningful because it provides a framework for improving engagement between the fighting factions.

For example, communications may be better directed toward each identity group's concerns of fear and care for wolves. These missives could be more effective than messages simply directed toward pro-hunters or anti-hunters. Identity-specific communications may also help build trust between agencies and stakeholders.

"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."

Also, by shaping and discussing the issue in terms of care and fear, rather than traditional qualifiers, may help usher in a greater agreement about management strategies.

Additional researchers working on this paper include Adam Bump, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Source: Michigan State University

Read More

Dogs hear our words and how we say them

The results from this study support the idea that our canine companions are paying attention "not only to who we are and how we say things, but also to what we say," authors say. Credit: © Uros Petrovic / Fotolia

 When people hear another person talking to them, they respond not only to what is being said--those consonants and vowels strung together into words and sentences--but also to other features of that speech--the emotional tone and the speaker's gender, for instance. Now, a report in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on November 26 provides some of the first evidence of how dogs also differentiate and process those various components of human speech.

"Although we cannot say how much or in what way dogs understand information in speech from our study, we can say that dogs react to both verbal and speaker-related information and that these components appear to be processed in different areas of the dog's brain," says Victoria Ratcliffe of the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex.

Previous studies showed that dogs have hemispheric biases--left brain versus right--when they process the vocalization sounds of other dogs. Ratcliffe and her supervisor David Reby say it was a logical next step to investigate whether dogs show similar biases in response to the information transmitted in human speech. They played speech from either side of the dog so that the sounds entered each of their ears at the same time and with the same amplitude.

"The input from each ear is mainly transmitted to the opposite hemisphere of the brain," Ratcliffe explains. "If one hemisphere is more specialized in processing certain information in the sound, then that information is perceived as coming from the opposite ear."
If the dog turned to its left, that showed that the information in the sound being played was heard more prominently by the left ear, suggesting that the right hemisphere is more specialized in processing that kind of information.

The researchers did observe general biases in dogs' responses to particular aspects of human speech. When presented with familiar spoken commands in which the meaningful components of words were made more obvious, dogs showed a left-hemisphere processing bias, as indicated by turning to the right. When the intonation or speaker-related vocal cues were exaggerated instead, dogs showed a significant right-hemisphere bias.

"This is particularly interesting because our results suggest that the processing of speech components in the dog's brain is divided between the two hemispheres in a way that is actually very similar to the way it is separated in the human brain," Reby says.
Of course, it doesn't mean that dogs actually understand everything that we humans might say or that they have a human-like ability of language--far from it. But, says Ratcliffe, these results support the idea that our canine companions are paying attention "not only to who we are and how we say things, but also to what we say."

All of this should come as good news to many of us dog-loving humans, as we spend considerable time talking to our respective pups already. They might not always understand you, but they really are listening.

Source: Cell Press

Read More

Attitudes about knowledge, power drive Michigan's wolf debate

MSU research has identified the themes shaping Michigan's wolf debate and offers some potential solutions as the debate moves forward. Credit: Courtesy of Michigan DNR

With both wolf proposals shot down by Michigan voters on election day, the debate over managing and hunting wolves is far from over.

A Michigan State University study, appearing in a recent issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management, identifies the themes shaping the issue and offers some potential solutions as the debate moves forward.

The research explored how different sides of the debate view power imbalances among different groups and the role that scientific knowledge plays in making decisions about hunting wolves. These two dimensions of wildlife management can result in conflict and stagnate wildlife management.

The results indicate that tension between public attitudes about local knowledge, and politics and science can drive conflict among Michiganders' stance regarding wolf hunting, said Meredith Gore, associate professor of fisheries and wildlife and co-lead author of the study.

"Given the trend in wildlife management toward increased stakeholder input, finding solutions that approach science and politics as complementary, rather than competing, approaches may aid the public participation processes," she said.

This study represents a first attempt at defining and describing the association between knowledge and power in contentious management of a species recently delisted from endangered status. This study focused on wolves, but it has applications for other endangered or invasive species, added Gore, an MSU AgBioResearch scientist.

These findings shed light on why the voting and support for the issue appears to be muddled, at least in terms of traditional quantifiers. Knowing these splits explain, in part, why the issue won't likely be resolved by swaying the pro- or anti-hunting vote.

Gore and Michelle Lute, former MSU fisheries and wildlife graduate student and co-lead author who's now at Indiana University, unearthed these disparities by conducting in-depth interviews with many stakeholders close to the wolf debate. Rather than trying to prove a specific theory, the researchers allowed the interviews to reveal the main criteria driving the issue.

The researchers unearthed four themes and offered potential solutions to each.

• Mistrust among decision-makers -- Some interviewees view wildlife management agencies as political agencies rather than supporting what's best for wildlife. Increasing transparency and gathering more stakeholder input could increase trust.
• Special interest groups leaving many voters disenfranchised -- Strong lobbying groups leave some individuals feeling powerless and their votes meaningless. Striving for equitable distribution of risks and benefits among all stakeholders could address these feelings.
• Political influencers overriding science -- Some believe that scientific studies are downplayed by political officials. Equitable sharing of responsibility, risks and benefits may ease perceptions of tension between politicians and scientists.
• Decision-makers ignoring local sources of information -- Some interviewees felt cast aside, and their knowledge was labeled as mythology or folklore. Processes that seek shared-learning outcomes may balance local and scientific knowledge.

"Our research shows that as any management process moves forward," Gore said, "all sides should address the issue from the perspective of these four criteria. Regardless of how people voted, these aspects may represent common ground for all sides."

Source: Michigan State University

Read More