Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management.

Artelle et al. (2018) conclude that "hallmarks of science" are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of "hallmarks of science," confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

Toward Human-Carnivore Coexistence: Understanding Tolerance for Tigers in Bangladesh.

Fostering local community tolerance for endangered carnivores, such as tigers (Panthera tigris), is a core component of many conservation strategies. Identification of antecedents of tolerance will facilitate the development of effective tolerance-building conservation action and secure local community support for, and involvement in, conservation initiatives. We use a stated preference approach for measuring tolerance, based on the 'Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity' concept, to explore villagers' tolerance levels for tigers in the Bangladesh Sundarbans, an area where, at the time of the research, human-tiger conflict was severe. We apply structural equation modeling to test an a priori defined theoretical model of tolerance and identify the experiential and psychological basis of tolerance in this community. Our results indicate that beliefs about tigers and about the perceived current tiger population trend are predictors of tolerance for tigers. Positive beliefs about tigers and a belief that the tiger population is not currently increasing are both associated with greater stated tolerance for the species. Contrary to commonly-held notions, negative experiences with tigers do not directly affect tolerance levels; instead, their effect is mediated by villagers' beliefs about tigers and risk perceptions concerning human-tiger conflict incidents. These findings highlight a need to explore and understand the socio-psychological factors that encourage tolerance towards endangered species. Our research also demonstrates the applicability of this approach to tolerance research to a wide range of socio-economic and cultural contexts and reveals its capacity to enhance carnivore conservation efforts worldwide.

Spatial assessment of attitudes toward tigers in Nepal.

In many regions around the world, wildlife impacts on people (e.g., crop raiding, attacks on people) engender negative attitudes toward wildlife. Negative attitudes predict behaviors that undermine wildlife management and conservation efforts (e.g., by exacerbating retaliatory killing of wildlife). Our study (1) evaluated attitudes of local people toward the globally endangered tiger (Panthera tigris) in Nepal's Chitwan National Park; and (2) modeled and mapped spatial clusters of attitudes toward tigers. Factors characterizing a person's position in society (i.e., socioeconomic and cultural factors) influenced attitudes toward tigers more than past experiences with tigers (e.g., livestock attacks). A spatial cluster of negative attitudes toward tigers was associated with concentrations of people with less formal education, people from marginalized ethnic groups, and tiger attacks on people. Our study provides insights and descriptions of techniques to improve attitudes toward wildlife in Chitwan and many regions around the world with similar conservation challenges.

Social contagion of risk perceptions in environmental management networks.

An important requisite for improving risk communication practice related to contentious environmental issues is having a better theoretical understanding of how risk perceptions function in real-world social systems. Our study applied Scherer and Cho's social network contagion theory of risk perception (SNCTRP) to cormorant management (a contentious environmental management issue) in the Great Lakes Basin to: (1) assess contagion effects on cormorant-related risk perceptions and individual factors believed to influence those perceptions and (2) explore the extent of social contagion in a full network (consisting of interactions between and among experts and laypeople) and three "isolated" models separating different types of interactions from the full network (i.e., expert-to-expert, layperson-to-layperson, and expert-to-layperson). We conducted interviews and administered questionnaires with experts (e.g., natural resource professionals) and laypeople (e.g., recreational and commercial anglers, business owners, bird enthusiasts) engaged in cormorant management in northern Lake Huron (n = 115). Our findings generally support the SNCTRP; however, the scope and scale of social contagion varied considerably based on the variables (e.g., individual risk perception factors), actors (i.e., experts or laypeople), and interactions of interest. Contagion effects were identified more frequently, and were stronger, in the models containing interactions between experts and laypeople than in those models containing only interactions among experts or laypeople.

Wildlife disease and risk perception.

Risk perception has an important influence on wildlife management and is particularly relevant to issues that present health risks, such as those associated with wildlife disease management. Knowledge of risk perceptions is useful to wildlife health professionals in developing communication messages that enhance public understanding of wildlife disease risks and that aim to increase public support for disease management. To promote knowledge of public understanding of disease risks in the context of wildlife disease management, we used a self-administered questionnaire mailed to a stratified random sample (n = 901) across the continental United States to accomplish three objectives: 1) assess zoonotic disease risk perceptions; 2) identify sociodemographic and social psychologic factors underlying these risk perceptions; and 3) examine the relationship between risk perception and agreement with wildlife disease management practices. Diseases we assessed in the surveys were rabies, plague, and West Nile virus. Risk perception, as measured by an index consisting of severity, susceptibility, and dread, was greatest for rabies and West Nile virus disease (x = 2.62 and 2.59, respectively, on a scale of 1 to 4 and least for plague (x = 2.39). The four most important variables associated with disease risk perception were gender, education, prior exposure to the disease, and concern for health effects. We found that stronger risk perception was associated with greater agreement with wildlife disease management. We found particular concern for the vulnerability of wildlife to zoonotic disease and for protection of wildlife health, indicating that stakeholders may be receptive to messages emphasizing the potential harm to wildlife from disease and to messages promoting One Health (i.e., those that emphasize the interdependence of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health).

Understanding risk perceptions to enhance communication about human-wildlife interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease.

Inclusion of wildlife in the concept of One Health is important for two primary reasons: (1) the physical health of humans, domesticated animals, and wildlife is linked inextricably through shared diseases, and (2) humans' emotional well-being can be affected by their perceptions of animal health. Although an explicit premise of the One Health Initiative is that healthy wildlife contribute to human health, and vice versa, the initiative also suggests implicitly that wildlife may pose threats to human health through zoonotic disease transmission. As people learn more about One Health, an important question surfaces: How will they react to communications carrying the message that human health and wildlife health are linked? In the absence of adequate relevant research data, we recommend caution in the production and dissemination of One Health messages because of possible unintended or collateral effects. Understanding how and why individuals perceive risks related to wildlife diseases is essential for determining message content that promotes public support for healthy wildlife populations, on the one hand, and, on the other, for identifying messages that might inadvertently increase concern about human health effects of diseased wildlife. To that end, we review risk perception research and summarize the few empirical studies that exist on perceived risk associated with zoonoses. We conclude with some research questions that need answering to help One Health practitioners better understand how the public will interpret their messages and thus how to communicate positively and without negative collateral consequences for wildlife conservation.